How balanced is AoS now?

[Thomas E]

After returning to AoS after a year's hiatus, I played my first game using the GHB2. I've heard that it has improved some of the armies that were previously struggling in the meta, however, after a very one-sided victory for Khorne against Ironjawz I started to question how balanced the factions are now? In terms of luck, I would say I rolled far worse than he did, which is the reason for us to question the balance. Is Khorne overpowered or maybe Ironjawz still overpriced?

As background for the game, we only played 1000 points, which meant he couldn't use his Mawcrusher (would that make the difference in 2000pts perhaps?)

His army: Orruk Megaboss, Weirdnob, 20 Ardboys, 5 Brutes, 3 GoreGruntas

My army: See below

 

 

 What are the current strong/weak factions right now?

1000ptsKhorne.pdf

[Killax]

Hi! Well in general I'd say GH2017 changed three big things for Age of Sigmar and generally speaking more and more armies can compete with each other because more Allegiance abilities are comming into excistance. Because yes it is that much of a game changer to have small bonusses like this.

The three big things that changed for me are:
- Monster Heroes usually are the best General for your army. Many AoE bubble effects have been added. Since most do meassure from the base now a bigger base is certainly ideal. - Horde units get a discount and because of that are commonly seen. Typically speaking armies would contain less units as per GH2016 but the units are much commonly bigger now.
- Battalions mostly got a +100 points boost which means the selection of viable Battalions has simply narrowed down much more as per GH2016.

Then, because most core rules didn't change (other than Allies) I'd say the two things that still remain for 'ultra top competitive armies' is:
1. Being able to one-drop with a good Battalion means you want that Battalion for your army.
2. Being able to be an effective part of a Shooting phase is still extremely relevant due to hunting down support characters.

As I mainly play Khorne and further can only give some comments about that, I'd say your list looks okay for sure. If you want to spice up the power consider dropping the Skullreapers (180 is just still a tad too much for them, despite them being good), adding an additional 20 to have a unit of 30 Bloodletters and consider what you want to do with the spare 20 points. You could for example side-grade the Skullcrushers to Chaos Knights.

Things of note for Khorne specifically (found in FAQ):
1. Blood Tithe points now have to be spend on the start of any players Hero phase.
2. Bloodsecrator effect is clarified as not stacking attacks buff.
3. Bloodstoker effect is clarified as stacking movement buff.
4. Brazen Rune is upgraded to be able to unbind spells anywhere on the field.

Other than that, thake advantage of the units who became cheaper in GH2017.

What I do know as a rare opponent of Ironjawz is that they are still functional but limited in top comp builds. On the other side of the spectrum both Seraphon and Fyreslayers can certainly be seen as Tier 1 armies and if I am brutally honest I'd say Seraphon in particular is stronger as Khorne because it has more list flexability and amazing awnsers against Chaos Daemons in particular. Fyreslayers are limited in top comp builds.
Other than that mixed Grand Allegiance armies for Chaos, Death and Destruction have become more of a rarity and for GA Order I'd say it's still fully able. alive and kicking. On the top of the totem both Stormcast and Tzeentch make the most regular top 3 appearances in larger competitive events, if I had to point out the best 3 armies it would be Stormcast, Seraphon and Mixed Order. Tzeentch still in the top 4. This is just my perspective though and meta's varry.

What has been cool about 2018 so far is that Nurgle is a legit part of the competitive scene and Legions of Nagash seems to very much follow that same part. DoK is likely going to be there also because they too have a monster ranged attack unit for sure.
The weaker factions are pretty much left found where they where in GH2016 also. I'd say in general Order is in a great spot and even there smaller factions have a purpose. In Chaos not all Clans matter but quite some do. Flesh Eater Courts in Death is likely to be left in the shadow of Legions of Nagash and since GH2017's changes I havn't seen much Ogres on the table as of late.

[Sheriff]

Ghb2017 removed 3 destruction armies from competitive status. ****** book from destruction perspective. Also took away rather than added choices to armies. 

Game overall seems to have moved towards 2-tier system of battletome and non battletome armies rather than a level playing field. 

[Killax]

1 minute ago, Sheriff said:

Game overall seems to have moved towards 2-tier system of battletome and non battletome armies rather than a level playing field. 

To this I pretty much agree. I personally see that GH2017 gave Fyreslayers and Seraphon enough of a bump to be part of Tier 1.

At the same time many of the Chaos armies (basically all but Tzeentch) feel like being part of Tier 2. It isn't that they arn't good, it's just that at this point and time I'm honestly suprised if Nurgle or Khorne will actually win a tournament. 

[Thomas E]

1 hour ago, Killax said:

Hi! Well in general I'd say GH2017 changed three big things for Age of Sigmar and generally speaking more and more armies can compete with each other because more Allegiance abilities are comming into excistance. Because yes it is that much of a game changer to have small bonusses like this.

