New "balance" change gets everything wrong

[Orbei]

I don't think this update is lazy, but I think it is very short sighted. A bandaid 'fix' that creates the potential for new problems and likely doesn't accomplish it's goal. Even if this somehow balanced the meta today (doubtful) this creates another mechanic that they need to consider as the game evolves. How often will they update targets and hunters? Probably at a slower pace than needed. What happens if thralls stampede over the meta in a few weeks - do they update this immediately? Whatever the new hotnesses is gets an even bigger advantage than normal because it gets extra VPs for killing the old hotness. 

In a game based around points the simplest thing to do is just update the points. Why are they afraid to pull that lever? Crank the prime targets points up by 10% and decrease the hunters points by 10% across the board. Evaluate in a month and adjust further. Was anyone asking for this sort of patch?

[NauticalSoup]

I don't think laziness is the issue either, I don't even think it's relevant to the discussion. It's just that in my experience that sort of quibbling is usually a signal you're about to be on the receiving end of a bad faith argument.

[RuneBrush]

43 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

You don't think this is a bit generous? Like generous to a fault? That the bar for lazy is "Literally doing nothing whatsoever"?

No else I'd not have said it.  The definition of lazy is literally "doing nothing" or putting zero effort into it.

Does it "fix" the issues in the game?  Absolutely not (and certainly not for my two armies), however a single page update was never going to be able to do that and it at least this gives us something and highlights that the game developers are conscious of the armies that are struggling.

43 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

I know you guys are basically obligated to go to bat for GW but this seems a little silly.

I'm assuming you mean the mods in this comment?  No, we're not obligated to bat for GW and I'm not sure where you get that idea.  This isn't a GW forum and with one exception I've never been given anything for free by GW to "buy me".  I am however a glass half-full person and actually enjoy AoS, and try not to bash things I enjoy - this can be read as me defending GW 🤷‍♂️

[yukishiro1]

33 minutes ago, Orbei said:

 Whatever the new hotnesses is gets an even bigger advantage than normal because it gets extra VPs for killing the old hotness. 

Yeah, this was honestly the first thing that occurred to me (I think I mentioned it in the other thread). Think how powerful Fulminators or Longstrikes would be for getting Sin list points...if they weren't on the Sin list themselves. That's what any new overpowered, undercosted unit is going to be like for the X weeks or months until someone bothers to add it to the Sin list. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Yeah, this was honestly the first thing that occurred to me (I think I mentioned it in the other thread). Think how powerful Fulminators or Longstrikes would be for getting Sin list points...if they weren't on the Sin list themselves. That's what any new overpowered, undercosted unit is going to be like for the X weeks or months until someone bothers to add it to the Sin list. 

Judicators definitely seem poised to take the place of Longstrikes at a moment's notice, so we will see how that plays out. They fill close to exactly the same role.

[NauticalSoup]

@RuneBrush Fair enough! I was being a bit snide lol, a fairer less tongue-in-cheek way to put the phenomenon it alludes to would be that you wouldn't be a mod for a game that you weren't quite fond of, so mods on here would naturally select for big supporters. Since if one did become disillusioned you'd probably not spend the effort moderating a community for the game.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

14 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Where I think this is an interesting change is in how it affects list choices at the top of the meta - addressing "problem" units not by adding cost, but by adding risk. That's a novel idea, and I'm curious to see how well it works.

Having been focused on the 40k side for a bit this was actually my exact response to the battle scroll.  My first Ork (not Orruk) list struggled in part because even though I wasn’t running the optimized Freebooterz list I still gave up max secondary points on Bring it Down (VP for killing vehicles).  As my vehicles were the prime targets for my opponents thus rewarded them for doing what they wanted to do anyway.  Been taking the Vanguard Tactics Academy course and my newer lists both reduce the points I give up to Bring it Down AND reduce my opponent’s incentive to kill those vehicles both by creating higher priority targets and reducing their value as targets after R1&2.

So now I look at my Orruk (not Ork) options and I ask myself whether IJ double cabbage makes the most sense (even before this update I was very aware from playing Sons of the VP opportunity for my opponent’s for killing my units) or maybe I want to switch to Big Waaagh or run a single cabbage and something else?

To be clear.  I don’t think this first draft will be nearly as effective in balancing risk & reward in AoS as the still imperfect secondaries have in 40k.  But it felt familiar enough that I can see where they may be going with it, particularly after the new GHB mixes things up again (e.g. if we move on from Ghyran and no VP are being awarded for Monsters any more).

