Is Competitive AoS Backing Itself into a Corner?

[Elmir]

I just had a look at that tournament. I can only find 16 lists for it... So if it's a smaller tournament, a subfaction can be abscent. In fact, I didn't even see a single Death GA (any of them) present at UK Masters, despite soulblight doing ok in LVO for instance.  I'm looking at the 90+ players type tournaments where each faction will at least be present to gauge performance. 

PS: if top players are able to get to top spots with an army, the army is actually reasonably ok, which was my original point... There are some factions that don't even manage to get into a top 10, anywhere. Those should be way higher on the priority list to buff than IJ at this point. And I doubt the other lists were being played by lobotomized monkeys who had zero clue of what they were doing. 

[Chipatola]

12 hours ago, chord said:

Being a large blob of 30 wounds makes it durable       But I'd like to see another approach than stacking

If the problem lies in the saves, GW can balance it by giving a debuff to the attacking unit,
we all know the -1 / -2 / -3 to hit rolls,
but you can add in -1 / -2 / -3 to wound rolls
the stonehorn ability ( damage caracteristic /2 )
reduce the range of the weapon attacking the unit ( against spears and bows, it can make a good difference )
nullifying rerolls (to hit or to wound) can improve resilience too.

 

What do you think ?

[Twitch of Izalith]

Thanks for all the replies - its great to hear everyones thoughts! 

@Elmir UK Masters is an invitation only event for the top ranked players in the UK so yes there are only 16 lists and I agree that you would expect some factions to be absent. Its cool to see the Wanderers in there and the 2 Fatesworn batallions - though its kind of sad that Fatesworn is pretty much the only competitive build with Slaves To Darkness models - and its really a Tzeentch list!

I definitely don't want hordes to go away! but the point of hordes is that it should be a mass of low quality cheap troops - they die easy but there are a lot of them so it doesn't matter so much. What we have at the moment is the rise of hordes with save mechanisms comparable to 40k Terminators! 

I think Iron jaws can be a strong list - Gorefist particularly - but not against multiple horde units with invulnerable saves! which is kinda the point...

@ Malekithe I don't think Fyreslayers are massively undercosted - just Vulkites - I think you could increase the cost and they would still be a viable option. They were really strong at 480 points but nobody was using them competitively because all the competitive focus was on damage output. If they just give them a horde discount at the original value - say dropping them 60 points to 420 at 30 models I think people will keep using them and they will stay competitive - Their Allegiance Abilities would still be incredible!

 

 

[Killax]

I think it's still too early to really call those shots. What I think is part of AoS' fun is the crazy combo's. However I also get that it's not for everybody. Quite frankly I feel that games in stores and homes usually arn't the best when they are played with tournament lists in mind. Again it's a shot a local player group should call.

The truth is that I think parts of the issues stem from the core rules, the way Battalions work right now and how certain costs are still over the place. However honestly to 'solve' that I really believe a whole new edition would fix much more.

Fact is GW loves the crazy combo's. At the same time I can't say PP has a better balanced system now either. There's enough data of imbalance there too. In addition I'm not a large fan of Themes or Battalion requirements either. I don't mind them being a part of the game, I do mind that you cannot create lists without them (almost).

[chord]

2 hours ago, Chipatola said:

If the problem lies in the saves, GW can balance it by giving a debuff to the attacking unit,
we all know the -1 / -2 / -3 to hit rolls,
but you can add in -1 / -2 / -3 to wound rolls
the stonehorn ability ( damage caracteristic /2 )
reduce the range of the weapon attacking the unit ( against spears and bows, it can make a good difference )
nullifying rerolls (to hit or to wound) can improve resilience too.

 

What do you think ?

Might work, but still the re-rolls for ward saves, etc just slows down the game way too much.    Maybe, find some way where enough damage can shatter a ward save or enough rend etc?   I'm sure there are plenty of ways to handle it, but I think it comes down to just figuring out game flow and what keeps it moving and fun for everyone.  (granted not an easy task)

[Samanar]

14 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

I really like the linebreaker solution as it adds more tactical depth to the game, encourages "combined arms" lists instead of spammy lists and provides some relief against hordes without tuning up overall offense. It also provides a unique battlefield role for a unit type (cavalry) that currently doesn't really have one. 

So... where can I vote to have you recruited by the GW? 

[svnvaldez]

13 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

You cannot seriously be putting them in the same power bracket as the others you've listed?

