Is Competitive AoS Backing Itself into a Corner?

[kozokus]

55 minutes ago, Killax said:

Chaos is as 'unkillable' as Imperium is.

Was thinking about pox/brimstones with flies lists when saying that.

10 minutes ago, Red said:

WFB died because they didn't test any of the magic weapons, special characters, or most magic spells.

Preposterous! Unbalanced magic items have existed since the begining of the game.

Even more...Wait...bait! !!   STOP! We all have an opinion on why WHFB died but it should stay outside of that nice and delicious forum. Out with that debat.

 

[Killax]

2 minutes ago, kozokus said:

Was thinking about pox/brimstones when saying that.

Fortunatly they are 'fixed' this month  

But yeah, I feel that competitive AoS is only backing itself into a corner because the rules in many ways are not fleshed out so that there is a true competitive depth of selection. 

[Dave Fraser]

45 minutes ago, Nico said:

I don’t think anyone wants to see 180 Grots on the table either.

1080 points of 1w 5+/6+ save bravery 4 models,

Unlike 180 wounds worth of brimstones of bravery 10 which is 600pts 

[Requizen]

This is getting pretty wishlisty... I don't think any of these suggestions will make it into the game, GW clearly likes the core set of AoS.

On topic -  GW has announced for 40k that they will do incremental FAQs/Errata for 40k throughout the year (FAQ for an army 2 weeks after release, 2-3 big FAQs which may include point changes per year, Chapter Approved which is just GHB once per year). I wonder if they have any intention of doing the same thing for AoS. Point changes and potential Warscroll changes halfway between GHB releases would be nice, like they did for Fyreslayers and Tomb Kings previously but on a larger scale.

[Dave Fraser]

1 minute ago, Requizen said:

This is getting pretty wishlisty... I don't think any of these suggestions will make it into the game, GW clearly likes the core set of AoS.

Apologies if my suggestions came across as me wishlisting.  I was in fact saying if I run events I would make them part of my rulespack (currently I don't run events for AOS tho,I'm doing enough for another game system at the moment but I have done in the past).  And I'd encourage TOs to consider if they think any changes to the rules would in fact make the game more enjoyable for the majority of players for their events.

[rokapoke]

16 minutes ago, Requizen said:

This is getting pretty wishlisty... I don't think any of these suggestions will make it into the game, GW clearly likes the core set of AoS.

On topic -  GW has announced for 40k that they will do incremental FAQs/Errata for 40k throughout the year (FAQ for an army 2 weeks after release, 2-3 big FAQs which may include point changes per year, Chapter Approved which is just GHB once per year). I wonder if they have any intention of doing the same thing for AoS. Point changes and potential Warscroll changes halfway between GHB releases would be nice, like they did for Fyreslayers and Tomb Kings previously but on a larger scale.

Apparently GW realized the brilliance of bringing this to AoS shortly after the article posted... it's mentioned in the FAQ of the original article. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

[Twitch of Izalith]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

But yeah, I feel that competitive AoS is only backing itself into a corner because the rules in many ways are not fleshed out so that there is a true competitive depth of selection. 

So what new rules or units do think would counter the multiple saving throw builds without unbalancing other lists? Because if you have the firepower to take those builds down you probably have more than enough to take down an army that just gets regular saves?

I don't have a clue - which I guess is why I find this to be such a big negative aspect of the game at the moment. 

 

[Killax]

34 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

So what new rules or units do think would counter the multiple saving throw builds without unbalancing other lists? Because if you have the firepower to take those builds down you probably have more than enough to take down an army that just gets regular saves?

I don't have a clue - which I guess is why I find this to be such a big negative aspect of the game at the moment. 

 

I have a very simple solution to units who preform better when taken in larger ammount, they simply don't get cheaper. Same example should have applied for Bloodletters too. Per 10 they used to cost 100 per GH2016, this mend they where 300 points per ideal unit size of 30. Per GH2017 10 costs 110 and 30 are 270. So despite showing actual results in GH2016 and GH2017 tournaments they got their cost reduced and quite frankly it makes no sence. Like Bloodletters the unit should likely cost 360-390 per 30. Still great but not so close to the 300 standard that seems to be there for large and potent units.

If anything I wouldn't say Fyreslayers are a dominating factor in the game, there are however examples of units with odd costs. However when compaired to Battalions the costs of Battalions is even odder. In addition the true power of Fyreslayers is highlighted because the Shooting Phase doesn't care for shooting in melee whatsoever  

[swarmofseals]

14 hours ago, PlasticCraic said:

A very thoughtful post.  I like the sound of linebreakers, can you give an example of how it might work in practice please?

For example, if it's a cavalry unit that completes a charge, pick a unit within 1" and that unit is -1 to save and / or cannot be immune to battleshock in the following battleshock phase / until their next hero phase, that kind of thing?  