The three big things that changed for me are:
- Monster Heroes usually are the best General for your army. Many AoE bubble effects have been added. Since most do meassure from the base now a bigger base is certainly ideal. - Horde units get a discount and because of that are commonly seen. Typically speaking armies would contain less units as per GH2016 but the units are much commonly bigger now.
- Battalions mostly got a +100 points boost which means the selection of viable Battalions has simply narrowed down much more as per GH2016.

Then, because most core rules didn't change (other than Allies) I'd say the two things that still remain for 'ultra top competitive armies' is:
1. Being able to one-drop with a good Battalion means you want that Battalion for your army.
2. Being able to be an effective part of a Shooting phase is still extremely relevant due to hunting down support characters.

As I mainly play Khorne and further can only give some comments about that, I'd say your list looks okay for sure. If you want to spice up the power consider dropping the Skullreapers (180 is just still a tad too much for them, despite them being good), adding an additional 20 to have a unit of 30 Bloodletters and consider what you want to do with the spare 20 points. You could for example side-grade the Skullcrushers to Chaos Knights.

Things of note for Khorne specifically (found in FAQ):
1. Blood Tithe points now have to be spend on the start of any players Hero phase.
2. Bloodsecrator effect is clarified as not stacking attacks buff.
3. Bloodstoker effect is clarified as stacking movement buff.
4. Brazen Rune is upgraded to be able to unbind spells anywhere on the field.

Other than that, thake advantage of the units who became cheaper in GH2017.

What I do know as a rare opponent of Ironjawz is that they are still functional but limited in top comp builds. On the other side of the spectrum both Seraphon and Fyreslayers can certainly be seen as Tier 1 armies and if I am brutally honest I'd say Seraphon in particular is stronger as Khorne because it has more list flexability and amazing awnsers against Chaos Daemons in particular. Fyreslayers are limited in top comp builds.
Other than that mixed Grand Allegiance armies for Chaos, Death and Destruction have become more of a rarity and for GA Order I'd say it's still fully able. alive and kicking. On the top of the totem both Stormcast and Tzeentch make the most regular top 3 appearances in larger competitive events, if I had to point out the best 3 armies it would be Stormcast, Seraphon and Mixed Order. Tzeentch still in the top 4. This is just my perspective though and meta's varry.

What has been cool about 2018 so far is that Nurgle is a legit part of the competitive scene and Legions of Nagash seems to very much follow that same part. DoK is likely going to be there also because they too have a monster ranged attack unit for sure.
The weaker factions are pretty much left found where they where in GH2016 also. I'd say in general Order is in a great spot and even there smaller factions have a purpose. In Chaos not all Clans matter but quite some do. Flesh Eater Courts in Death is likely to be left in the shadow of Legions of Nagash and since GH2017's changes I havn't seen much Ogres on the table as of late.

Killax,

Thank you for the in-depth reply answering all my queries and helping me catch up with the latest AoS changes.

With reference to my army building I noticed the following:

SkullReapers - I was worried due to their price increase but they were top performers on match. With assist of Slaughterpriest's Killing Frenzy and Bloodboil, they wiped out the 3 Goregruntas followed by the 5 Brutes (1 ran). My opponent paid 180 for his 5 brutes and I think on average Skullreapers are better value still even without buffs.

Mighty Skullcrushers - Never used them before but was keen to try them now cheaper. Massively flopped but mainly down to a failed charged followed by being swarmed by 20 ardboys. Will try again, maybe in unit of 6 within a 2,000pts army.

 

Need some advice - I have most of the khorne mortal heros but not many standout monster generals (only a daemon prince). With the current meta, which would you suggest is best value for points? Was tempted to get Skarbraand but im assuming hes still very pricey?

 Thanks.

[Killax]

Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster is great with Bloodletter blocks still. Skarbrand is also cool, if you thake multiple Bloodstokers and Slaughterpriests to buff him Im sure he becomes a threat

In general multiple units of Bloodletters allow you to include whatever. Blood Warriors remain an awesome unit too for costs.

[themortalgod]

In my experience Ironjawz either win big or lose big, generally really quickly. They tend to really make it seem like the game is unbalanced but thats just how they play.

The game isn't perfectly balanced by a long shot, it will never be. But I'd say it is certainly better than it was a year ago. Neither Khorne or Ironjawz are particularly strong, I'd consider both about mid pack give or take a few positions.  For example, My Tzeentch army, if competitively focused will mop the floor with either pretty easily most of the time, meanwhile my Slaanesh and Tomb Kings armies would be hard pressed to pull out a victory (both are more or less at the bottom of the heap). 

The other big thing I've found with Ironjawz is if the army is running mostly infantry that without the Ironfist battlaion (or whichever it is the one that lets you move d6" in your hero phase with all your infantry) the army just is too slow.  Add in top of that the fact that I find most inexperienced ironjaws players don't coordinate their charge. (aka the Gore gruntas in first, followed by units that got lucky with the allegiance ability, followed by the stragglers) When this happens the army becomes considerably weaker as it allows the opponent to just deal with them piecemeal. 