Pick your battles @PlasticCraic, this isn't one you will win after reading his responses. @Elmir if you want to have a real discussion about IJ and there competitive nature head over to the destruction forum. Lots of good discussion, general conquence of all top players is IJ lack some tools needed to compete.

As for LVO last year, the US tournament scene was crushed with AOS. LVO saw GW personally fly out to help FLG and the LVO increase tournament attendance. The last year before in which LVO was an open (pre masters) something like 300 40k players and 15 WFB attended. I was one of those 15.

No one would say the lists/players last year were good other than say a few. At lot of us were much more happy to have interest in our event back (72ish players) rather than caring about playing the meta.

in that environment IJ can do well. They are actually quite balanced, not competitive.

Take a look at the LVO Destro spread this year after LVO the last weekend of Jan. 

I'd be shocked if IJ take best destro, and I'd be wondering how I lost more games than that guy with my Rukk

[Twitch of Izalith]

4 hours ago, Chipatola said:

If the problem lies in the saves, GW can balance it by giving a debuff to the attacking unit,
we all know the -1 / -2 / -3 to hit rolls,
but you can add in -1 / -2 / -3 to wound rolls
the stonehorn ability ( damage caracteristic /2 )
reduce the range of the weapon attacking the unit ( against spears and bows, it can make a good difference )
nullifying rerolls (to hit or to wound) can improve resilience too.

 

What do you think ?

I might be misunderstanding you but I think that would make it worse! I'm worried that this is what WILL happen in competitive play and will result in long repetitive "pillowfights" where buckets of dice get rolled and nothing happens because everyone has de-buffs, re-rolls and multiple saves against every attack.

This is what happened in 40k at the point I stopped playing it for a long while - It was full of "unkillable" units and re-rollable saves and it was no fun to play. 

I get that its a fantasy game but for me greater demons and dragons not being able to hurt a dwarf kinda ruins the fantasy...

 

 

 

[BURF1]

I see a lot people using the UK masters as part of their arguments but do keep in mind that A) Every single one of those players has played every other player quite a lot and knows what to expect and B) Masters lists are built specifically to be either bread and butter I've been playing this all year anyway refined meta list and anti-meta or I have a better chance of winning if you don't know my strategy from the get go, lists.

[Riavan]

4 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

In that environment IJ can do well. They are actually quite balanced, not competitive.

Hmm as a newer player, this isn't really logical. 

It's kind of sad to see how bad gw's balancing is. It feels like each year is a beta test.

[svnvaldez]

Gw has been doing better at being responsive and balancing abusive armies.

I have full faith things will get better.

[WoollyMammoth]

A good competitive player will conga-line the 90 Berzerkers to maximize all buffs and create walls between you and the things you need to kill. The price tag on Fyreslayers doesn't fix anything it only makes more money for GW and promotes them to make more armies like this.

A Tzeetch player has the most powerful magic & shooting to take out the synergy asap to weaken them, so its weird to have this post coming from one. As for every other army in the game ... pretty much sol. Lists like Khorne, Nurgle and everything in Death are massively un-fun uphill battles. The GH2017 really aimed to nerf everything to level the field and it did not work. It did a lot of good things but while popping down some moles it just allowed others to pop up higher.

As usual people will always rush to get Tzeentch or Fyreslayer armies so that they can win tournaments. Most of these players wont play enough games with them or understand how to maximize them in order to win, which is why you always see some of the best lists on the bottom of the rankings. A good player who really knows their lists, wont get sucker-punched by yours and is really good at winning on objectives can often school some power player who just picked up the hottest net list hoping to auto-win their next tournament. Unfortunately, when you give one of these skilled players the hot netlist, they will destroy with it.  A good Tzeentch list is nothing but a blood bath of oppression, and  a Fyreslayer list is like trying to take down a brick wall with a toothpick. 

In many cases, a bonkers OP list gets downgraded to a "really good" list once everyone knows how to play against it. This is why Khorne lists struggle to break the top 20 at most tournaments; when you know exactly what an army is going to do you can do your best to mitigate them and control the game. Khorne, despite being incredibly strong,  is a sucker punch list that most often struggles when the opponent sees it coming. Sylvaneth was dominating hard until people learnt how to mitigate their insanity and then Tzeetch hard-countered them. I have no idea why Kunnin Rukk wasn't more popular because Kunnin Rukk + 3 stonehorns was the most oppressive list I've ever seen (I think people are just racist against naked orcs).

