• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS Wish-list for a theoretical future "balance patch"

ILKAIN said:
  1. Kroak does not need that much of a points nerf. its 100% unfair to compare him to a slann with Guard for a points comparison. +30 is fine
  2. Warriors need a second wound imo. There's no way to convince me that a fragile human is as hearty as a saurus
  3. Chameleons aren't in a horrible spot imo.. I would leave them alone and see how the other proposed changes affects the army before I tampered with them.
Click to expand...

Why do you say comparing him to a Slann with 5 Guard is unfair? They are almost exactly the same level of tankiness, and the Guard are basically never going to attack anything unless the opponent has no shooting and has to charge them (7 wounds at 4+/4+ means 28 wounds to kill, A slann with 5 guard takes on average 33 wounds to kill assuming no "per model" spells/attacks, but it gets closer once you take mortals into consideration). On top of that he gets an extra 4+ CP without using your command trait, extra spell per turn, etc. They should definitely be ~100 points apart.

I agree on warriors, but I doubt it happens unless we got a new model for them. I cant imagine how many points my shelf with 60 warriors would be worth if they went to 2 wounds lol

I just think chameleons need to be closer to skinks in price, they are too outclassed by them atm. Either raise skinks by 10 or lower chameleons by 10
 
cyberhawk94 said:
Why do you say comparing him to a Slann with 5 Guard is unfair? They are almost exactly the same level of tankiness, and the Guard are basically never going to attack anything unless the opponent has no shooting and has to charge them (7 wounds at 4+/4+ means 28 wounds to kill, A slann with 5 guard takes on average 33 wounds to kill assuming no "per model" spells/attacks, but it gets closer once you take mortals into consideration). On top of that he gets an extra 4+ CP without using your command trait, extra spell per turn, etc. They should definitely be ~100 points apart.

I agree on warriors, but I doubt it happens unless we got a new model for them. I cant imagine how many points my shelf with 60 warriors would be worth if they went to 2 wounds lol

I just think chameleons need to be closer to skinks in price, they are too outclassed by them atm. Either raise skinks by 10 or lower chameleons by 10
Click to expand...
Because its two units, and because they fill different roles. Kroak is designed to nuke. Slann is more support. adding in the guard to create a deceptive equality disregards the fact that while you may use them only to eat wounds, they also create more board control, objective control, and can go do beatstick things separate from the slann if necessary... kroak cannot hold an objective as easily, and cant split into two units.
 
Honestly, I don't think we will receive major changes in new FAQ. I guess GW will change points and maybe(maybe!) change some wording.
- They will for sure nerf Kroak, making him 360 pts. Everybody is whining about him, but I think he's in right place now. Many ppl here say it already and I agree with them - you need to invest in him in order for Kroak to perform well (astrolith, vortex, 5xguards).
- I'm afraid, that they will nerf our bound spells(+20 or 15 pts per spell). They already nerf the amount of them we can carry in games (2 for 1k, 3 for 2k), further down will be a hard time for us.
- As a Saurus lover I would love to see Guards dropping in pts to 90pts. Second wound on SW is unlikely, but making them 3+ save and adding 10 pts or 20 pts would be a good change. Rend on Knights is essential, without pts increase. 2 dmg and rend -1 for spears only on charge.
- It's very unlikely, but I would love to see some buffs to summon. Maybe if Slann is your general, he would generate you a D6 pts. That way a Slann alone could generate a D6+D3, which is something. The summoning is dead for sure, but it could help a little bit to Starborne armies.
- Realmshaper Engine is pure rubbish in it current form. We should set up it freely, not "before the game starts" rule.
- Some love for Coalesced armies? I don't know about you guys, but I've played with terrain rules only one time, when we were at a AoS tournament in Moscow. Here, in Saint-Petersburg, no one is playing with those rules. So adding something significant to them would be a nice change (maybe rend -1 on jaws in addition to +1 attack or something that will show, that Coalesced are primal beasts).
 
Last edited:
Why are people son convinced that there'll be some changes on Warscrolls or major rules, like summoning or sub-factions?