 

12 hours ago, HypnoKraken said:

Maybe they could use the Old Bret spear formation or whatever for cavalry, it's not something that is good on it's own but adapt it to be used against hordes. If we apply it to monsters, maybe some type of bonus sweeping attack modifier either for damage or attacks (or both) mechanic applied to hordes. If they really want to tame hordes, maybe add bonuses to shooting for shooting into them since they would have so much mass it'd be hard to miss.

The most basic form of this rule would be something like this:

Linebreaker

If this unit allocates all of its melee attacks to a single target unit and <CONDITION IS MET> then the targeted unit does not benefits from any bonuses due to its unit size until the end of the turn (this includes bonuses to bravery due to unit size during the battleshock phase as well as any bonuses that rely on unit size from the unit's warscroll or other sources)

____

This could certainly be written more clearly and succinctly, but the basic idea is there. In my imagination, the CONDITION referenced will usually be that the enemy unit is within 1" of another friendly (IE: your unit or your ally's unit) unit. Other conditions might be that the linebreaker unit successfully causes damage (this would represent very heavy units that are capable of disrupting enemy formations even when they are braced against it) or that the linebreaker completed a charge move this turn (representing lighter units that require the momentum of the charge to cause disruption).

The reason why I like the "enemy unit is within 1" of another friendly unit" condition is that it represents the tactics of rank and flank gameplay without the need for anything cumbersome like unit facing. Basically the idea is that if the enemy is braced and able to focus on absorbing the attack then it can maintain cohesion and retain the advantage of size. If the enemy is distracted by another foe, however, then it can't maintain cohesion and loses whatever size bonuses that it has.

 

Of course exceptional linebreakers could gain additional advantages such as "when an enemy unit is affected by the above rule and also suffers damage from the melee attacks of this unit, then it must test for battleshock during the battleshock phase regardless of any immunity. Additionally, the unit's controller cannot use any abilities that modify the battleshock roll in any way" or possibly "when the enemy units affected by the above rule and also suffers damage from the melee attacks of this unit, any bonuses to bravery that the unit would gain in the next battleshock phase are reversed and counted as penalties." This would represent the size of the unit acting against itself as troops crash into each other seeking to get out of the way of the marauding linebreakers, morale suddenly dropping as banners are dropped and leader's voices being overwhelmed by the thunderous sound of the attack.

I'm sure there is plenty more design space to explore here.

The basic concepts are threefold:

• The linebreaker unit should not necessarily cause all that much actual damage. They can be moderately offensively efficient but should never be efficient enough that they are desirable for their damage output alone
• The linebreaker unit should provide a counter to units that get bonuses from their unit size, although they may also have bonuses that work against other targets as well
• The majority of linebreakers should work mostly in conjunction with other units rather than being effective just on their own. There may be exceptional cases where particularly elite linebreakers can work on their own, but even then they should work even better in a combined arms attack. The main mechanism that this goal is accomplished by is the other two goals above: the linebreakers don't do that well on their own because they don't cause that much damage on their own and their linebreaking may not actually work unless you have another unit involved. The linebreaker softens the target substantially, making them very vulnerable to damage caused by other units that are more offensively efficient.

 

 

[Twitch of Izalith]

4 hours ago, Killax said:

Same example should have applied for Bloodletters too.

They are definitely a bit cheap - particular when you compare them to the Blooscrushers where Killing Blow carries such a premium in points cost that the unit is virtually unusable in matched play. I run 30 in my BoK list so it never becomes too much of an issue in my own specific meta but they also have enough weaknesses - even when there is 90 - 120 on the table than people at least have a chance to deploy carefully, catch them with chaff and counter attack effectively.

Vulkites have no weaknesses. Except very minor ones like being on a 32mm instead of a 25mm. Their damage output is nothing special but its significant enough combined with the fyresteel axes that they can usually win any sort of protracted grind and the runes can be used to boost attacks, rend or damage or whatever they need to give them an edge. The army is weak in Duality of Death so at least there is something over a 5 or 6 round GT.

But they have high movement (Tunneling with the Smiter or Rune of relentless zeal giving +4), multiple options to be immune to battleshock (Runefather AOE and rune of fiery determination), multiple attacks per model, rend, mortal wound output on the charge and a shooting attack that can double in range or volume - and yes, they are ridiculously cheap for all that! I can't think of another battleline unit that comes close in terms of abilities and versitility. They certainly make my dreadspears look a bit useless!

The only reason they are not a big issue (yet) is because not may people want to buy and paint so many and they have that one weakness over a full GT if you have good sniping units to take out their characters!

I think you are on to something in the fact that while the old 480 points cost was not far from the mark for 30. 160 was too much for 10!

Thanks for taking on the conversation anyway!

[svnvaldez]

5 hours ago, Killax said:

Apparently GW realized the brilliance of bringing this to AoS shortly after the article posted... it's mentioned in the FAQ of the original article. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/12/15/the-future-of-faqs-and-chapter-approved-dec-15gw-homepage-post-2/

This has be mentioned elsewhere and everyone should be aware of this. It would be amazing if they kept the FAQs up to date and I hope they do.