In regards to 90 Berzerkers, there is no sucker punch to avoid, its just 90 wounds that often takes about 360 wounds (or 180 mortals) to eat through. Most of their strength is in these Berzerkers and so often your only option is to do the thing they want you to do - waste wounds on the Berzerkers. The only reasonable way to defeat them is to kill ALL their chars ASAP which is very hard and takes very powerful shooting/magic to pull off. Therefore they are a very "sledgehammer v rock-paper-scissors" army and most armies right now simply don't have what it takes.

In regards to Tzeentch - Skyfires will kill your most important model on turn 1. It doesn't matter what it is - its dead. There is no trick or strategy you can employ. So if your army relies on synergy, or for your general to be alive you are most often screwed. If you rely on magic, tzeentch will shut you down. If you rely on hordes, the gaunt summoner will murder everything all at once, and if you were hoping for Inspiring Presence, you aren't going to have it. Tzeentch just hits you way too hard way too early. Tzeentch is not a sucker punch, its a giant flaming laser from the sky which you do not even have time to brace for let alone dodge. That being said, they are vert glass-cannon and if they give you an inch you can push them over -  but any good player will not give you an inch. (Also there is pure BS insanity like 900 brimstone horrors).  

LVO 2017 was a very fun tournament. At that time Sylvaneth was considered OP and made up the largest chunk of armies. It was happening just as Tzeentch was released, and there was one player with converted models playing the new tome (most of the models weren't even out yet). So the big king of all dominant tournament lists was not even a thing yet. It was won by a stormcast list with good match-ups and played very well. Mixed destruction and Kunnin Rukk was surprisingly absent, and a lot of players brought interesting death lists (back when people still thought Mourngul could carry Death). A couple good TK lists, but TK was subsequently completely nerfed in the weeks following the tournament. 

LVO 2018 I don't expect any surprises. There might be some crazy last minute Nurgle stuff which could be interesting, but likely the tournament will be won by skilled tournament players with conga lining Fyreslayers or Skyfire-heavy Tzeentch lists. I hope that I'm wrong.

Looking forward to GH2018 being what the GH2017 was supposed to be. 

[svnvaldez]

Im calling it now that at LVO most of the top placing players will be using "standard tournament lists": Changehost, Kunning Rukk, Fyreslayers, Ziffen KO, Vangaurd wing, Kroak on Balewind, Skyfire spam, Murderhost, etc etc.

[bsharitt]

At the end of the day, the basic problems aren't unique to GW, it's something the makers every serious tournament game faces. If anything GW is at least being proactive about it instead of just throwing stuff our there and not caring about the messy tournament environment for their games(at least 40k). There's always going to be a handful of "winning lists" that even inexperienced players can make a good run with and still a few outlier good players who might sneak something unique into a top tournament bracket.

At with AoS, casual play is still a thing, so you're not always going to run into people practicing for a tournament. I pretty much won't play a pick up game of Warmachine or X-Wing with strangers for that very reason.

[PlasticCraic]

15 hours ago, Elmir said:

I just had a look at that tournament. I can only find 16 lists for it... So if it's a smaller tournament, a subfaction can be abscent. In fact, I didn't even see a single Death GA (any of them) present at UK Masters, despite soulblight doing ok in LVO for instance.  I'm looking at the 90+ players type tournaments where each faction will at least be present to gauge performance. 

PS: if top players are able to get to top spots with an army, the army is actually reasonably ok, which was my original point... There are some factions that don't even manage to get into a top 10, anywhere. Those should be way higher on the priority list to buff than IJ at this point. And I doubt the other lists were being played by lobotomized monkeys who had zero clue of what they were doing. 

"Reasonably OK" I don't disagree with at all.  I think they're a solid second tier army.  But that wasn't your original point at all.  Your original point was that they were part of the absolute cream at the top of the game, and that's what I disagreed with.  I can see why you would want to change that though, because it was a very extreme proposition.

UK Masters is an invitational event for the top ranked competitive players in the UK.  So although it's only 16 players, it's the elite.  Last year there was a real spread of factions (Death propped up by Settra which dominated the top spots, and a couple of Mournghul lists).  This year, 15 of the 16 players are taking Order or Chaos.  You know why?  They are they best armies.  They have won all of the GH17 tournaments in the UK.  Not a lot.  Not most.  Every single one of them.