They'll touch some points and call the day done.
 
Mostly wishlisting.

Also, while it might be too complicated for a FAQ; given how extensive the rulechanges have been in older GHB's I wouldn't be surprised to see changes to things like summoning, spell lores, or sub-factions in future ones. Cheaper than releasing a new tome & it gives the GHB some much needed content.
 
Curious. I expected some changes as well. Maybe GW is still waiting for more actual tournament play to decide point and rule changes?
 
Just A Skink said:
Curious. I expected some changes as well. Maybe GW is still waiting for more actual tournament play to decide point and rule changes?
Click to expand...

Seems so. I saw someone on Reddit saying the same. But Seraphon and KO have been on the top of a few tournaments right now.

Can't speak for KO since I don't know which units they have, but Seraphon plays with a single list. Our diversity is near zero, every competitive list have the same units.
 
And at the same time, there have been tournaments where other things have won. It's not like seraphon and ko are the only things winning, people just have to adjust their lists to the meta to beat what's "on top," that's what a metagame is. I have a big Magic: The Gathering background, and there the metagame fluctuates to balance itself, that's just how it is. I get that this isn't as easy, you would have to buy and paint all new things to stay relevant, but it's not that much to tweak your list over time to stay competitive. It just seems like people are quick to yell "op" without trying to attack things in a different way. Also, it seems like GW is upping power level in general, most of the new stuff coming out is on a similar power level to seraphon. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Slaanesh and DoK books are on the same power level as seraphon for instance. Who knows, we'll see. I'm just happy that I didn't paint 60 skinks for nothing lol
 
Last edited:
And yeah, I was expecting more changes then one small change to a spell I've never seen anybody take.
 
I'm glad they're being cautious. Seraphon are finally in a good place and I'd hate to see us get nerfed after less than a year of doing well. Plus, GW is really pushing Lumineth and Slaanesh hard, so I wouldn't be surprised if those two factions along with DOK started taking the heat off us after all of their updates come out.
 
NecridHydra said:
Seraphon plays with a single list. Our diversity is near zero, every competitive list have the same units.
Click to expand...

Thunder lizard has won tournaments and dracothian's tail has a similar statistical performance to fangs. Seraphon have more list diversity than almost any other top army, even if it does primarily revolve around the skink side of the book.

Tyranitar said:
And at the same time, there have been tournaments where other things have won. It's not like seraphon and ko are the only things winning, people just have to adjust their lists to the meta to beat what's "on top," that's what a metagame is. I have a big Magic: The Gathering background, and there the metagame fluctuates to balance itself, that's just how it is. I get that this isn't as easy, you would have to buy and paint all new things to stay relevant, but it's not that much to tweak your list over time to stay competitive. It just seems like people are quick to tell "op" without trying to attack things ins a different way. Also, it seems like GW is upping power level in general, most of the new stuff coming out is on a similar power level to seraphon. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Slaanesh and DoK lists are on the same power level as seraphon for instance. Who knows, we'll see. I'm just happy that I didn't paint 60 skinks for nothing lol
Click to expand...

Eh, i'm not sure you can just "adjust" to what KO, changehost, and seraphon are doing at the moment. A lot of armies just dont have answers to that level of shooting and magic and movement.
 
Kilvakar said:
I'm glad they're being cautious. Seraphon are finally in a good place and I'd hate to see us get nerfed after less than a year of doing well. Plus, GW is really pushing Lumineth and Slaanesh hard, so I wouldn't be surprised if those two factions along with DOK started taking the heat off us after all of their updates come out.
Click to expand...


DoK has a new list where they charge big morathi at you top of turn 1. Lumineth has 5+ mortal wound archers that ignore los and teclis. The power creep is real but at least other armies are at our level now so there isn't just 1 army that is crushing everyone. Now there are 5
 
Putzfrau said:
Thunder lizard has won tournaments and dracothian's tail has a similar statistical performance to fangs. Seraphon have more list diversity than almost any other top army, even if it does primarily revolve around the skink side of the book.



