Ollie Grimwood Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 In six hours I am sure no one has managed to play enough games in a competitive setting to know whether or not these changes are at the correct level or not. I'd also point out that even GW has stated they are experimental and being tested at the SCGT (quite sensibly given the number of people attending). So yet again lots of running around and waving of hands in the air over Speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevvermore Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 These conspiracy theories fall flat the moment you take a look at GWs history of inconsistent points costing. There is no rhyme or reason to it. If they pointed units for economic reasons, Kairic Acolytes (a brand new kit) wouldn't suck for their points. Fyreslayers wouldn't have been overcosted to begin with. Half the new units they release for 40k suck and aren't worth including in your army unless you're a casual player. And now you are flailing at windmills based on what? A one-page beta preview. That is based on community feedback. And is getting playtested at one of the biggest tournaments in the world. But no, FIGHT THE POWER! Or calm down and wait until you actually get to see these changes in context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnelian Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, Nevvermore said: These conspiracy theories fall flat the moment you take a look at GWs history of inconsistent points costing. There is no rhyme or reason to it. If they pointed units for economic reasons, Kairic Acolytes (a brand new kit) wouldn't suck for their points. Fyreslayers wouldn't have been overcosted to begin with. Half the new units they release for 40k suck and aren't worth including in your army unless you're a casual player. And now you are flailing at windmills based on what? A one-page beta preview. That is based on community feedback. And is getting playtested at one of the biggest tournaments in the world. But no, FIGHT THE POWER! Or calm down and realise you're conjuring theories out of thin air. Exactly this. Anyone reading a sales strategy into this is way off the a mark. Was it somehow part of the grand plan to overcost fyreslayers from the beginning and to undercost tomb kings ? We all agree that these points were over and undercosted but to read a design into this would be mad. You are also jumping to conclusions about the trends that are unwarranted. We've seen a tiny sneak peak preview of the points changes - not nearly enough data to decide that it relates to whether they were compendium or not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volund Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 I am confused. I thought this thread was literally about jumping to conclusions? That is serious, not sarcastic. Everybody can see when the post was made by GW, and it specifically states that it will get used at SCGT. Since that hasnt happened yet, I thought the only reason to come into this specific thread was to speculate on motivations and side effects? There is no way anybody could have solid proof of their ideas, but I find it entertaining to read the thoughts of other people even understanding they are all uncertain. This includes "x is a sales strategy" just as much as "x cannot be a sales strategy because y" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimli Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 These are just trial rule but people here do bring up some concerns on some crazyness for costs. Now I want to add this I am happy gw is reviewing point cost cause some things were just off. I'm a dispossessed player and I knew a great deal of units were just over priced but I still tried my best to make a competitive list. So for those with complaints go for it I agree with a few not to bad to say your part but keep in mind gw is trying a balancing act and it's still a trial run so let's hope b4 the ghb2 comes out they fix what's needs to be fixed. I mean kraggi 100 points could be that he gets new rules or if he is 100 points and stays as is well that just sucks the big one lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Hi everyone. This is just a friendly reminder to everyone to try and keep a lid on things a little. Its was said best earlier in this thread. TGA used to better than this friendly discussion is fine but let's keep it that way. If you feel the need to rant and rage please take it elsewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Grimwood Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Bimli said: These are just trial rule but people here do bring up some concerns on some crazyness for costs. Now I want to add this I am happy gw is reviewing point cost cause some things were just off. I'm a dispossessed player and I knew a great deal of units were just over priced but I still tried my best to make a competitive list. So for those with complaints go for it I agree with a few not to bad to say your part but keep in mind gw is trying a balancing act and it's still a trial run so let's hope b4 the ghb2 comes out they fix what's needs to be fixed. I mean kraggi 100 points could be that he gets new rules or if he is 100 points and stays as is well that just sucks the big one lol I think Kraggi has been raised because he does combine to make the Anvil of Doom more powerful ( and it ain't bad to start with). I'm