8 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

Pick your battles @PlasticCraic, this isn't one you will win after reading his responses. @Elmir if you want to have a real discussion about IJ and there competitive nature head over to the destruction forum. Lots of good discussion, general conquence of all top players is IJ lack some tools needed to compete.

As for LVO last year, the US tournament scene was crushed with AOS. LVO saw GW personally fly out to help FLG and the LVO increase tournament attendance. The last year before in which LVO was an open (pre masters) something like 300 40k players and 15 WFB attended. I was one of those 15.

So the LVO being cited as evidence that IJ are at the top of the meta was played almost a whole year ago?  When KO weren't even released?  When Tzeentch weren't properly released?  When Battle Brew and Rampaging Destroyers were things?  Perhaps it's fair to say that's not entirely relevant as evidence for who are the top armies in the game right now.

You are right though @svnvaldez, I've never got involved in a disagreement on here before, and it's dumb to start now over something so pointless.  

[Riavan]

I don't know. I feel often I see people praise GW because it's better than it was. But that doesn't mean it's good. It just means you have some kind of Stockholm syndrome lol.

Why can't the rules be updated quarterly via the app? With like patch notes etc. Massive errors could be fixed quickly and announced clearly.

[svnvaldez]

13 minutes ago, Riavan said:

You are right though @svnvaldez, I've never got involved in a disagreement on here before, and it's dumb to start now over something so pointless.  

Only time when you should fight with people on the internet is when you know the TO of an event personally and want to make a point and get a pack changed ;p

That was highly effective, didn't win many friends thou!

[Killax]

3 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

Im calling it now that at LVO most of the top placing players will be using "standard tournament lists": Changehost, Kunning Rukk, Fyreslayers, Ziffen KO, Vangaurd wing, Kroak on Balewind, Skyfire spam, Murderhost, etc etc.

Could well be. At the same time though as that line without doubt gets larger with more factions getting more Battletomes is this really an issue? Or problematic in the larger sence of AoS being what it is?

The way I see it, which was massively effective at 40K too is that we just need more Battletome's, more relevant Factions to that "standard tournament lists" line has room to grow. As a mostly casual player myself I don't think I would have a massive issue with this.

Yes AoS is hordy, sometimes very killy (mortal wounds), sometimes very grindy (super saves), sometimes very snipey (super moves/teleports) but it is this way due to exploiting the strongest rules that the not so large core rules present  

[svnvaldez]

2 hours ago, Killax said:

but it is this way due to exploiting the strongest rules that the not so large core rules present

I think a few more frequent FAQs and competitive AOS will be fine. I have no problem seeing battletome armies doing well and actually prefer it.

I actually think Tzeentch gets too much hate, only real issue I see is stringing the changehost and horror splitting to drag units into combat with in 9inches.

All of which an FAQ fixes

[Nico]

Quote

In regards to Tzeentch - Skyfires will kill your most important model on turn 1. It doesn't matter what it is - its dead. There is no trick or strategy you can employ. So if your army relies on synergy, or for your general to be alive you are most often screwed. If you rely on magic, tzeentch will shut you down. If you rely on hordes, the gaunt summoner will murder everything all at once, and if you were hoping for Inspiring Presence, you aren't going to have it. Tzeentch just hits you way too hard way too early. Tzeentch is not a sucker punch, its a giant flaming laser from the sky which you do not even have time to brace for let alone dodge. That being said, they are vert glass-cannon and if they give you an inch you can push them over -  but any good player will not give you an inch. (Also there is pure BS insanity like 900 brimstone horrors).  

This is a considerable exaggeration. There is no competitive 1 drop army containing Skyfires, which means the answer very simply is to outdrop them and kill the Shaman (before he casts  Treacherous Bond) or just kill the Skyfires. Many armies can do so. Throwing chaff into Skyfires Turn one can also work if the chaff Attacks first to deny the rerolls - then the Skyfires have to retreat or sit there and do little (assuming rest of your army is out of 24”. 

The Shamen now cost a lot, so taking a second one is actually a painful proposition.

Obviously 900 Brims or whatever is silly, but outdrop it and throw chaff in front of it and it will never get to the objectives in time to offset an early lead.

 

[Nico]

You cannot make Split not allow setup within 3” as that would completely kill Tzeentch. It would also contradict the fluff and purpose of Split in the first place (i.e. Pinks die in melee and their offspring bog down the attackers). 

