Predictions for the LVO studio preview

[Sception]

Did we hear any more on malign portent rules? Not the herald unit rules, but the MP scenario or whatever rules relating to reading the stars/cursing enemies/all that stuff they vaguely referenced in the behind the scenes video a week or two back?

[Burf]

7 hours ago, Sception said:

If you don't want to discuss rumors & speculation for upcoming releases, why are you reading/posting in threads that only exist to do that?  I can only react to changes as I see them.

So far the changes are rather negative, so my reaction is negative.  When we see changes that are positive, my reaction will be positive.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

We can discuss rumors and speculation, as long as you understand that everything you say is wrong and your opinion is unfounded SPECIFICALLY regarding making JUDGEMENT of the MINISCULE amount of information we have available.

If your definition of reasonable reaction is 'positive to positive: negative to negative' then you're currently running around in circles shouting in tongues and foaming at the mouth. Because what you've done is 'I don't know and don't have any reasonable extrapolation due to the breadth and depth of changes a battletome can bring making drawing conclusions based on current army rules pointless at best, actively detrimental at worst' to 'WE'ZE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!'

[DantePQ]

I still don't understand why Death players are so obsessed with new models. Death has huge ET times range and great big pre-ET range. Almost every unit has great plastic kit. Huge BT to have rules for everything is cool idea. 

I guess we will have to wait for few things considering rules 

- Spell Lore/lores 

- Allegiance abilities 

- point costs 

- items, abilities 

I think that after BT Death will be in much better state then it is now. 

[AverageBoss]

51 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

I still don't understand why Death players are so obsessed with new models. Death has huge ET times range and great big pre-ET range. Almost every unit has great plastic kit. Huge BT to have rules for everything is cool idea. 

I guess we will have to wait for few things considering rules 

- Spell Lore/lores 

- Allegiance abilities 

- point costs 

- items, abilities 

I think that after BT Death will be in much better state then it is now. 

Because Death is the only GA that has not had a single new model since AoS launched most likely.

The arguments could be made for several other armies, that have had updates (like DoK are getting).

I also would not call 3 kits a huge range, as far as what they got during End Times.

Death Lords is 4x expensive characters, and 2x elite units that amount to a weapon swap.
Zombies are over 20 years old, and the faction consists of 3 models.
Except for the Zombie Dragon and Vargheiests, everything Soulblight is resin or oop (not to mention the bats might be the worst looking models in the entire game atm).
Deathmages are 2 models.
Nighthaunt is 4 models.
Deathrattle consists of 5 models.
FEC is in the best shape, and only due to kitbashed units, and canabalizing regular troops to turn them into characters. Though they are by far the biggest Death Allegiance atm, with a total of 11 options, there are actually only 4 kits in the range, with only 2 of those are actually unique to the allegiance, the rest being kits used in other allegiances.

Altogether the entire GA has something like 17 plastic kits currently in production.

I can see why they want models.

[BlooDeck]

43 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

I still don't understand why Death players are so obsessed with new models. Death has huge ET times range and great big pre-ET range. Almost every unit has great plastic kit. Huge BT to have rules for everything is cool idea. 

... Because everyone wants new models and wants to see how their faction is developed in AoS?

[Elmir]

28 minutes ago, AverageBoss said:

I also would not call 3 kits a huge range, as far as what they got during End Times.

Death Lords is 4x expensive characters, and 2x elite units that amount to a weapon swap.
Zombies are over 20 years old, and the faction consists of 3 models.
Except for the Zombie Dragon and Vargheiests, everything Soulblight is resin or oop (not to mention the bats might be the worst looking models in the entire game atm).
Deathmages are 2 models.
Nighthaunt is 4 models.
Deathrattle consists of 5 models.
FEC is in the best shape, and only due to kitbashed units, and canabalizing regular troops to turn them into characters. Though they are by far the biggest Death Allegiance atm, with a total of 11 options, there are actually only 4 kits in the range, with only 2 of those are actually unique to the allegiance, the rest being kits used in other allegiances.

Altogether the entire GA has something like 17 plastic kits currently in production.

I can see why they want models.

^This

Destruction is in the same boat for having subfactions that are playable, but only if you are willing to spam the same model kit several times to get to a playable point cost. 

There is a point to be made that a lot of kits are from 2012, so still fairly new, but it's also just a plain case of "there's not a lot of variation to it"... They scrapped TK, reducing the grand alliance to just a single WHFB as their origin source.  And yes, a lot of the old VC plastics had great dual use, but in an AoS micro-subfaction way, this is a pretty boring situation, especially as a modeler. 