not saying 100pts is right, I've never played, it but 20pts for being able to cast another (not) spell and a potentially rerollable unbinding role is a steal. As a Dispossed player was he something you used a lot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalozap Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Nailed it. GW could have been a little more soft glove about it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khorne_on_the_cob Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 I just wanted to stop in and say I play fyreslayers and I approve of these changes, that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkiham Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 So, at what point do we ignore the faq of the old handbook and base things on the new book, if it's only points it'll be wise and only a small leap to assume the same answers cross over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Lyons Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said: In six hours I am sure no one has managed to play enough games in a competitive setting to know whether or not these changes are at the correct level or not. I'd also point out that even GW has stated they are experimental and being tested at the SCGT (quite sensibly given the number of people attending). So yet again lots of running around and waving of hands in the air over Speculation. If people don't show up at SCGT with TK, the points can't be tested. It will be interesting to see how many people actually show up with TK. Regarding the "experimental" nature of these points: A "final outing" doesn't seem so much as experimental and more as "a glimpse at final form after decisions have already been made". Without a significant number of folks playing TK with these lists, we indeed will not know. We'll likely be able to count the number of TK players at SCGT on one hand, assuming anyone even shows ups with them after these changes. It would be one thing if rebalancing had units swinging by 20-40 points. That totally makes sense to me. But these points are swinging by the hundreds, some units increasing cost by 50%. That isn't rebalancing or adjusting; that's burning down a house and rebuilding. Imagine if Retributors jumped to 360 for 5. Now also the Lord Celestant to 200, Lord-Castellant to 200, and Warrior Brotherhood to 200. That is what we're talking about, the ground up rebuilding of a faction and forces. It needed to happen, but this swing seems like a bit much. Regarding the financial motivations of why these adjustments, I think it has explanatory power. I think these changes were going to be happening regardless. I think we got this specific list because neither the included nerfs nor the reduced cost of the Fyreslayers hurts GW's bottomline, only helps it. I don't think they planned this. If you think that is what I'm saying, you are reading too much into my statements. I think they are taking advantage of a situation (the rebalancing) and doing it in such a way that it doesn't hurt their bottom line. That is just smart business sense. My critique is that there are currently units that are just as egregious in current models that need their points increased, and yet we didn't see any of those. This is frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhsellwood Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Bimli said: These are just trial rule but people here do bring up some concerns on some crazyness for costs. Now I want to add this I am happy gw is reviewing point cost cause some things were just off. I'm a dispossessed player and I knew a great deal of units were just over priced but I still tried my best to make a competitive list. So for those with complaints go for it I agree with a few not to bad to say your part but keep in mind gw is trying a balancing act and it's still a trial run so let's hope b4 the ghb2 comes out they fix what's needs to be fixed. I mean kraggi 100 points could be that he gets new rules or if he is 100 points and stays as is well that just sucks the big one lol Rather than get into the angst, I think I would just like to pick up an important point here - these are trial points changes that will be in use for the SCGT. We are not seeing the full picture - the warhammer community article covers it really well. Just a couple of quotes: it was clear that the matched play system would be one we’d be looking to develop and evolve as time went on. It was always meant to be a starting point that would allow us to take on board feedback from events and players and begin working on a second iteration. These are far from the only rules that we are looking to update... Close attention to all your feedback on the Age of Sigmar Facebook page So, from this what can we take? GW have never intended for the Matched Play points to be static, or that there will be no changes in Matched Play specific rules. That there are looking at feedback from a number of different sources. That what has been shown so far is far from the final point. One question may be why these particular changes? I think the answer is probably better answered by the organisers of SCGT - this feel likes a compromise on their part to allow compendium armies while resolving egregious issues. In general I think there are plenty of other changes that will be made (I feel it is likely that we will see a bit of a points bump for all units with missile weapons), and