[novakai]

TBF it probably the combination of the GHB and unrelease battletomes that probably preventing more changes right now. The thing is that their point adjustment are generally very small and rarely do they change warscroll outside of when an army gets a battletome. I think that basically why many people voted for more updates within the year so their point update would matter more if done more frequently.

granted if your army is one of the last battletome GW generally still don’t give you a bone unless your WD article was amazing

[Mutton]

I think it's funny that they committed to four balance updates per year, did one, and then skipped the second.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Mutton

[zombiepiratexxx]

The second is likely to be the printed GHB though so not "skipping" just putting something out that wont invalidate a product they are going to charge their customers for. Look at how often in 40k that a new Codex has come out and the points have been adjusted either before the Codex or immediately after, it doesn't feel good to buy something physically and it's out of date already. If they just kept points in the apps and got rid of the paywall for building armies it would make things easier as they're not restricted to selling print updates but like others have said, selling copy is their entire business model. 

[Perturbato]

Just now, zombiepiratexxx said:

The second is likely to be the printed GHB though so not "skipping" just putting something out that wont invalidate a product they are going to charge their customers for. Look at how often in 40k that a new Codex has come out and the points have been adjusted either before the Codex or immediately after, it doesn't feel good to buy something physically and it's out of date already. If they just kept points in the apps and got rid of the paywall for building armies it would make things easier as they're not restricted to selling print updates but like others have said, selling copy is their entire business model. 

and they don't know their audience because we would still buy the books even if the rules were available online.

[Greyshadow]

I am not annoyed - I can’t see myself actually using this Battlescroll after all, but I am concerned it isn’t good PR for the game. Hopefully, the General’s handbook will get things back on track.

[BadDice0809]

3 hours ago, Perturbato said:

and they don't know their audience because we would still buy the books even if the rules were available online.

I wish they would put the points in the app, and make the battletomes pure narrative and fluff.

Include all the PtG stuff in the battletome and really expand on it (I want faction specific Anvil tables for PtG); include short stories, give units more than 3 paragraphs of lore; show off studio members armies like in the Core Rulebook.

Codices and battletomes make them money they arent going to stop making them I just wish they would pivot the focus. To be brutally honest, and I think GW isn't being honest with themselves on this, people who just care about the points and rules aren't buying the battletomes anyway. Everything is free online if they spend maybe 5 minutes searching.

Yet they still dance this dance, selling us $55 dollar books, for the purpose of rules, that are invalidated with 3 months.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

24 minutes ago, BadDice0809 said:

I wish they would put the points in the app, and make the battletomes pure narrative and fluff.

Include all the PtG stuff in the battletome and really expand on it (I want faction specific Anvil tables for PtG); include short stories, give units more than 3 paragraphs of lore; show off studio members armies like in the Core Rulebook.

Codices and battletomes make them money they arent going to stop making them I just wish they would pivot the focus. To be brutally honest, and I think GW isn't being honest with themselves on this, people who just care about the points and rules aren't buying the battletomes anyway. Everything is free online if they spend maybe 5 minutes searching.

Yet they still dance this dance, selling us $55 dollar books, for the purpose of rules, that are invalidated with 3 months.

I have to be honest with you: If battletomes were only lore and hobby reference books, I probably would not buy them. Not that I buy a lot of battletomes as things currently stand, but I would probably buy even fewer.

That said, if battletomes expanded to include more narrative gaming content, such as faction-specific battleplans and rules to make custom characters, I probably would keep buying them even if they dropped the match play rules.

I would also sign up to a subscription service that guarantees you digital access to all faction rules, both current and future. This would be extra money in GW's pocket since I am definitely not buying every battletome just to look at all faction rules, but I will pay, like, 10 dollarydoos per month for it.

[novakai]

26 minutes ago, BadDice0809 said:

I wish they would put the points in the app, and make the battletomes pure narrative and fluff.

Include all the PtG stuff in the battletome and really expand on it (I want faction specific Anvil tables for PtG); include short stories, give units more than 3 paragraphs of lore; show off studio members armies like in the Core Rulebook.

Codices and battletomes make them money they arent going to stop making them I just wish they would pivot the focus. To be brutally honest, and I think GW isn't being honest with themselves on this, people who just care about the points and rules aren't buying the battletomes anyway. Everything is free online if they spend maybe 5 minutes searching.

Yet they still dance this dance, selling us $55 dollar books, for the purpose of rules, that are invalidated with 3 months.

