Balance Patch 2021 gold release notes VC

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is available! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Balance Patch 2021 gold release notes VC

    Your ACS wrote:

    Esteemed counts and courtiers of The Covenant,


    It is I, VampsinMD, your new Vampire Covenant ACS! I was sent henceforth to deliver to you the final results of the 2021 balance patch.


    To recap, the largest part of the balancing update was already completed with a focus on promoting infantry and reducing single model spam. As a community, we then had the opportunity to request a limited number of additional updates for consideration. Your ACS pitched the following community requests, per the results of polling:


    • Reducing bloodline core to 20%
    • Lowering the cost for additional Ghasts
    • Lowering the cost of additional Wraiths

    However, we were encouraged to change our third pick to something more likely to get a reduction. So, wraiths ended up getting replaced by Barrow Knights.

    The RT considered our requests and ultimately made the following decisions:


    • Reducing core for bloodlines is currently seen as too big a change to implement with no beta period. No change.
    • RT agreed that the price for additional models is on the high end and agreed to reduce the cost of extra models by 7 points. -7ppm for extra Ghasts!
    • Whilst Barrow Knights are priced for ease of raising (3-5 models per arise), they are rarely seen in larger units and RT felt it would be okay to offer a small reduction to encourage medium and large units. Additional Barrow Knights go down by 3ppm!

    Lastly, as part of sweeping changes to reduce spam, monstrous revenant mounts are now capped at 0-3. We are not aware of any recent lists containing 4 or more. This restriction can be best summed as decreasing potential for abusive spam and equity across armies.

    As always, kind thanks for all of your input and feel free to discuss!

    Advisery Board Member

    Organises: TA, TS and ACS. Click to apply to staff. Soon click to get Infos on Data Analysis and Balancing. Colour code for role I post in: Me, Project Statements, Staff role, "moderating"
  • Why was the 20% core for all bloodlines not raised for December update to allow a beta period? These changes are mostly irrelevant and do little to nothing to adjust anything.

    Also why were the team “encouraged” to pick something other than wraiths?
    ETC 2021: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2020: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2019: Ireland :ID:
    ETC 2018: Ireland :O&G:

    The post was edited 2 times, last by JamesMcDonnell ().

  • Sincerely I don’t understand why some books like HE have more than 15 points adjustments and VC has only 2 points adjustments.

    There are toon of unused stuff which could be have a -1 or -5p (even +1 or +5). Powers unseen in a year and remain as were...

    I have the feeling that other books gets deeper analysis that VC one. (Not ACS fault!).

    Army Design Team

    Translation-Team ES

    Battlescribe-Mod ES

  • PETREOPATROKLOS wrote:

    Sincerely I don’t understand why some books like HE have more than 15 points adjustments and VC has only 2 points adjustments.

    There are toon of unused stuff which could be have a -1 or -5p (even +1 or +5). Powers unseen in a year and remain as were...

    I have the feeling that other books gets deeper analysis that VC one. (Not ACS fault!).
    You wouldn't want to have adjustments that HE had - all that was good got kicked in the nuts, all that was bad is still bad.

    Still what VC got - So if you are stupidbrave enough to take 8 ghasts and 10 barrow knights in the list you get whooping 50 pts on a list that will still be horrible. Amazing over 1% increase in efficiency for something that is horribly bad anyway.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HE, VC, OK and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • Adam wrote:

    PETREOPATROKLOS wrote:

    Sincerely I don’t understand why some books like HE have more than 15 points adjustments and VC has only 2 points adjustments.

    There are toon of unused stuff which could be have a -1 or -5p (even +1 or +5). Powers unseen in a year and remain as were...