some obvious power units cost increased, and I expect that aim will be to try and make for a more varied unit ecosystem. I also believe that from GWs point of view they do not actually want 'must have' units, as that restricts sales when all players buy the same limited number of kits, and have no motivation to get a range of kits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaleb Daark Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 I'm going to try and be positive here I for one think that GW maybe, just maybe have a long game to re-introduce them. You've noticed that they've written the experimental rules they come under "grand alliance Death" so what if, just what if, they're to be written into the next waves of battletomes that come out? Settra lived remember, resurrected back into being by the Chaos gods and that's where it was left in End Times. Ten thousand years have passed and who knows what he and his realm would be like now, or indeed what the chaos gods did with their new toys. The model range was brilliant, and it was only because of the tournament community they, like brets just died because they weren't competitive enough for the can't do fluff crowd. AoS removed that although the GhB brought it back to some extent, but that's not to say that they might not be given another stab with new lore and a makeover. Those moulds have paid for themselves already, so pulling them back into service given their popularity (when they weren't available anymore) would be a pretty shrewd move, and kill ebay sharks in one hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 2nd warning. I just deleted a load of posts and warned some users. I think a few of you need to have a think about why you play Warhammer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 If the points are truly a concern then people should make their voices heard to GW now rather than later. Does anyone have the email for the twitch channel? I feel like that one passes fewer people and will get noticed more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Criti Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 6 hours ago, CoffeeGrunt said: It's been raised many, many times, but the business model of MtG just wouldn't work for miniatures like GW creates. No-one wants to have to buy an Alarielle to "refresh" it two years later, and GW can't produce product fast enough to create the rapidly-shifting meta that makes MtG attractive. Make no mistake... GW already operates off that model. Just a longer gap between resets. I could demonstrate the same with some models, too - but I'm far too lazy to dig some obsolete ones out of my bins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeGrunt Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Except there's nothing preventing you from playing with old books other than peer pressure or personal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chikout Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 The joy of the new system is that to stay up to date you need the generals handbook and the app. One of the great benefits of this system is that it allows the old armies to continue to be playable in perpetuity. Certain Tomb kings units were widely considered to be to cheap. Tomb kings fans were accused of only playing the army for the power level. This adjustment nixes that problem. It may be that over the next year with new battletomes that the tomb kings start to look underpowered. The 2018 book can adjust the points again. Meanwhile the Fyreslayers,who have struggled to be at all.competitive in tournaments get a nice boost. Now GW just need to do a start collecting box to make collecting that horde army a bit more affordable. I am expecting a fairly wide swath of points changes and I am sure that the results will not be perfect, but having a more fluid meta can only be good for the hobby in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Thomas Lyons said: It would be one thing if rebalancing had units swinging by 20-40 points. That totally makes sense to me. But these points are swinging by the hundreds, some units increasing cost by 50%. That isn't rebalancing or adjusting; that's burning down a house and rebuilding. Imagine if Retributors jumped to 360 for 5. Now also the Lord Celestant to 200, Lord-Castellant to 200, and Warrior Brotherhood to 200. That is what we're talking about, the ground up rebuilding of a faction and forces. It needed to happen, but this swing seems like a bit much. This misrepresents the changes by a good bit. SSC is 33% Necrosphinx is 10% Settra is 28% War Sphinx is 30% Necro Knights are 50% Heinrich is 25% VL on Abyssal is 36% Shadowblade is 33% Kraggi is astronomical. So, no, it is not quite like retributors jumping to 360. If you take a Necrosphinx against a Forstlord on Stonehorn considering they are near equivalent cost now. Necro does 3.4 wounds after halving. The scything blades has a 15% chance of succeeding - an average of 0.8 after halving. The average doesn't do much justice to the real effect. The FL does 5.9 plus another potential 1.8 for the charge bonus takes it to 7.7 and deathless minions drops that to 5.1. The sphinx can be healed, but obviously only every other turn. So the sphinx can do 4.2. The FL can do 5.1. This doesn't seem like a very distant result considering the massive swing the scything blades would actually bring. It can also fly and has greater odds of succeeding a charge. Now put that un-halved damage on a different monster -- it will dominate it completely. Admittedly it ties them to Deathless trait, but it really is the most efficient for them. And the FL will do more depending on trait. Also why did the Royal, but not the Khemrian Warshpinx get a point increase? Surely, if the aim was to sabotage the units they wouldn't have skipped over the very model they were attempting to address? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 55 minutes ago, Criti said: Make no mistake... GW already operates off that model. Just a longer gap between resets. I could demonstrate the same with some models, too - but I'm far too lazy to dig some obsolete ones out of my bins. Well, yes, but like he said the resets are really long and really unreliable for some armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warboss Gorbolg Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Volund said: I am surprised no one has commented on the other side of the Fyreslayers point decrease....if it happens they way they presented, fyreslayers effectively become more expensive in real currency. At 2pts per USD vulkite berzerkers would become one of the most expensive kits available (i have not done the math on all kits, but i have done a few and even Longbeards would be significantly more effecient). This was my initial thought as well. I've been eyeing Fyreslayers for a while now but the lack of a cost-efficient entry point has thankfully stopped me from starting that new project. Now it's even more painful on the wallet to collect Fyreslayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimli Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 6 hours ago, Ollie Grimwood said: I think Kraggi has been raised because he does combine to make the Anvil of Doom more powerful ( and it ain't bad to start with). I'm not saying 100pts is right, I've never played, it but 20pts for being able to cast another (not) spell and a potentially rerollable unbinding role is a steal. As a Dispossed player was he something you used a lot? Nope never used him once I got the model and was considering running the anvil but probably won't if he is 100 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davariel Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 *Glances at 6th ed Bretonnian army book sitting on the shelf* Yeah, I'm going to say the mere fact that GW is reviewing and tweaking the points at all should be a cause for celebration, rather than concern. Honestly it looks like they just picked an army broadly considered overcosted and an army broadly considered undercosted to reveal so they could show us they're listening to player feedback, rather than anything nefarious. Seems like a good thing to me! Of course if the GHBII comes out and Thundertusks and Kurnoth Hunters have dropped in points I'll gladly eat my hat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoollyMammoth Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 I don't understand the issue with compendium. For TK players, their army is not "compendium" their army is just TK and that's all they have to work with. What is wrong with compendium stuff? Why do we have to nerf it? Settra makes sense, hes a beast. Settra TK army did very well at LVO. Maybe necropolis knights. I won a minor victory against a player with two units of 6 necropolis knights. It was a little annoying but not that big of a deal. All the other stuff is overboard, like a negative reaction to one bad game. The REAL issues need to be addressed; - KURNOTH - Bloodsecrator - Mourngul - Sayl These are the big issues which are dominating the competitive game right now. How about some fixes for the real issues???? Best case scenario - (because I know they dont want to up points on models that are selling well) - is to start UPDATING scrolls. A. Put a version number on every scroll IE 1.0, 1.1, etc B. Update the scrolls in the app as needed C. add a rule that only the newest version of the scroll is viable in MATCHED PLAY Kurnoth - change from 5 wounds to 4 wounds. Update the Tanglethorn Thicket rule so that they can only apply it as a reaction to being directly charged. Bloodsecrator - make him a named char Mourngul - update Ghastly Apparition so that models have -hit when targeting the Mourngul only Sayl - Change Traitors Mist to be 12" instead of 18". There are also a lot of issues with scrolls from pre-generals handbook era that need some serious updates; Fyreslayers, Pestilins, Seraphon and FEC. Some of the biggest issues are for Seraphon and FEC around near-useless summoning options. Obviously SCE and Bloodbound are strong right now and don't have any magic/summoning issues. While they are at it they can add some retroactive allegiance abilities for these armies. SCE is getting some and I'm sure Bloodbound is not far behind, but the other armies are seriously left in the dust. These things are needed 100x more than a compendium scroll nerf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daedalus81 Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 We can't say for sure what will happen next. We very well could see these other units take nerfs. We could see additional rules of one. GW is capable of doing all these things simultaneously with compendium nerfs. Though we won't see Sayl or the Mourngul change in the new book -- that is FW's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.