I'd also add that the game is balanced around 2K in matched play, not 1k. I find that balance is significantly less at the 1k points level. Personally, I hate playing 1k. 

 

 

[Roark]

15 hours ago, Killax said:

Skarbrand is also cool, if you thake multiple Bloodstokers and Slaughterpriests to buff him Im sure he becomes a threat

Don't listen to this guy! Skarbrand is a kitten. One of his axes does a pitiful 8 dmg... ;-)

One of these days I'm gonna pack triple Resanguination and just take the big guy for a walk...

[KnightFire]

10 hours ago, themortalgod said:

In my experience Ironjawz either win big or lose big, generally really quickly. They tend to really make it seem like the game is unbalanced but thats just how they play.

 

This is a key point, since GHB17 they play very differently, and are now even more of a glass cannon, but are still playable and fun to play. You either get a good turn 2-3 with lots of smashing and bashing going on, wiping out about half of the enemy army without taking many casualties (in which case you win) or you don't (in which case you lose). 

Ironjawz are a kind of melee alpha strike army - in most games they know whether they are winning or losing by turn 3.

It is also worth considering whether you and your opponent are both exactly matched in skill - it could just be he isn't as good a player and made mistakes with his ironjawz (attacking the wrong targets at the wrong time etc).

In terms of the general balance, I think AoS is in a good place for a number of reasons. I don't think there is really a way to properly balance a game like AoS (similar to magic the gathering), and its never going to be the case that two armies have an equal chance against each other. What is important is that it doesn't get stale, rather than that it is balanced, so that different armies get a time to shine. At the moment I think we are in a good place where FAQs, regular GHB releases and new battletomes mean the tier 1 armies are constantly shifting, but rarely does a tier 1 army drop below tier 3 (i.e. they are always playable at mid tables in tournament, or at a club) The tier 2 and 3 armies also wax and wane, with some taking their turn in tier 1 sometimes. 

Its still the case that if you just take a fairly random mix of models its not going to do well, but thats the same in any game, and his list looks quite sub-optimal for 1k points, he has too many aardboys and doesnt have a warchanter (absolutely essential for any ironjaws list). A list with a megaboss, warchanter, 10 brutes, 10 aardboys and 3 gore gruntas would be in with a much better shot (not sure what else may fit in on top of that)

[Killax]

48 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

I don't think there is really a way to properly balance a game like AoS (similar to magic the gathering), and its never going to be the case that two armies have an equal chance against each other. What is important is that it doesn't get stale, rather than that it is balanced, so that different armies get a time to shine. At the moment I think we are in a good place where FAQs, regular GHB releases and new battletomes mean the tier 1 armies are constantly shifting, but rarely does a tier 1 army drop below tier 3 (i.e. they are always playable at mid tables in tournament, or at a club) The tier 2 and 3 armies also wax and wane, with some taking their turn in tier 1 sometimes. 

I largely agree, but the prime reason why there is no real option for a real propper balance stems forth out of it's core rules design. What I mean by this is that several phases do not work the same which then causes a certain phase to be a dominant factor. This can be adressed by recosting units but ideally is adressed within a rule. This is also why basic ranged weapons and melee weapons in 40k can cost 0 points. Because they are equally good at the end of the day.
In AoS this is not the case, a model with a Ranged attack also has a Melee attack and the Ranged attack is per definition better as the Melee attack because it has a much farther range and isn't subject to much if any penalties.

So there is an option to have rules stand an equal chance against each other but that option is not applied in Age of Sigmar's core rules. In many ways it's the same as Magic vs Prayers. One is limited and can be unbound, the other is not. Prayers per 'core rule' are always better.

But yeah I think there are two relevant tiers for AoS aswell, there is a third tier and those are the irrelevant competitive armies now. Out of all armies who have a Batteltome only one seems to have gone from Tier  2 to now 3. But this doesn't mean a Tier 3 army can't beat a Tier 1, a lot of AoS gameplay is decided by model placement and timing. This is why great players can also win with unconventional armies.

[KnightFire]

37 minutes ago, Killax said:

I largely agree, but the prime reason why there is no real option for a real propper balance stems forth out of it's core rules design. What I mean by this is that several phases do not work the same which then causes a certain phase to be a dominant factor. This can be adressed by recosting units but ideally is adressed within a rule. This is also why basic ranged weapons and melee weapons in 40k can cost 0 points. Because they are equally good at the end of the day.
In AoS this is not the case, a model with a Ranged attack also has a Melee attack and the Ranged attack is per definition better as the Melee attack because it has a much farther range and isn't subject to much if any penalties.

So there is an option to have rules stand an equal chance against each other but that option is not applied in Age of Sigmar's core rules. In many ways it's the same as Magic vs Prayers. One is limited and can be unbound, the other is not. Prayers per 'core rule' are always better.

But yeah I think there are two relevant tiers for AoS aswell, there is a third tier and those are the irrelevant competitive armies now. Out of all armies who have a Batteltome only one seems to have gone from Tier  2 to now 3. But this doesn't mean a Tier 3 army can't beat a Tier 1, a lot of AoS gameplay is decided by model placement and timing. This is why great players can also win with unconventional armies.