    I have the feeling that other books gets deeper analysis that VC one. (Not ACS fault!).
    You wouldn't want to have adjustments that HE had - all that was good got kicked in the nuts, all that was bad is still bad.
    Still what VC got - So if you are stupidbrave enough to take 8 ghasts and 10 barrow knights in the list you get whooping 50 pts on a list that will still be horrible. Amazing over 1% increase in efficiency for something that is horribly bad anyway.
    I think the real shame is that the survey was pretty much pointless and ignored. Why give options you aren’t going to let come through.
    ETC 2021: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2020: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2019: Ireland :ID:
    ETC 2018: Ireland :O&G:
  • JamesMcDonnell wrote:

    Why was the 20% core for all bloodlines not raised for December update to allow a beta period? These changes are mostly irrelevant and do little to nothing to adjust anything.

    Also why were the team “encouraged” to pick something other than wraiths?
    The majority of updates are done via the project's data driven approach, not by request, and this is reflected in the first update. This second update, allowing the community to make requests, was never going to be as sweeping as the first. Although 20% core emerged out of the survey, I would hardly say it was on the radar of RT before.

    I do understand the frustration of not getting some more impactful changes in the second part of the update. However, if you take the totality of the two updates, I think VC did quite well.

    JamesMcDonnell wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    PETREOPATROKLOS wrote:

    Sincerely I don’t understand why some books like HE have more than 15 points adjustments and VC has only 2 points adjustments.

    There are toon of unused stuff which could be have a -1 or -5p (even +1 or +5). Powers unseen in a year and remain as were...

    I have the feeling that other books gets deeper analysis that VC one. (Not ACS fault!).
    You wouldn't want to have adjustments that HE had - all that was good got kicked in the nuts, all that was bad is still bad.Still what VC got - So if you are stupidbrave enough to take 8 ghasts and 10 barrow knights in the list you get whooping 50 pts on a list that will still be horrible. Amazing over 1% increase in efficiency for something that is horribly bad anyway.
    I think the real shame is that the survey was pretty much pointless and ignored. Why give options you aren’t going to let come through.
    Considered and not implemented is different to ignored. ACS presented the results of the community survey to RT.

    Extra Ghasts down in points was second on the survey and we were able to get it. ACS certainly wishes we could've gotten more but we ended up getting two small decreases.
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    The majority of updates are done via the project's data driven approach, not by request, and this is reflected in the first update. This second update, allowing the community to make requests, was never going to be as sweeping as the first. Although 20% core emerged out of the survey, I would hardly say it was on the radar of RT before.


    I do understand the frustration of not getting some more impactful changes in the second part of the update. However, if you take the totality of the two updates, I think VC did quite well.
    Considered and not implemented is different to ignored. ACS presented the results of the community survey to RT.
    Extra Ghasts down in points was second on the survey and we were able to get it. ACS certainly wishes we could've gotten more but we ended up getting two small decreases.
    then why didn't the RT chose something else from the pool? like:
    - wraiths
    -banshee
    -vampire count
    -dark coach
    -winged reapers
    -ghouls
    -strigoi
    -barrow guard
    -altar of undeath
    -shierking horror
    -suffering

    There were A LOT of things before the knights in the pool. Without considering all the feedbacks the community has given about the patch of 30 December, like the 340 pts for a naked vampire count that was "compensated" by a drop of 10 pts of ancient blood powers that, in fact, is just a nerf if you want to take something else. (i could go on but there is another topic full of these)

    In my point of view, the community was widely ignored and it fells pretty annoying since it's like 2/3 years that we are saying pretty much the same things over and over again.
  • Rellzed wrote:

    VampsinMD wrote:

    The majority of updates are done via the project's data driven approach, not by request, and this is reflected in the first update. This second update, allowing the community to make requests, was never going to be as sweeping as the first. Although 20% core emerged out of the survey, I would hardly say it was on the radar of RT before.