I guess is that narrative stuff don’t sell ( as well) and the whole package is what make the product sells in the end

like for all the buzz for anvil of apotheosis it only lasted one year and while we all praise Broken realm it questionable how well it did as a product

at least that the feeling I got when looking at AoS lack of presence in black library  and Josh Reynolds experience with his novel

[Enoby]

33 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

have to be honest with you: If battletomes were only lore and hobby reference books, I probably would not buy them. Not that I buy a lot of battletomes as things currently stand, but I would probably buy even fewer.

Yeah, in all honesty, I think this would be the general perception. I really liked Broken Realms as a series (besides the disappointing ending), but I only bought the book my army had rules in. 

The reason was because the lore was available online very easily, I didn't want four books sat around my house that I'd read once, and the narrative game content in the form of battleplans were very restrictive. 

I think Battletomes potentially could sell if they were narrative only, providing they had a lot of strong narrative content including stories, expanded PTG, thought out Anvil of Apotheosis, and very high quality painting guides. However, that would take a lot of effort for likely less payoff.

I really like narrative games, no question, but they're harder to set up than matched play and quickly fall apart if the group doesn't gel (or if there isn't a group to begin with). In my experience, they only succeed when you have a group of friends who are all invested in telling a story, all are willing to play semi-regularly, and none of them want to try powergame (or just pick a faction likes Sons of Behemat innocently).

Matched Play (not competitive), on the other hand, is much easier to pick up and play. You can approach a stranger in a GW and have a matched play game with minimal difficulty, without worrying how to set up a narrative or trying to think of a good baseline. I think most people play the 'casual matched play' format and so the battletomes are primarily to appeal to them.

I'd love it if army rules could be officially free and battletomes were for narrative. However, I think GW would lose money compared to how it is now - not that I'd be shedding tears over loss of profit, but rather I'd be worried they'd stop doing them full stop. 

Games like Malifaux, which have all the rules free, sell lore books (they do have rules too, but these are also free). They continue to produce them so I imagine they must be successful enough, however a big difference between Malifaux and Warhammer is that WH is much more popular and so the lore is much easier to find freely discussed (e.g. wikis). If you're curious about the lore of a particular Malifaux model, you're probably out of luck unless you buy the book or listen to hours of podcast.  

That said, I would love a Path to Glory book to come out. Not a series of campaigns, but rather a book full of army specific narrative rules, example campaigns that were malleable, anvil of apotheosis for each army, and more battleplans - and whatever Outposts are.  

[BadDice0809]

2 hours ago, novakai said:

I guess is that narrative stuff don’t sell ( as well) and the whole package is what make the product sells in the end

like for all the buzz for anvil of apotheosis it only lasted one year and while we all praise Broken realm it questionable how well it did as a product

at least that the feeling I got when looking at AoS lack of presence in black library  and Josh Reynolds experience with his novel

The buzz for it died when  they stopped supporting it.

Also, it needed fine tuning. I get they wanted to make sure the custom characters were incredibly points inefficient but... if you you restrict it to PtG anyway, it's not really an issue (at least in my mind). 

My biggest problem with battletomes is right now they do 3 different things and all of them at a mediocre or horrible level.

For rules, they get invalidated within 3 months (points change or rules change). All the scrolls are on the app, which gets somewhat regularly updated. A copy of the physical book even unlocks all the 'hidden' info in the app. Zero point in having the book for a rules reference.

For fluff the books have largely been reprints of first edition lore with barely anything added. I doubt it takes them more than a day to throw together the 4 additional paragraphs of lore for 'the age of the beast' every tome.

The narrative sections are ok, but kinda thin. 1st edition battletomes did this correctly (unique battleplans) and it needs to be folded over into more PtG content then they currently provide.

Ultimately, it doesn't seem like anyone is getting a good deal out of the contents of the battletomes except GW, who gets to charge $55 for mostly recycled content.

[novakai]

34 minutes ago, BadDice0809 said:

 

Ultimately, it doesn't seem like anyone is getting a good deal out of the contents of the battletomes except GW, who gets to charge $55 for mostly recycled content.

Sounds like EA with most of their yearly sport video game titles lol

Sure, I just attribute to GW lack of focus support on things on Anvil of apotheosis, Meeting Engagement, PTG, and narrative campaign books in AoS to them not finding success with it currently. I am guessing with 40K they have found I bit more success in this area with Crusade and the warzone book because of the player base size difference.
 