I dont think there is a chance to have the rules balance out - we know from computer games (LoL, starcraft, etc etc) and games like MTG that games with "asymmetrical factions" with a large number of possible interactions are pretty much impossible to balance (sometimes red is strong in MTG, sometimes blue, sometimes Zerg are strong in starcraft, sometimes Terrans). There is still the fundamental balancing factor that all players have access to all armies (which is why compendium is a Bad Thing (tm) for AoS) if they wish to take advantage of that, so as an overall game its balanced because if I feel that clown car is too strong, I can just buy and build a clown car list myself.

Outside of that though, its not possible (other than making all armies have access to the same selection of units with exaclty the same rules but just different abilities) it is not feasible to aim to balance the game, so the correct approach is to aim to prevent the game stagnating (the approach taken in all the games I mention above).

[Killax]

58 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

I dont think there is a chance to have the rules balance out - we know from computer games (LoL, starcraft, etc etc) and games like MTG that games with "asymmetrical factions" with a large number of possible interactions are pretty much impossible to balance (sometimes red is strong in MTG, sometimes blue, sometimes Zerg are strong in starcraft, sometimes Terrans). There is still the fundamental balancing factor that all players have access to all armies (which is why compendium is a Bad Thing (tm) for AoS) if they wish to take advantage of that, so as an overall game its balanced because if I feel that clown car is too strong, I can just buy and build a clown car list myself.

Outside of that though, its not possible (other than making all armies have access to the same selection of units with exaclty the same rules but just different abilities) it is not feasible to aim to balance the game, so the correct approach is to aim to prevent the game stagnating (the approach taken in all the games I mention above).

The most common misconception is that rules for miniaturegames are actually remotely close to system designs for online compute games. Even MtG designers fully know when they have designed something that is well beyond the curve of 'propper cost' yet they do it to promote sets, cards and there is a secondary business in both collectable cardgames and online game content that just isn't there for any of Games Workshop's products. This is a good thing also.

It's completely feasible to improve game balance and the start of it for AoS would be related to the Shooting phase and Battalion low-drop relevancy. Because there are two aspects that are in tournament winning lists consistantly since the inception of the Generals Handbook.

Putting costs on models when core rules are balanced also becomes a much easier process. We see this in 40K also. IF CP wern't generated more by cheap units a ton of expensive units would have a cause to excist.

In Age of Sigmar the same occurs since start. IF the shooting phase wasn't this unrestricted the effect of support characters surviving the first turns would close a massive gap between the tier 1 and tier 2. Additionally the fact that Battalions can create 1 drops/very low drops for some armies and thus start first also only further promotes the use of support hero sniping ranged attacks.

The fact of the matter is that Khorne and Ironjawz are Tier 2 because they A. Have little to no relevant ranged attacks (acces to it but through Allies) and B. Have little to no relevant Battalions that allow for the 1 drop to occur.
By default you are fighting a handicapped battle if you arn't part of the Shooting phase and/or have a really low army unit drop. At this point the fact that this is so relevant isn't subjective anymore because we have over 80 tournament results which spell out this fact for the winner. Playing good is very important but having the best rules at your side means your great plays are even greater rewarded. 

[KnightFire]

16 minutes ago, Killax said:

The most common misconception is that rules for miniaturegames are actually remotely close to system designs for online compute games. Even MtG designers fully know when they have designed something that is well beyond the curve of 'propper cost' yet they do it to promote sets, cards and there is a secondary business in both collectable cardgames and online game content that just isn't there for any of Games Workshop's products. This is a good thing also.

It's completely feasible to improve game balance and the start of it for AoS would be related to the Shooting phase and Battalion low-drop relevancy. Because there are two aspects that are in tournament winning lists consistantly since the inception of the Generals Handbook.

Putting costs on models when core rules are balanced also becomes a much easier process. We see this in 40K also. IF CP wern't generated more by cheap units a ton of expensive units would have a cause to excist.

In Age of Sigmar the same occurs since start. IF the shooting phase wasn't this unrestricted the effect of support characters surviving the first turns would close a massive gap between the tier 1 and tier 2. Additionally the fact that Battalions can create 1 drops/very low drops for some armies and thus start first also only further promotes the use of support hero sniping ranged attacks.

The fact of the matter is that Khorne and Ironjawz are Tier 2 because they A. Have little to no relevant ranged attacks (acces to it but through Allies) and B. Have little to no relevant Battalions that allow for the 1 drop to occur.
By default you are fighting a handicapped battle if you arn't part of the Shooting phase and/or have a really low army unit drop. At this point the fact that this is so relevant isn't subjective anymore because we have over 80 tournament results which spell out this fact for the winner. Playing good is very important but having the best rules at your side means your great plays are even greater rewarded. 