As a personal example. I've collected a large -ish force of FEC  as my first army  and I'm now looking to expand into soulblight.  For my FEC, I've bought the  Crypt horror/flayer box  6 times to make a playable number of Crypt horrors/flayers and their respective courtiers. 

Now I'm expanding to soulblight and unless you want to deal with that old scar of Kirby's GW that made a 5 cavalry kit for €80,  I found myself having to get that same plastic kit another 4 times to make vargheists.  Maybe this explains why, for the hardcore death fans, this book is definitely progress, but it still very much feels like we are just being sold old wine in a new bag...  For new death players, it'll be awesome, because it will most likely lead to less need for spam to still get a powerful force in terms of allegiance traits. 

[DantePQ]

Sure I got that everyone wants new models

 but as a 20 years + High Elves and Eldar player I don't understand why Death players act so desperate ?  Fro example almost whole Eldar range is 15-20+ years old and Death got huge range of great plastic kits and got great ET update. HE didn't get antyhing in AoS not even some kind of treatment in GH2017. 

What's more Death is getting huge BT so they all the Death player will have their faction developed. And yeah Death already got :

- new hero 

- Shadespire unit 

And many players would be great with new hero or/and Shadespire band that has AoS rules ( High Elves, Lizardmen, Free People, Wanderers to name a few) 

What I mean is that Death with this huge BT is in much better place modelwise and ruleswise then majority of armies in AoS. Also maybe GW doesn't want to introduce new models as they want Death to have 100% new army like KO but also want to give proper rules and proper Battletomes to already huge Death line ? 

As a HE player I would be extremly happy with huge Aelves BT along with Shadespire band and new hero. Even without any new models so I don't really got that complaining. 

[Riddles]

4 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Sure I got that everyone wants new models

 but as a 20 years + High Elves and Eldar player I don't understand why Death players act so desperate ?  Fro example almost whole Eldar range is 15-20+ years old and Death got huge range of great plastic kits and got great ET update. HE didn't get antyhing in AoS not even some kind of treatment in GH2017. 

What's more Death is getting huge BT so they all the Death player will have their faction developed. And yeah Death already got :

- new hero 

- Shadespire unit 

And many players would be great with new hero or/and Shadespire band that has AoS rules ( High Elves, Lizardmen, Free People, Wanderers to name a few) 

What I mean is that Death with this huge BT is in much better place modelwise and ruleswise then majority of armies in AoS. Also maybe GW doesn't want to introduce new models as they want Death to have 100% new army like KO but also want to give proper rules and proper Battletomes to already huge Death line ? 

As a HE player I would be extremly happy with huge Aelves BT along with Shadespire band and new hero. Even without any new models so I don't really got that complaining. 

Its because death are an entire grand alliance, elves are just a part of a grand alliance.

[DantePQ]

Not it doesn't work that way, Alliances weren't meant to be equal in rules, lore or models as they can't be for several reasons. For Stormcast players it doesn't matter that DoK will be released etc. Poeple in majority of cases buy and collect specific armies. Players waiting for Aelves weren't interested in KO or Fyreslayers unless they wanted to start new army. 

The main AoS narrative is Chaos vs Order/everything so it isn't strange that those Alliances got most goods. The same is for 40k it's Chaos vs Imperium,  Eldar didn't get new models in years with almost whole range being 15-20+ years old etc.

Death with huge range of fairly new models and with new hero and Shadespire band and huge BT coming up is in great place. Lorewise, rulewise and modelwise. 

[Envyus]

MOD EDIT:

That attitude and language is not welcome here. I have banned you for a couple of days to cool off.  

 

[Elmir]

15 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Not it doesn't work that way, Alliances weren't meant to be equal in rules, lore or models as they can't be for several reasons. For Stormcast players it doesn't matter that DoK will be released etc. Poeple in majority of cases buy and collect specific armies. Players waiting for Aelves weren't interested in KO or Fyreslayers unless they wanted to start new army. 

The main AoS narrative is Chaos vs Order/everything so it isn't strange that those Alliances got most goods. The same is for 40k it's Chaos vs Imperium,  Eldar didn't get new models in years with almost whole range being 15-20+ years old etc.

Death with huge range of fairly new models and with new hero and Shadespire band and huge BT coming up is in great place. Lorewise, rulewise and modelwise. 

That's entirely untrue... If you actually are into playing larger scale battles for instance, combining the SCE, DoK, Fyreslayers,KO would actually be a possibility. Even if you are a high elf player, you could still buy the odd hero from (for instance) the SCE line-up to squeeze into your army... There's actually quite a few options how those new releases COULD be included in your current army, should you so desire. 