Of course I guess it just a vicious cycle of things dying because they where not successful in the first place and then go unsupported later on”

[Arzalyn]

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I would also sign up to a subscription service that guarantees you digital access to all faction rules, both current and future. This would be extra money in GW's pocket since I am definitely not buying every battletome just to look at all faction rules, but I will pay, like, 10 dollarydoos per month for it.

Honestly this is something quiet possible to happen eventually. Its hard to guess their earning with battletomes, but I guess its something that shouldn't grow much with rules easily findable in the internet + this edition book hardly having new content beside de rules. Last edition multiple factions that ever got a tome got their first one, so they had a reason to buy it (be it lore, painting guides and/or rules). If they don't put more stuff other the new rules I expect people to stop buying one every edition.

A subscription system in the long run would earn they more I believe. Lets assume it would cost 10 dolars for a month, in 5 months you got the same of a battletome and in a year a little more than 2. If a edition takes 3 years and most people have 2~3 armies they buy battletomes for, assuming one tome per army per edition, they would be earning 2x more in the 3 year period. We could go further and speculate that having all rules easily available in one place would have other positive effects like: attracting more new players, leading to more people impulse buying into a new army when new rules for it drop and reducing the negativity around the game balance if they were able to properly balance it (changing warscrolls and other things, as they are all online now).

[Equinox]

7 hours ago, Greyshadow said:

I am not annoyed - I can’t see myself actually using this Battlescroll after all, but I am concerned it isn’t good PR for the game. Hopefully, the General’s handbook will get things back on track.

I wish I shared your confidence that the GHB will bring about some positive changes.  Given the lag between printing and release, I just don't feel they are an effective tool for making positive changes to the game.  

3 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I would also sign up to a subscription service that guarantees you digital access to all faction rules, both current and future. This would be extra money in GW's pocket since I am definitely not buying every battletome just to look at all faction rules, but I will pay, like, 10 dollarydoos per month for it.

You hit on a good point.  If GW's digital service allowed access to just the rules components (w/o buying the book) via a subscription, I would also be willing to pay $10-15/month.  

 

55 minutes ago, BadDice0809 said:

Ultimately, it doesn't seem like anyone is getting a good deal out of the contents of the battletomes except GW, who gets to charge $55 for mostly recycled content.

Agreed.  The new price point for whatever odd reason has really turned me away from buying any of the new tomes just to read.  Not that the previous MSRP was great, but crossing the >$50 threshold just changes the perceived value of them given their limited shelf life and minimal new content.

[yukishiro1]

Especially when they're all available free online for you to read page by page totally legally via videos put up by people who have the books literally sent to them by GW for that very purpose.

It may well be that GW prices them at the premium level they do precisely because they know nobody price-conscious is buying them anyway. So why not extract the maximum you can from the people who will buy them no matter what? They'll buy them no matter what. Meanwhile everyone else just watches the youtube video and hopefully (for GW) gets excited enough to buy some models even though they aren't buying the book. 

In other words, the purpose of the tomes are just to be marketing copy to sell models, but if you can also get a handful of people to pay 35 quid for your marketing copy, why not take their money while you're at it?

 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Fairbanks]

GW gets the Balance wrong

In other news, water still wet. News, Weather, and Sports at 11!

Edited March 17, 2022 by Fairbanks

[azdimy]

I think once again it s disappointing that this does not help the factions that need help. Getting extra vps to hunter units if they kill units they can t kill, besides prime hunters destructions faction bringing kragnos, is not going to help

Kragnos in gloomspite gitz and more so in bonespliiterz is getting a buff he sure didn t need since he got a new warscroll

[Malakithe]

This kinda ****** doesnt even surprise me at this point. Im actually more upset/shocked/whatever at how the 40k team is so completely different then the AoS team. If you could separate the two it almost looks like two different companies in their design and writing philosophies. 

I get that 40k and AoS are different and that AoS is supposed to run like a smaller faster skirmish style game compared to 40k but come on...they havent been doing anything right/good for a long while now. 40k isnt the gold standard of balance either but everything new for AoS lately is just...bad. Straight bad. 

Trying to charge a premium for garbage isnt working for me. I havent touched anything related to 3.0 yet and im not at all hopeful for the future. 

[RuneBrush]

2 hours ago, Malakithe said:

This kinda ****** doesnt even surprise me at this point. Im actually more upset/shocked/whatever at how the 40k team is so completely different then the AoS team. If you could separate the two it almost looks like two different companies in their design and writing philosophies. 

You do know they're two completely separate sets of individuals in different physical offices?