NinthMusketeer

Well hot dam that new balance warscroll shows GW bending their creativity towards matched play. Won't make a difference in a lot of games but I think it will really improve the game at more competitive events/communities. Happy to see it, excited to see if it works. Good on GW for trying something out of the box.

The balance has definitely shifted, eels cost a lot more points then they used to and while namarti do cost more they also have had stat buffs and a very potent support hero in the Thrallmaster. The shipwreck also offers them a 5+ ward now. Going with JUST namarti+heroes would be difficult but running them as the bulk or main theme is certainly viable.

Two new tomes, haven't gotten to try them yet but there is a lot I like. Obviously what both armies need is new models (and rebox price cuts for fyreslayers) but given what the rule designers had to work with I think they did a great job. Especially for Fyreslayers--three unit options then a bunch of single support heroes and the design manages to make it such that those three units are well rounded while the support heroes don't step on each other's toes. Adding a (well) rebalanced version of the Hermdar command ability as generic was a great move and helps sell the generally slow army as aggressive. Idoneth their general level of gimmick toned back by just the right amount imo--they are still shifty and finesse but it's more a style of a couple big gimmicks with supporting tricks instead of tons of crazy stuff. Maybe it's just me but the fluff seemed to dial back the 'propoganda' factor and describe both factions in terms of strengths and weaknesses. Something that has long bothered me about army books is just how much they hype up their own faction, making them seem nigh-undefeatible. I get that the army absolutely should be hyped in it's own book but the degree for many is so extreme in my eyes that it obscures the nuance of the faction. These two battletomes seem to have a much better balance of describing strengths verses weaknesses, particularly about not overhyping the strengths so much. I really like it. Though obviously very subjective, so would be interested to see what others think. The fluff is also written with a rather high quality, the descriptions are concise but detailed and don't waste time overdescribing certain details at the expense of others. It leaves a lot of room for lots of extra little bits to be loaded in, great for fleshing out who these factions are beyond just the battlefield. As someone whose hobby enjoyment hinges on theme and narrative that is a big deal to me. But that's enough from me, what did you guys like?

*Squeaked* in a win, eh? XD

It CAN work, but more or less requires actual modification of army rules on top of the standard self-balancing needed for 2k. For example, no amount of listbuilding is going to make Legion of the First Prince summoning not broken in 1k games; players need to actually restrict their use of it somehow. There are a lot of instances like that. Not to mention the swathe of unit options that are game-breaking just showing up at that point level. Options that are normally not a problem. Though I do want to emphasize the original point--it can work, the issues can be worked around. There is a lot of fun to be had at smaller sizes, it simply needs to be approached with the mindset that the Matched Play toolbox is geared towards 2k and so may require some fiddling. In a way that is the essence of Warhammer; GW provides a big toolbox of gameplay options, has some pre-built categories, and players figure out how they want to enjoy that.

I think there is another important factor--the battlepack is good. It makes monsters a theme, but also counterbalances that with them being a liability and giving players an extra counterplay (hunters battalion). The GHB missions are really well designed and always have been bar a few duds (looking at you, Relocation Orb). Credit where credit is due GW has consistently provided a strong set of scenarios for AoS matched play, such that there has been little need to introduce changes.

People wanting to play smaller sizes can freely do so (and certainly do) without trouble, whereas there is a non-zero amount of people who would like to play larger game sizes but are restricted by price. Additionally, the price tag attached to a 'full army' is a level of sticker shock that repels a good deal of otherwise interested individuals. Redefining the standard size as a community would help a little, but it would not change the marketing that bills 2k as the full size game. It also ties back into the first point where people want the freedom to play any size they want, which means having enough for a 'full game' even if they usually choose to go smaller. Put simply; the optics matter, a lot, even if they are not representative of reality. One need look no further than the term 'Matched' Play to see that in action

The difficulty is non-scaling mechanics. The game is balanced around 2000 points, and outside of that a number of mechanics get out of sync. Yes, I know GW and balance are a... let's say 'challenged' relationship, but that is all the more reason not to make it worse. To give some examples; -Tzeentch gets 9 Fate Dice, the smaller the game the more they are worth -Several factions summon the same amount regardless of game size; Nurgle and LotFP come to mind. -Some models are designed around the enemy having the ability to focus-fire them down. As a Nurgle player, my GUO is already tanky as all hell at 2k, at 1500 most armies simply won't have the tools to kill him at all. To say nothing of the likes of Mega Gargants or VLoZD. -Teleport mechanics are point costed around the enemy having 2000 points of army to deny them space. With less models on the table they gain a lot of tactical freedom. And so on. I like the idea of moving to smaller games, but the reality is a bit more difficult. And really, the solution is GW pricing more reasonably.

Nononono, don't ruin the anvil by putting it in matched. Right now narrative players are looking at their narrative characters thinking 'this is totally fine for matched' and they are right. But anvil heroes geared for maximum efficiency will break the game real fast. Not only that but there need to be additional restrictions and limits in place so players don't do exactly that, which in turn cuts down on options for narrative players who wouldn't have used those eccentric options that way. And don't get me started on tournaments -.-

As long as they get Sam Pearson to write it I'm sure it will be great. That guy knows how to do narrative content better than anyone else at the company. GW is lucky to have him.