And the fact that in your second paragraph, you are actually showing some minor insight into the game actually being biased towards order and chaos...  And that this in itself might be a source of frustration for Death and Destruction players....But it still doesn't sink in completely... Envyus gave a good synopsis already, I don't think explaining finer points will add much. 

[DantePQ]

Nope it's not stupid, it's how it works main narrative in both AoS and Wh40k is Chaos vs Order (AoS), Imperium (Wh40). Check how many BL books, GW minis, GW rules in form of Codexes/BT were released in last two years for Chaos and Order/Imperium  and how many for other factions/alliances. 

That's what sells best like it or not. 

Of course Order is anything like Imperium(Order in Wh40k would be Imperium + Eldar, Tau) but narrative is clearly similar. 

@Elmir

that's true that GW is Chaos vs Imperium/Order. I am not saying that Death or Destruction shouldn't get new stuff but only that those Alliances won't be that big as Chaos or Order. Alliances weren't meant to be equal modelwise. Also AoS is still centered around  particular faction game not Alliance. I play Sylvaneth as well and since their lanuch I wasn't interested in expanding my army by adding KO or Stormcasts. I was thinking about starting specific new army. So argument that Order or Chaos got so much is flawed. 

And yes with new Battletome you can combine all Death minis into one army and their range is bigger then DoK, KO, Fyreslaers and Sylvaneth combined. 

And Death got much more then for example High Elves as they already got new hero, Shadespire band and are getting new BT.  And also as one desire one can include new hero and Shadespire band in  Death army. 

Also what some people are missing that if GW want to lanuch entirely new Death faction (like KO) in the future it's very cool move to release huge Battletome to bring that huge Death range in line with all newer Battletomes in terms of rules and fleshing out their lore. 

[Sception]

I'm not saying (and, I don't think, haven't said) elves didn't need the attention just as badly or more so.  Just that, if elves were going to be the next big release, and more elves after that, I would have prefered if GW had spent the last several months of malign portents hype teasing the elves that are getting major new releases now, instead of the undead that might or might not be getting something new several months from now.

If we had seen several months of elf hype leading into multiple back to back surprise undead releases, with elves only seeming to get a single battle tome with no new model releases in sight, and that tome, while maybe rearranging the old units into intetesting new subfactions, mostly only changes the rules of those existing units to nerf them, I think there'd be a lot of salty elf players on this forum, too.

[DantePQ]

I don't think so. 

Malign Portents isn't for me about Death but about changing narrative from high fantasy to more dark, more personal storylines. And it works great that why. Also if GW wants to release brand new Death faction (Death equivalent to KO) they needed to release that Battletome to bring huge Death range in line with new formula of Battletomes. 

Also speaking of nerf is premature because what's counts from comeptitive point of view is how particular army will fare against others and Spells Roles, syngergies, allegiance abilities, items and command traits play huge role in that much more important then single warscroll entries. Goal is to bring Death in line with other armies like DoT, KO, Sylvaneth, SCE, new Nurgle etc if that BT accomplish that (and I am postitive that it will) then is all well and good. I doubt that when considering all those things Death armies will be nerfed with so many units along with I guess huge collection of spells, items, abilities Death armies will be much better . 

[Lousy Beatnik]

I've never felt the desperation for new undead models, myself. Death have one of the best ranges of all, certainly in plastic. They have dozens of other companies making characters, skeletons, zombies and ghostly dudes and can steal models from "living" ranges and dead-ify them.

Besides, Death got a release last year;

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Citadel-Skulls-2017

... back to LVO?

[Tzaangor Management]

19 minutes ago, DantePQ said:

Also speaking of nerf is premature because what's counts from comeptitive point of view is how particular army will fare against others and Spells Roles, syngergies, allegiance abilities, items and command traits play huge role in that much more important then single warscroll entries. Goal is to bring Death in line with other armies like DoT, KO, Sylvaneth, SCE, new Nurgle etc if that BT accomplish that (and I am postitive that it will) then is all well and good. I doubt that when considering all those things Death armies will be nerfed with so many units along with I guess huge collection of spells, items, abilities Death armies will be much better . 

This is really important. The play-test team, including many top UK players, as well as the rules writing team, are acutely aware of where Death sits in the pecking order and I cannot imagine that they would actively be making them worse. Yes they are changing the mechanic, it might even appear worse viewed in isolation, but the only things that have received a re-balancing so far in AoS are, in my view at least, are things that have been over performing and / or have been over-prevalent on the tables. 

Anyone can choose how they view this sliver of information that has leaked out, but, at the end of the day, if you choose to view this through the negative filter of a perceived nerf, you should not be surprised when you are feeling down about your hobby.