As someone that has designed both miniatures games and computer games, I can tell you they are very very similar at the levels of rules and flow. MTG designers purposfully don't design cards to be equal cost because its bad for gameplay (especially in draft) to have all cards of equal value (and its bad for sales). The same is true for AoS though.

While it would be possible to find lots of ways to improve the balance of AoS - except in extreme cases its not worth doing because your just tinkering around the edges of something that can never be truly fixed (especially given you want to release new things for it). 

The shooting phase, battalion costs etc are all fine, there are plenty lists that win tournaments that aren't 1 drop or shooting heavy (and there have been some very notable khorne and ironjaws lists winning tournaments). The game is in a good place for balance, but that doesn't mean that any two 2000 point lists are equally good (and never will). I have played ironjawz for 18 months now and enjoy them immensely, then can compete pretty well and give me a lot of enjoyment. I don't feel handicapped in games at all (my opponent often feels kneecaped though I think). I would object strenuously to any attempt to give them shooting attacks (which is cowardly and a taktik used by dose wat is not good at smashin and bashin). 

Ultimately you need to accept that the game is never going to be balanced and decide what you want to get out of it:

a) Winning tournanents - you will need a combination of a strong list, strong play and a good knowledge of the meta

b) Having fun, attending tournaments and getting an acceptable result - you need a coherent list but not necessarily tier 1 or 2, you need to know it well and understand how you will play against different lists common in your local metagame, which at this level may include realising you wont win and just having fun

c) Having fun and playing at a club - similar to above, you can take any list you want, depending who is at your club and what they use and the type of games they play will have a big impact on how well your list does. You may be able to take an "incoherent collection of models" list and do well if thats what others at the club also do. You may also play a lot more narrative or open play games at a club, for which you have a lot more freedom in listbuilding.

d) Having fun and playing one or more friends - pretty much anything goes here

I am somewhere between B and C - I mostly play at a club and about half the people at the club attend one or more tournaments each year. People have coherent lists so to win games my lists need to be coherent too. I have had good success with both my Ironjawz and Tzeentch lists at the club, and the tzeentch is far less of a "typical list" than the ironjawz one is. At tournaments I dont expect to win all my games (in fact I don't want to, the games get much more competitive a the top tables and I don't enjoy them as much). I take lists that can do well at mid tables, that are strong enough to hold their own against other similar lists. I find I play against a mix of tier 1 net-lists played by pepople who maybe aren't quite as good as me at the game but have a more cuthroat list, and other lists like mine (and players of equal ability) where the list is build around a theme, is coherent and has some nice tricks, but isnt a tier 1 netlist. I win about half my games at tournaments (which is what I am aiming for) and that isn't the half that aren't against the tier1 lists (i have more success against those becuase I have faced the list before and know what I need to do against it).

 

I think if you are hoping that at some point, AoS will end up in a state where all armies have an exactly (or even nearly) equal chance against each other given two similar players, you are going to die dissapointed, its not going to happen and is not the aim of the AoS designers. Rather than worrying about balance and complaining that other armies win because they shoot, either embrace the shooting phase and pick a shooty army or work out how to beat shooting armies (put lots of large scenery on the board, play the objectives, and chop them up).

[Kugane]

I just really wish that at the very basic need, they would give all factions/armies some form of allegiance abilities or some form of synergy/protection. Even if it came in the form of something people would have to kitbash to put on the table, like a white dwarf release.

I would even prefer 1 book each year with allegiance abilities for every faction that is frequently updated instead of all these lose battletomes we keep getting far apart and often hit or miss. Far too many people (myself included) are waiting for updated rules for their favourite army. I for example really wish that clan Eshin or clan Verminus would finally get some love. Even if it were as simple as getting our Clawpack battalions back from last year. The wait for updated rules is just way too long.

It seems however that that is going to be very unlikely to happen.

[zedatkinszed]

3 hours ago, Kugane said:

I just really wish that at the very basic need, they would give all factions/armies some form of allegiance abilities or some form of synergy/protection. Even if it came in the form of something people would have to kitbash to put on the table, like a white dwarf release.

I would even prefer 1 book each year with allegiance abilities for every faction that is frequently updated instead of all these lose battletomes we keep getting far apart and often hit or miss. Far too many people (myself included) are waiting for updated rules for their favourite army. I for example really wish that clan Eshin or clan Verminus would finally get some love. Even if it were as simple as getting our Clawpack battalions back from last year. The wait for updated rules is just way too long.

It seems however that that is going to be very unlikely to happen.

That's what the GHB is for. And a whole series of armies got allegiance abilities in 2017:

• Darkling Covens
• Wanderers
• Free peoples
• Slaanesh
• Skyre
• Slaves to Darkness
• Soulblight
• Dispossessed
• Nighthaunt
• Brayherd
• Pestilens
• As well as updates to Fyreslayers, Seraphon, Ironjaws & the FECs (the earliest BTs) and to the 4 GA abilities
• That's 19 sets of allegiance updates (including 11 new ones)

Sure that leaves some of the cool stuff out but were talking 11 Order factions (all with very few models and all have alternatives in the form of cities), 9 Chaos (again with few models - the only crazy one is Daemons but TBH the GAC alliance is workable here) and 9 Destruction (in fairness these have the most models and a Grot release is long over due). And considering All of Death is now updated, then by 2020 very few sub-factions (my guess is the 3 unit ones or less) should be left without abilities, or BTs or alternatives. Sure it sucks waiting. It took 2 years to get any kind of Aelf rules and 3 for a release. I feel your pain.