Eh, i'm not sure you can just "adjust" to what KO, changehost, and seraphon are doing at the moment. A lot of armies just dont have answers to that level of shooting and magic and movement.
Click to expand...

True. I suppose the problem there is in the design choices they made with the armies. Our book is mostly mediocre warscrolls that rely on getting super buffed up, which is cool because we can "build our own monster" in a way, but at the same time it creates polarized matchups because if your opponent can neutralize our heroes they will likely win, but if they can't, they will lose. There's some middle ground of course but that's generally what happens.

In the case of certain armies not being able to adjust, then those players would have to build a new army to keep up with the meta, if they want to be competitive. If they don't care about being competitive, then it doesn't really matter regardless.
 
Tyranitar said:
True. I suppose the problem there is in the design choices they made with the armies. Our book is mostly mediocre warscrolls that rely on getting super buffed up, which is cool because we can "build our own monster" in a way, but at the same time it creates polarized matchups because if your opponent can neutralize our heroes they will likely win, but if they can't, they will lose. There's some middle ground of course but that's generally what happens.

In the case of certain armies not being able to adjust, then those players would have to build a new army to keep up with the meta, if they want to be competitive. If they don't care about being competitive, then it doesn't really matter regardless.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think seraphon suffer from a design issue because there are a lot of armies that functionally require their heroes to work at peek efficiency and i don't necessarily have a problem with the slight rock/paper/scissors you see when it comes to any individual matchup. I do think the game probably has more shooting than it should ever have gotten, but thats a separate issue.

IMO they suffer from an undercosted issue. It's the same problem skaven had, you can simply fit too many toys into any given list. A fangs list realistically has kroak, two 40 blocks, and usually two other threats (or one and you double down on heroes.) Most armies can't put 4-5 units on the board that have the level of output seraphon units have, while still filling out a list with all the necessary buff heroes and screens. You could literally completely remove summoning, teleporting, and overwatch from that fangs list and it would still be strong and obnoxious to play against.
 
Last edited:
Putzfrau said:
IMO they suffer from an undercosted issue. It's the same problem skaven had, you can simply fit too many toys into any given list. A fangs list realistically has kroak, two 40 blocks, and usually two other threats (or one and you double down on heroes.) Most armies can't put 4-5 units on the board that have the level of output seraphon units have, while still filling out a list with all the necessary buff heroes and screens. You could literally completely remove summoning, teleporting, and overwatch from that fangs list and it would still be strong and obnoxious to play against.
Click to expand...

I hear the skaven analogy a lot and I don't agree. I feel like the key difference is the warscrolls we take are not as self sufficient as skaven was. Skaven 1.0 was indeed aweful, because they got to take everything and everything was good and then got better with buffs. We don't have plague monks and warp fire cannons and storm vermin. We have skinks and saurus. Most of Seraphon is subpar by itself and only becomes good after investing 200-300 points of heroes to buff. That's a big difference. Our cheap stuff is cheap because it's aweful and needs to be to balance out how quickly everyone else can kill it. The skaven stuff was good and cheap which proved to be a mistake in the end.
 
Putzfrau said:
Personally, I don't think seraphon suffer from a design issue because there are a lot of armies that functionally require their heroes to work at peek efficiency and i don't necessarily have a problem with the slight rock/paper/scissors you see when it comes to any individual matchup. I do think the game probably has more shooting than it should ever have gotten, but thats a separate issue.

IMO they suffer from an undercosted issue. It's the same problem skaven had, you can simply fit too many toys into any given list. A fangs list realistically has kroak, two 40 blocks, and usually two other threats (or one and you double down on heroes.) Most armies can't put 4-5 units on the board that have the level of output seraphon units have, while still filling out a list with all the necessary buff heroes and screens. You could literally completely remove summoning, teleporting, and overwatch from that fangs list and it would still be strong and obnoxious to play against.
Click to expand...
while ture that many armies need heroes to work best seraphon need heroes to work at all, same problem as khorn has. as you saw in our first game unbuffed seraphon units are almost useless while say phoenix guard or ard bois or sentinels start out good and get better. or a unit like eels or stone horns are just good over all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top