A lot of Tzeentch hatred (like Sylvaneth hatred) is based on memories of what the army was on day one! This was before you could no longer use DD on mortal wounds, before people knew what DoT could do and the counters, before Khorne autounbinds and Fyreslayer and Seraphon autounbinds, before KO - who are a straight hard counter to the typical Changehost builds, before Fyreslayers and all the buffed factions in the GHB; and before the numerous, complicated yet very significant nerfs in the FAQ (the Changehost has been nerfed in addition to being made more expensive, Split has been nerfed twice, the Changeling has been nerfed several times and even a hot garbage Battalion - the Eternal Conflagration has been nerfed brutally).

I said it a long time ago that I hated Skyfires so much as they would poison everyone’s view of DoT and would eventually lead to excessive and wanton nerfs to the whole army - ultimately leaving it useless. This Fate has been narrowly avoided so far, but a few more nerfs and it will tip the army over the cliff.

The melee rerolls rule for Skyfires should never have been included (or the unit cap should have been 6 models and the cost 220); and was a disaster equalled only by 3 shots for an Arrer Boy in an 80 Wound unit).

Sylvaneth are in a similar position where people who don’t play them remember charging their units into combat with Hunters in woods and getting shredded (even though a bit more experience tells you that this is usually suicide - just stand back and make them charge or shoot them), whereas Sylvaneth players know that they have been totally outclassed by subsequent releases (for example Bow Hunters are now far weaker than Raptors, Arkanauts and Skyfires), have had excessive recounting of their Battalions and no longer have their old monopoly on one drop armies. Sylvaneth have been boxed into a couple of viable options all of which have serious hard counters (especially DoT). Their big weaknesses of a tiny selection of units (2 of which are named characters who are hard to fit into lists); and a tiny selection of Allies is really starting to show.

[Killax]

If anything @Nico you know what your talking about in regards to Tzeentch and Tournaments in general. What I experience myself when I dabble with tournament lists is that part of the fun is indeed presenting very strong combinations and indeed react to small mistakes or oversights an opponent has made and punish that. To me that's all fair game with tournaments and in many ways as above I'm okay with this. What I would like but am quite certain MP offers is Battletomes with a little more pace behind them. Not so much the 2017 8th 40k style but not 3-6 months between them either. The more crazy stuff the merrier for me, by large because I feel the only real issue is that not all Allegiances actually have something to say about the way an ultra-competitive meta swings.

Funny enough, while randombly browsing on 4chan I found this and can't say I totally dissagree from a theoretical perspective. So before I would actually start to alter competitive designs in AoS I'd love to see the list grow. Note, not created by me,

And yes, certain things/factions are missing such as Clan Skryre. But it isn't too far from the truth either.

The thing I want to highlight is that I actually am starting to love AoS for all it's crazyness, the combo's, the impossible to remove units or the extremely killy units, the whole shebang. But the only way to enjou such crazy things is to have pretty much all factions have acces to them. The latter is certainly not the case and by comparison the game is still largely decided by Order and Chaos.

If anything the only tree issues I have with AoS from a design point is:
- Double turning, as I don't see too much fun added to it within a game.
- Battalion costs, it's just too random now.
- Shooting pase. This one is a bit important to denote because YES GH2017 adressed it as much as they can but to me the core issue with this phase stems from the basic rules attached to it. Due to them being so few a lot of potentially awesome design for ranged attacks is not really fleshed out and can't be fleshed out because... well... it would require a whole re-design of this aspect of the game. Legolases are cool and all but I do not see the added value in every single Ranged attack model working this way.

We'll see where AoS goes, I just hope GW spices up the support and that 40K's 8th approach was just indeed a prelude to how they will handle AoS.

 

[Nico]

Having played Fyreslayers recently and a year ago - I can say that they are strong, but a huge amount of that strength is based on people not knowing how to play them (rather than the mechanics being insuperable or I counterable).

Little things like Casualty removal to make the initial 9” charge longer are key. Deploying chaff on the 12” line and other valuable stuff further back can help vs the throwing axes.

They hate Vanguard Wing, they hate low drop armies that can zone them off. They really hate Fanatics (still the best unit in the Destruction Grand Alliance) - maybe the Fungoid will remind people how good they are. They hate armies with protection against shooting. They have exceptionally squishy heroes (particularly if opponent goes first) although they are cheap, so Duality is tough and if you Tunnel up you need to charge to score that turn.

They certainly aren’t going to surprise anyone with subtle gameplay - they have to be one of the most predictable armies out there - also an obvious weakness.