[Nico]

On 05/01/2018 at 4:04 PM, Dave Fraser said:

1080 points of 1w 5+/6+ save bravery 4 models,

Unlike 180 wounds worth of brimstones of bravery 10 which is 600pts 

60 Gitmob Grots hit on 2s and can be buffed to get wounding and rend! Grots effectively have a 5+ Save with Shields.

Brimstone horde discount can go in the bin if you want - not a big deal in practice. Never seen anyone run loads of them at an event - they still pop even with Bravery 10.

 

[Nico]

Quote

Except very minor ones like being on a 32mm instead of a 25mm. 

This is a huge weakness - trust me - number of models in combat is important. 

Nevertheless they are of course a strong unit. Funnelling Terrain can really hurt them though.

[Nico]

I have to say that materially adjusting how the first turn is decided would jeopardise the game (e.g. to the 40K complex dice off). In AoS you need to have some knowledge of who is likely to be going first to deploy properly. Otherwise you’re forced to either gamble on a single dice roll that will frequently  and immediately determine the game or deploy defensively on the assumption you lose the dice roll.

The level of uncertainty from the initiative roll is healthy but this is partly because you can make a plan for the first Battleround with knowledge (fewer drops) or an educated guess (more drops) as to who is going first. The big random factor is delayed until after both players have executed the first part of a plan.

The unintended consequences of any such change (deleting Sylvaneth, massive swings in value of Battalions) would be significant.

[chord]

Or not knowing who will go first makes on the fly tactics more important and decreasing deployment shanigans.

I think it would be better to not know how to properly deploy

[Thomas Lyons]

2 minutes ago, chord said:

Or not knowing who will go first makes on the fly tactics more important and decreasing deployment shanigans.

I think it would be better to not know how to properly deploy

No, it would just benefit those who deploy off table and can dictate always when and where to strike on their turns.  There would still be winners and losers, it would just be a much narrower field.

[Twitch of Izalith]

Yeah, I have to say I like the turn priority mechanics how they are. The 1st turn rules add more depth to list building and deployment and possibility of the double turn adds a lot of excitement and flavor to the game.

Either can have a massive impact on the game which sometimes feels a little cheap in that particular game but overall you win as many rolls as you lose so it balances out.

Its one of the things which makes AoS into a distictive play experience. 

[Nico]

The Masters results - particularly 5 Tzeentch armies of which none came higher than fifth - and where I called out 4 people to win (who came 1st, 2nd, 3rd and the 4th was a club mate who was a few dice rolls away from beating Jack) are consistent with my view that Tzeentch are no longer top dog and haven’t been since the page of nerfs in the GHB 2017 FAQ and the emergence of KO (who are close to autowin against the Changehost barring extremely favourable terrain deployment to hide the LoC.

Tzeentch are extremely vulnerable to one drop opposition and shooting based alpha strikes for obvious reasons.

Listening to excellent Facehammer Show - clear that DoT vs Nurgle is going to be fascinating match up. Mortal wound saves vs spell stealing and unbinding mechanics. Also the multiple save debuffs should create a hard counter to Vanguard Wing.

The meta is healthy now. It’s Vanguard Wing in its souped up form (cherry picking Order filth) which needs a few small nerfs.

Even Wanderers showed some real potential.

[Carnivore]

IMO absolutely. Due to a pure lack of balance and some kind of bad managable armies. Just watch the lists of the greater tournaments for reference.

Also watch this maybe:
 

I sense, that pretty much the same kind of lists, and ESPECIALLY the same faction choices will rule the generel meta from now on.

Several armies, and that I am pretty sure, will not be uncluded to tournaments anymore. And that's very sad.

Just to have an example here:
Remember Archaon, the super superior Lord of Chaos? Who destroyed the world?
He will not scare a single grot anymore. ( Take in concideration the varity of Army list bilding, including Archaon, and you will see what I mean. )

So my conclusion there:

AoS will put itself away from being EQUALY competetive, step by step, due to misconciderations, that have been made.
 

[BURF1]

This is some hardcore thread necromancy, friend.

[Kirjava13]

Thread necromancy! Hide, before the witch hunters catch us!

[Richelieu]

3 hours ago, Ba5terD said:

AoS will put itself away from being EQUALY competetive, step by step, due to misconciderations, that have been made.

You want everything to be EQUALLY junk?  GW proved with the last three releases that they can make new factions fun, dynamic and competitive while giving old models and factions rules of the same caliber.  It is absurd to think that all new armies should be punished and remain one-dimensional and with serious flaws because the old armies were made in an era when GW was just coming to grips their new system.

[Returning]

Just going to have to suck it up and realise their will never be balance. The competitive players will always gravitate to the most effective or flavour of the months armies. These kind of discussions remind me of the ones that always used to rumble on when I played WoW and Blizzard couldn't crack it

Thing I like about AoS and GW is that they keep adding new factions, a consequence is that things get harder to balance. One of them double edged sword thingys.

[Chris Tomlin]

This ran its course a while back guys! Locked.