    I do understand the frustration of not getting some more impactful changes in the second part of the update. However, if you take the totality of the two updates, I think VC did quite well.
    Considered and not implemented is different to ignored. ACS presented the results of the community survey to RT.
    Extra Ghasts down in points was second on the survey and we were able to get it. ACS certainly wishes we could've gotten more but we ended up getting two small decreases.
    then why didn't the RT chose something else from the pool? like:- wraiths
    -banshee
    -vampire count
    -dark coach
    -winged reapers
    -ghouls
    -strigoi
    -barrow guard
    -altar of undeath
    -shierking horror
    -suffering

    There were A LOT of things before the knights in the pool. Without considering all the feedbacks the community has given about the patch of 30 December, like the 340 pts for a naked vampire count that was "compensated" by a drop of 10 pts of ancient blood powers that, in fact, is just a nerf if you want to take something else. (i could go on but there is another topic full of these)

    In my point of view, the community was widely ignored and it fells pretty annoying since it's like 2/3 years that we are saying pretty much the same things over and over again.
    After a tenure as VC ACS Ive come to the conclusion the dev team gets their rocks off shafting VC. Im not even a tenth surprised this is our update. Just wait till Egg gets in here.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • Rellzed wrote:

    VampsinMD wrote:

    The majority of updates are done via the project's data driven approach, not by request, and this is reflected in the first update. This second update, allowing the community to make requests, was never going to be as sweeping as the first. Although 20% core emerged out of the survey, I would hardly say it was on the radar of RT before.


    I do understand the frustration of not getting some more impactful changes in the second part of the update. However, if you take the totality of the two updates, I think VC did quite well.
    Considered and not implemented is different to ignored. ACS presented the results of the community survey to RT.
    Extra Ghasts down in points was second on the survey and we were able to get it. ACS certainly wishes we could've gotten more but we ended up getting two small decreases.
    then why didn't the RT chose something else from the pool? like:- wraiths
    -banshee
    -vampire count
    -dark coach
    -winged reapers
    -ghouls
    -strigoi
    -barrow guard
    -altar of undeath
    -shierking horror
    -suffering

    There were A LOT of things before the knights in the pool. Without considering all the feedbacks the community has given about the patch of 30 December, like the 340 pts for a naked vampire count that was "compensated" by a drop of 10 pts of ancient blood powers that, in fact, is just a nerf if you want to take something else. (i could go on but there is another topic full of these)

    In my point of view, the community was widely ignored and it fells pretty annoying since it's like 2/3 years that we are saying pretty much the same things over and over again.
    Well, i think we can safely say that if ACS requested SH or Dark Coach decrease that would have been denied, based on their pervasive usage in competitive play.

    Many of the other things you listed did get decreases in the first update. Altar of Undeath even got a defacto design buff because of the change to pentagram of pain.

    Personally, I voted for Vampire Counts, Ghouls and... something else that didn't make the cut. Again, we wished we could've gotten more but I encourage you too look at the totality of the update. Vampire Knights, Winged Reapers, Ghouls, Skeletons, Barrow Knights, Altars, Ghasts all going down over the course of the update.

    I know it was a long way from perfect and if VC continues to struggle, we will certainly try to do better months from now. Your feedback is noted and appreciated, so thank you.
  • Pica25 wrote:

    Can you please elaborate why it wasn't possible to get a reduction on additional wraiths ? They see almost no play and the Suffering category has been completely ignored in the updates.

    I agree that the point changes over the 2 update are good for VC.
    I'll see what I can find out but I may have to defer to one of my colleagues on this question as I was on the community side of things for the majority of the process.

    Post by Grouchy Badger ().

    This post was deleted by Casas: Attack on project development, aggressive unconstructive criticism ().
  • I am sorry, that you expired your time on the team that way. For me and many others on the team our experience is different and far more positive.

    Advisery Board Member

    Organises: TA, TS and ACS. Click to apply to staff. Soon click to get Infos on Data Analysis and Balancing. Colour code for role I post in: Me, Project Statements, Staff role, "moderating"

    Post by GorillaConda ().

    This post was deleted by Casas: Quoting deleted post ().