[Kugane]

5 minutes ago, zedatkinszed said:

That's what the GHB is for. And a whole series of armies got allegiance abilities in 2017:

• Darkling Covens
• Wanderers
• Free peoples
• Slaanesh
• Skyre
• Slaves to Darkness
• Soulblight
• Dispossessed
• Nighthaunt
• Brayherd
• Pestilens
• As well as updates to Fyreslayers, Seraphon, Ironjaws & the FECs (the earliest BTs) and to the 4 GA abilities
• That's 19 sets of allegiance updates (including 11 new ones)

Sure that leaves some of the cool stuff out but were talking 11 Order factions (all with very few models and all have alternatives in the form of cities), 9 Chaos (again with few models - the only crazy one is Daemons but TBH the GAC alliance is workable here) and 9 Destruction (in fairness these have the most models and a Grot release is long over due). And considering All of Death is now updated, then by 2020 very few sub-factions (my guess is the 3 unit ones or less) should be left without abilities, or BTs or alternatives. Sure it sucks waiting. It took 2 years to get any kind of Aelf rules and 3 for a release. I feel your pain.

The thing that I am afraid of is that by the time units finally get their release, GW decides to start scrapping old rules again in a similar fashion as they did with the clawpacks for Skaven. Things keep dissapearing, and often I feel that happens to push sales on other stuff. Things such as named characters that vanished could easily have been renamed or something to keep the rulesets active for players to toy around with.

[zedatkinszed]

2 hours ago, Kugane said:

The thing that I am afraid of is that by the time units finally get their release, GW decides to start scrapping old rules again in a similar fashion as they did with the clawpacks for Skaven. Things keep dissapearing, and often I feel that happens to push sales on other stuff. Things such as named characters that vanished could easily have been renamed or something to keep the rulesets active for players to toy around with.

That's a fair point. I think a lot of things without match-play pts from 2015 and 2016 will evaporate. That's what seems to have happened to the Spire of Dawn  IMHO GW should never have put battalions that couldn't be used in matched play out there. I don't think this was the issue with clawpacks though - I never got the decision to remove them personally unless there's some skaven mischief update coming in the medium term.

[Black_Fortress_Immortal]

2 hours ago, Kugane said:

The thing that I am afraid of is that by the time units finally get their release, GW decides to start scrapping old rules again in a similar fashion as they did with the clawpacks for Skaven. Things keep dissapearing, and often I feel that happens to push sales on other stuff. Things such as named characters that vanished could easily have been renamed or something to keep the rulesets active for players to toy around with.

Skryre, Pestilens, Masterclan still exist.  Eshin, Moulder, and Verminus have fallen to the wayside though.

[Kugane]

2 minutes ago, Black_Fortress_Immortal said:

Skryre, Pestilens, Masterclan still exist.  Eshin, Moulder, and Verminus have fallen to the wayside though.

I think the playstyles are very different though. I hope the other 3 get updated soon. Even if we got something like Skreet's Verminhorde battalion back, it would be really fun for Skaven in my opinion :).

[Envyus]

Skaven should just get a battletome in the vein of Death. 

Verminus units should also be useable by all clans as all of them have clan rats and Stormvermin. Verminus clans should be able to use any of the other clans units as Mercenaries like they normally did.

[Killax]

In general I think that some lines are still unclear for GW too on how to resolve them and or keep them in Age of Sigmar. That sounds a bit vague and scary to some but in reality the only way to secure most of WFB's line will transport over to AoS is by getting into AoS and contributing to it's sales. As even less popular factions can be carried by the game as long as the game itself is popular enough.

In terms of competitive approaches, yeah every Allegiance ideally has it's own abilities and such. However as mentioned last year also I am very happy to see that not all sub-sub-factions are fleshed out as a whole Allegiance on their own. While Battletome Legion of Nagash fixes their issues from a gaming standpoint I personally wouldn't have taken that approach. Which is to be able to add Keywords on top of the whole army to make it function. The prime reason why I'm not so sold on that is because it now restricts Death to explicitly use that book, for better and worse.

We will see how the game evolves, but in general we are in a good state for quite a lot of armies. But I would say it's true that in order to really make a competitive presence you ideally have a Battletome. As most armies who have have also made a great competitive presence.

On 2-2-2018 at 1:22 PM, KnightFire said:

I think if you are hoping that at some point, AoS will end up in a state where all armies have an exactly (or even nearly) equal chance against each other given two similar players, you are going to die dissapointed, its not going to happen and is not the aim of the AoS designers. Rather than worrying about balance and complaining that other armies win because they shoot, either embrace the shooting phase and pick a shooty army or work out how to beat shooting armies (put lots of large scenery on the board, play the objectives, and chop them up).