[Carnelian]

1 hour ago, Envyus said:

Thats stupid. Everything you said here was stupid. 

Please don't be so rude.

Let's keep this a civil and fun conversation everyone! It's becoming very tetchy here

[Sception]

Again, when and if we start sering positive changes out of LoN, my reactions to those will be positive.  But right now?

Death's biggest and most easily exploitable, and most difficult to mitigate weakness is vulnerability to sniping.  Shifting all our recursion mechanics to heroes greatly exacerbates this weakness.  We've already seen this from FEC, who use similar healing mechanics which might as well have never been printed for all the use they see on the table.

And, on top of making the army more dependent on our heroes, they've also made several of our heroes even more vulnerable to sniping than they already were.

This book was written by the same people, at the same time, and with the same testing, as GH'17 and the compendium updates, which also dropped a bunch of almost entirely uncompensated nerfs on the undead (some absolutely warranted, dont get me wrong, but some not so much).

Why should we just assume without any evidence that this book is intended to be a 'fix' for the recent direction in death rules instead of a continuation of the current trend, especially when the current trend is exactly what everything we've seen out of it so far looks like?

[Jamopower]

I have hard time seeing why the whole resurrection thing changing from standards to hero oriented is such a ground shattering thing? In my experience, getting d6 skeletons or zombies back at the start of the turn is hardly a game winning ability, more like a nice perk to have. I also believe that once you hit the new stuff on the table, the new system is much better. It might look like it gets worse, but those d3s add up quickly, especially as many heroes have longer ranges than 6". Also I could bet money on having spells and tricks that add on the basic abilities.

What comes to the hero sniping. The death are hardly the only one suffering. Many armies are dependant on their heroes. If you look at the winning list from past UK GT final, it has quite similar feel in it. Big heroes supported by squishy heroes, yet it seems to do very well. The sniping can also be reduced by simple means, like having some buildings on the table that block the line of sight etc. You don't need a big terrain piece to cover your necromancer.

 

Edit. Concerning the terrain and a lot more things, this game is hard to theorize in vacuum without actuallh having the stuff on the table and playing few games as a lot of things is dependant on the positioning,the terrain on the board, the list and desicions of the opponent, the skill level of the players, the priority, etc.

[DantePQ]

I hope somewhere along there is rule that somehow protects smaller heroes from being sniped out 

[Richelieu]

1 hour ago, DantePQ said:

I hope somewhere along there is rule that somehow protects smaller heroes from being sniped out 

I can't for the life of me think how this would work in AoS.  In 40k it's fine because you're never going to have to slog through 120 models buffed out their ears.  Nobody would ever finish a game of AoS if you just did a straight port of the 40k rule.   

Picking apart your opponent's synergies is a fundamental part of AoS strategy.  

[Sception]

Tyranids.  Orks.  Guard.  Brimstones.  Horde armies are horde armies, even in 40k.

[Jamopower]

There is still a massive difference in the available killing power between the games. If you think about how good unit basic tactical marines would be in AoS compared how mediocre they are in 40k. -2 rend in AoS is a rare gem, when in 40k you can spam you army full of rend -4 stuff etc.

[AverageBoss]

6 hours ago, DantePQ said:

Nope it's not stupid, it's how it works main narrative in both AoS and Wh40k is Chaos vs Order (AoS), Imperium (Wh40). Check how many BL books, GW minis, GW rules in form of Codexes/BT were released in last two years for Chaos and Order/Imperium  and how many for other factions/alliances. 

That's what sells best like it or not. 

Of course Order is anything like Imperium(Order in Wh40k would be Imperium + Eldar, Tau) but narrative is clearly similar.

Order, Chaos, and Imperium only sell as well as they do because of GW supporting them (both with releases and fluff) 10x over everything else. Its a self fulfilling cycle. If you give something that much attention, it is more likely to generate sales. GW sees those sales and doubles down on releases. On the inverse, they choose not to update an army for 12 years, so nobody buys that army. GW then decides to can that army because its not selling.

Pretty much every other game company out there has figured out a long time ago, that if you support your factions equally, they will pretty much equally as popular. And that creates a better experience for everyone, including far more variety on the table top.

[Carnelian]

1 hour ago, Richelieu said:

Nobody would ever finish a game of AoS if you just did a straight port of the 40k rule.   

Straw man alert! As below,  the poster who you were responding to had not suggested a straight port of the 40k rule but simply something to protect smaller heroes from being sniped. There are many ways of doing that that are not a straight port of 40k!

2 hours ago, DantePQ said:

I hope somewhere along there is rule that somehow protects smaller heroes from being sniped out