Not precisely the same thing, but I put together a three-board dungeon for a league finale:

Recent metawatch article reminded me of how much I really like the new Maggotkin tome. While my list of complains may outnumber the compliments my complains are a bunch of little things, while the core mechanics are just really well designed. I love how slow the army is again, offset by how tanky they are when they get there. The disease mechanic is a fantastic way to mechanically represent Nurgle's thematic elements. They FEEL like a slow attrition army, and I just love that match between narrative and playstyle.

It's a great skeleton but I think their decision to make it matched-play compatible crippled the potential. I'd be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of PtG games happen against other PtG armies.

We had a house rule for no special characters once. But people had a lot of issues with the system, it feels unfinished you know? It felt like trying to do a narrative league and a matched escalation league and failing to do either very well. Perhaps the most notable problem that we would house rule if doing nuPtG again (as opposed to RtR) would be something involving casualty rolls. The bias towards elite, tanky units was quite significant.

Josh Reynolds. His portrayal of Nagash and Mannfred across multiple books was truly quality work in my eyes, the depth he gave those characters beyond being simply evil bad guys is a massive boon to AoS lore. I remain very sad he doesn't write for them anymore, I can only hope at some point in the future GW will be open to Black Library writers who do more than *just* BL. Then maybe. Favorite book is hard. While Josh Reynolds is my favorite author overall a few individual books edge out for me. Dynasty of Monsters is the one I would have to put on top, not just for being well written but for having a surprising degree of relevance to problems the world is dealing with right now. Covens of Blood and The Red Feast also top my list of favorites, both for the nuance and depth of culture provided.

This is actually a couple weeks late; made the update for Fyreslayers & IDK but forgot to post! Mainly a holdover update to add the new hero and bring things in line before the battletome overhauls.

The difference being Kirby-GW skipped that first part and released it with the initial price at 30, then knocked it down after realizing 'oh hell people don't buy that'. It wasn't a sales tactic but a recovery. And a good one, too; many of those bundles and reduced price releases subsequent were/are reasonably good value overall. AoS still has some bits that way (thank goodness for being the second son and not 40k); the zombie, skeleton, and blood knight boxes are quite competitively priced relative to the quality delivered. Even if it's coming in alongside stuff like a $40 mounted wight king.

Agreed. Though in defense of 2016 GW some of those price reductions were pretty massive. Yes they weren't -technically- price reductions but when a model goes from being $85 (or even $110) on it's own to being part of an $85 SC box along with $70+ of other models, that's a price reduction in my book. Of course the only reason the cut was so dramatic is due to how high the price was inflated to begin with, but it is worth nothing that just this past year have we gotten back to pricing levels for models launched peak Kirby era. And the models we are getting are higher quality. Which is to say as bad as it is now, there have been eras in the past where it was even MORE severe. So prepare for things to worse before they get better.

Steadily raise prices, realize they've hit a point where they are losing money because of it, lower prices, get cocky from massive success, steadily raise prices, realize they've hit a point where they are losing money because of it...

That seems like a No True Scotsman to me--if I show up with a melee army and never declare a charge chances are it's pretty defensive. Moving forward to hold objectives is not mutually exclusive with playing defensively, nor is mobility. Just like playing offensively means more than running forward blindly, playing defensively has tactical nuance.

I play defensively with my Nurgle all the time. It doesn't mean I get to turtle up in my deployment zone though.

It makes more tactical sense to assume the double doesn't occur. From the perspective of the player that could be the victim; any preparations for a double are reducing their effectiveness for the more likely occurence that it does not. And if they prepare well enough for the double the opponent can still choose not to take it. From the perspective of the person who will get the double, it is already an immense advantage and they are better off preparing for the more likely and more difficult circumstance that it does not occur. The only time it is worth prepping for a double is as a hail mary when the game can't be won any other way. I will also never understand the logic of 'GW games are not balanced, so adding a factor that imbalances it even more is a good thing'. And as for the mythical 'solved' game, yet to see proof. Show me how those games without a double are entirely predictable. No, not between two lists of gaping power differences; that is a balance issue. Show me how two evenly matched lists have entirely predictable matchups. Show me proof of the double improving the game. Show me proof that more players like it than not. Give me something I can say to the person sitting and watching their army ripped apart based on a single dice roll.

I run tournaments where there is no random initiative round 2; the first priority roll is round 3. Big improvement, given that pulling an objective can actually be worth giving up a double for. But another thing to think about; many communities house rule the double out of the game. If GW removed it, would anyone house rule it back in?

Final match for LVO, ended top of turn 2 from a double. The winner went on to emphasize how important it was to secure second turn, because of the double. He spoke more about that than he did the actual units he took. I have played tons of games with and without the double. Every close game I have had would have been ruined if someone had gotten a double. Comparatively I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten a 1-2 double and lost. All four times it was because I made a critical error against an opponent savvy enough to exploit it. I show up to PLAY a game, not have an involuntary cheat code slapped on for automatic victory. Though one of the worst parts is the look on players faces as they are left helpless and more or less out of the game while the opponent rips them apart. That sort of resigned depression.

It may be a small thing, but who else is happy to see the roadmap? I'm glad GW took the time to let us know what is in the pipeline for the near future.