Their new one drop Battalions are probably unusable. I may revisit this point.

I’m obviously not saying they need a buff, just that they are in tier one with a lot of other armies (at least KO, DoT, Stormcast, Seraphon and Khorne).

[Nico]

@Killax

Thank you for the compliment.

I would say that playing so many armies and listbuilding for virtually all of them (even Brayherd, Dragon Ogres, Tamurkhan, White Lions...) has given me a broader view of balance. I always play a different army at the next event and rarely use the same one twice. I’ve played all four Grand Alliances at events from an early point in AoS’s lifetime.

I am a big believer in the random initiative roll as one of the best things in AoS. It creates a delicious trade off between going first and wrecking face, but then risking a bounce or an enemy double turn with 50% of their army which brings the game back into a tight game. Obviously footslogger melee armies cannot compete without it (since walk back and shoot becomes almost infallible in a you go I go scenario).

It also creates a great deal of the tension of List building as there are trade offs from each drop you have - the Masters lists illustrate this very well - Gary Percival for example has sacrificed killing power to take a Battalion for a one drop. There are a lot of lists where drop count has been a decisive factor or where there are mitigants in Place for losing initiative.

I agree that the Battalion repointing should have been done more judiciously (but this was likely a result of time pressures). Too expensive is usually less damaging to the game than too cheap (e.g. Saurusgate in the distant past - when a seemingly innocuous points change to humble Saurus led to an absurdly strong army in Jack Armstrong’s capable hands).

Obviously the release schedule will pick up after the year of 40K last year - it’s totally understandable that the focus was there.

[Killax]

19 minutes ago, Nico said:

@Killax

I am a big believer in the random initiative roll as one of the best things in AoS. It creates a delicious trade off between going first and wrecking face, but then risking a bounce or an enemy double turn with 50% of their army which brings the game back into a tight game. Obviously footslogger melee armies can not compete without it (since walk back and shoot becomes infallible in a you go I go scenario).

It also creates a great deal of the tension of List building as there are trade offs from each drop you have - the Masters lists illustrate this very well - Gary Percival for example has sacrificed killing power to take a Battalion for a one drop. There are a lot of lists where drop count has been a decisive factor or where there are mitigants in Place for losing initiative.

I agree that the Battalion repointing should have been done more judiciously (but this was likely a result of time pressures). Too expensive is usually less damaging to the game than too cheap (e.g. Saurusgate in the distant past - when a seemingly innocuous points change to humble Saurus led to an absurdly strong army in Jack Armstrong’s capable hands).

Obviously the release schedule will pick up after the year of 40K last year - it’s totally understandable that the focus was there.

I am honestly uncertain how much the initiative roll is effecting things in terms of things not being able to compete otherwise. Better put, I don't see the design of cavalary as being that good that it is absolutely required. However that part is neither here nor there as I can't prove it. What I do agree with you is that it creates a very cool ammount of tension. At the same time, at least for me it's adding a particular random factor that actually prefents things from going too competitive/snowballing. This is both good but again also random. 

What I certainly hope for is that the release schedule will pick up. As before I like the madness/randomness of the game too but also know it prevents some from playing and as OP stated it basically is also what stops him or her from playing particular combinations.

I feel the current design of the game is in quite some ways also restricting a potential awesome depth it otherwise could have had also. What I mean by this is that I feel due to the random turn roll great Battalions are of the utmost importance, however Battalions also remove a massive part of freedom in army design (Warmachine has this same 'issue' with Themes) which in turn makes (for tournament play) lists predictable. This then leads to the idea that an army can only do X or Y. It's this part that bothers me as a mostly casual player because it distilles an army to relevant Battalions.

To give an example of what I mean, Khorne is awesome to play but top level I basically only have the choice to go Murderhost, Gore Pilgrims or both. Likewise there is no other route for Vulkite's to be relevant except for their 30 Berzerker units. It leads to 80% of what a Battletome/army has to offer as being "competitively useless" and 20% being the dominating factor to if an army matters at all. From a designers perspective that's actually quite sad, despite me enjoying the game so much because of fantastic models and cool narrative concepts fleshed out.

Edit: When I then thake a peek into the other side of things, 40K, we see a much more streamlined core rules set which then has lead to practically 80% of every Codex unit choices being relevant for one army or the other. There the crazily great combo's also still excist but the relevancy of units by comparison is just much and much better.