Thing is, (stated by the design team themselves) is that Generals Handbook is created with points so that several armies have an equal chance against each other at least on a cost basis. When I incorporate my own experience into this I'd certainly say that most of the costs presented here arn't off by much. As a result (and also seen in the errata's) the most changes that have been applied are those to 1. The Core rules, 2. Battalions and 3. very specific unit Warscrolls. 
Objectively speaking, this is also where the issues of Age of Sigmar continue to be. With the latest FAQ being the same example again, now largely focused on Battalions and their wording not interacting with the Core rules as intended.

Lastly the topic itself is about Age of Sigmar's balance so if there is a discussion about the core rules leading to imbalance it should certainly be able to be discussed here. Putting large scenery on the board is not a hotfix for any rules, playing with or without objectives is again something that has to be decided between two players.

The fact of the matter is that while Age of Sigmar's rules are certainly improving it's also done through 40+ pages of Errata which ideally will lead to a new edition of the game in a single book format instead of spreading them all out.
Same applies to the Battletome's some still wish to have. What it does is logically combine all Warscrolls and Battalions without having them spread out everywhere. So far the 'good' Battletomes have also followed this path and it's for the better state of the game overall. The better the state, the earlier marketing will give the greenlight for more reboxing, Battletomes and Generals Handbook.

A well balanced game is certainly in the interest of GW and not so much for WotC or other computer games. The prime reason this is in the interest for GW is because of cross army sales. If one army remains the best there is no reason to start and collect something else. If all armies are equally good several players will pick up several armies because there is no difference in power level. The latter is also why 40K is selling really well now as between Imperium, Chaos and Xenos there is close to no power difference. The aspects in which the competitive lists are made can be seen as problematic but the sole cause for this is CP generation.
Even within Chaos for AoS there is only one Allegiance that GW has simply said not created well, Tzeentch, subject of the most Errata and likely more to come because obtaining the outcome of 9 dice is simply said not a smart move. The issue that comes forth out of it is that parts of their lines are way too expensive for Matched play. GW did not make that mistake twice with 40K Tzeentch where the Tzaangors are very functional and just an aspect of a great balanced army.

[Kugane]

@Killax I think in case of 40k they also made a mistake by allowing people to do stuff such as spamming commanders for Tau, or Stormravens for Imperial. Especially the tournament scene is also a spam-list environment similar to what we see in AOS right now.

If you look at the rules of Lord of the Rings (at least 12 years ago when I played it), there was a rule along the lines of that only 1/3rd of your army can be a unit that can shoot for example. I'm not sure if that was models or points-wise, but regardless, it allowed people to take some shooting units, but also forced them to play the melee game as well.

I think lots of armies, even Death before this new battletome, on paper are very fun and competive armies, but simply stand no chance to players who either spam stuff like skyfires or behemoths. While the game does restrict us from spamming as much as in 40k in the sense we are only allowed a certain ammount of heroes, behemoths and such in a list, I think Age of Sigmar would benefit from something along the lines of a monthly/bi-monthly banlist, where instead of changing core rules of a unit, they make a list of units we are only allowed a certain number of models of. I think by limiting the player of taking certain overpowered units in lesser numbers it may balance the game much easier and also create less of an outrage when a cool model gets heavily overpriced when a new GHB rolls out, rendering it useless.

[Killax]

46 minutes ago, Kugane said:

@Killax I think in case of 40k they also made a mistake by allowing people to do stuff such as spamming commanders for Tau, or Stormravens for Imperial. Especially the tournament scene is also a spam-list environment similar to what we see in AOS right now.

If you look at the rules of Lord of the Rings (at least 12 years ago when I played it), there was a rule along the lines of that only 1/3rd of your army can be a unit that can shoot for example. I'm not sure if that was models or points-wise, but regardless, it allowed people to take some shooting units, but also forced them to play the melee game as well.

I think lots of armies, even Death before this new battletome, on paper are very fun and competive armies, but simply stand no chance to players who either spam stuff like skyfires or behemoths. While the game does restrict us from spamming as much as in 40k in the sense we are only allowed a certain ammount of heroes, behemoths and such in a list, I think Age of Sigmar would benefit from something along the lines of a monthly/bi-monthly banlist, where instead of changing core rules of a unit, they make a list of units we are only allowed a certain number of models of. I think by limiting the player of taking certain overpowered units in lesser numbers it may balance the game much easier and also create less of an outrage when a cool model gets heavily overpriced when a new GHB rolls out, rendering it useless.

Yeah I really see the prime issue in 40K comming from CP generation and the character rule. Because like you said, you can spam cheap commanders and then have more CP. As if that wasn't enough these characters still benifit from one of the most oddly designed rules ever. "A measurement is made to decide a green light" which visually means oddities occur all the time. We have a 'feeling' that models can "hop 3 inch" at will so why not incorporate that as the basis of a character rule? For me that part in particular causes Smite issues... 

Banlists are certainly an option for Age of Sigmar but I truely believe there are just a few issues with Age of Sigmar and most of them continue to be found in the unrestricted Shooting phase and Battalions. The way I see the strongest units being problematic in AoS more often comes because of Core Rules not restricting them in any way. Applies to both unit Warscrolls and Battalion Warscrolls really...
To highlight what I'm on about, in 40K I can play a full melee army, no questions asked. While in Age of Sigmar doing as such means you are at best a Tier 2 army unless you can teleport or deep strike, something quite some armies still can't do.

But I also see GW design acknowledging these otherwise problematic aspects.
E.g. Nurgle recieved Blight Trees which they can use for LoS blocking purposes and recieved Guttrot Spume who can appear at the end of the Movement phase on a table edge.
E.g. Legions of Nagash recieved Gravesites which they can use for summonning purposes which allow them to quickly adress models with ranged attacks.
E.g. Blood Moon scenario in Malign Portents buffs Melee combat and Bravery, allows you to just be 15" away from your opponents also. This again leads to non-shooting armies quickly being able to 'catch up'.

Realistically speaking again, I'm not suprised to see Order armies win events continiously or a Tzeentch army slip through that same process. Sometimes you can hide Heroes behind terrain, block LoS and all of that. What you however can always do is shoot. The fact that the Shooting phase also occurs before movement is also absolutely not helping, let alone that you can do it in melee combat, outside of melee combat and more often find that Warscrolls who stand still become even better at shooting  

In any case. I think Age of Sigmar is a ton of fun to play but the most exciting games are actually between armies who do not contribute much into Shooting because suddenly model movement and placement becomes a tactical factor.

[Kugane]

5 minutes ago, Killax said:

Yeah I really see the prime issue in 40K comming from CP generation and the character rule. Because like you said, you can spam cheap commanders and then have more CP. As if that wasn't enough these characters still benifit from one of the most oddly designed rules ever. "A measurement is made to decide a green light" which visually means oddities occur all the time. We have a 'feeling' that models can "hop 3 inch" at will so why not incorporate that as the basis of a character rule? For me that part in particular causes Smite issues... 

Banlists are certainly an option for Age of Sigmar but I truely believe there are just a few issues with Age of Sigmar and most of them continue to be found in the unrestricted Shooting phase and Battalions. The way I see the strongest units being problematic in AoS more often comes because of Core Rules not restricting them in any way. Applies to both unit Warscrolls and Battalion Warscrolls really...
To highlight what I'm on about, in 40K I can play a full melee army, no questions asked. While in Age of Sigmar doing as such means you are at best a Tier 2 army unless you can teleport or deep strike, something quite some armies still can't do.

But I also see GW design acknowledging these otherwise problematic aspects.
E.g. Nurgle recieved Blight Trees which they can use for LoS blocking purposes and recieved Guttrot Spume who can appear at the end of the Movement phase on a table edge.
E.g. Legions of Nagash recieved Gravesites which they can use for summonning purposes which allow them to quickly adress models with ranged attacks.
E.g. Blood Moon scenario in Malign Portents buffs Melee combat and Bravery, allows you to just be 15" away from your opponents also. This again leads to non-shooting armies quickly being able to 'catch up'.

Realistically speaking again, I'm not suprised to see Order armies win events continiously or a Tzeentch army slip through that same process. Sometimes you can hide Heroes behind terrain, block LoS and all of that. What you however can always do is shoot. The fact that the Shooting phase also occurs before movement is also absolutely not helping, let alone that you can do it in melee combat, outside of melee combat and more often find that Warscrolls who stand still become even better at shooting  

In any case. I think Age of Sigmar is a ton of fun to play but the most exciting games are actually between armies who do not contribute much into Shooting because suddenly model movement and placement becomes a tactical factor.

You are right. I think if they fix the shooting they fix most issues though. Ah well, lets just hope they keep pushing out battletomes ASAP!

[Killax]

Just now, Kugane said:

You are right. I think if they fix the shooting they fix most issues though. Ah well, lets just hope they keep pushing out battletomes ASAP!

Yeah and I'm not even completely opposed to shooting in combat if GW can't think of a propper replacement. However as before I highly doubt that it will occur in GH2018 but do think that the team will consider it for an likely 2020 Age of Sigmar second edition. Because at the end of the day shooting is totally a nice aspect to have for a game but it just feels very odd that 40K of all places is better in the Magic aspect as Age of Sigmar is and Age of Sigmar of all places has way more lethal shooting going on (in the sence that you can and will remove key targets at your bidding).

Even a simple change to how the game progresses it's phases is a better step in the right direction:

This way you can actually move into cover, have the Hero/Psychic phase to boost where you want to boost, Shoot at legal targets, Charge and have a small benifit and basically keep what's allready great and tactical about Age of Sigmar.

Cheers,