How balanced is AoS now?

[Vextol]

2 hours ago, KnightFire said:

Ironjawz got some buffs in GHB17 with points changes to gore gruntas and the cabbage, so they definitely do look at weaker armies if they are popular. Unfortunately for IJ the changes to battalion costs and changes to rampaging destroyers meant they ended up pretty much where they were before, but the thought was there, and there definitely is precedent for reducing points where required.

Again...in theory I agree except the truth is, rampaging destroyers was good, battlebrew was good, and iron jawz are overwhelmingly underwhelming.  Gore gruntas BLEW.  And...they still do. Even at a reduced cost.  I had a huge iron jawz force with a lot of gore gruntas. I saw the points change and said "that's nice.". I saw the GH nerf and said "Well...that's it for them.". They nerfed an army that wasn't killing, wasn't wrecking and wasn't winning anything. Now?  You barely hear about them.

I think GH 2018 will tell a lot about the future of Sigmar.  If they take any of this seriously at all, several things that went up in points or didn't go anywhere in points need to go down. If they don't, I think it's all just a big show.

[Tasman]

I play pretty much all of the different Chaos alliances. Most everyone will agree that tactics differ depending upon what faction I bring as well as what I'm facing. That's not all though. 

An experienced general will usually make a good showing no matter what he's facing, win, lose or draw.

The scenario, terrain features and luck of the dice also factor in. We've all had those days where we couldn't BUY a good roll.

Double turns, etc. All of the different random events tend to balance [or in some cases} weigh the game to one side or the other.

A decent player will adapt to these variables, and, while not winning every game, should at least have a fun time, avoiding being tabled early in the match.

Competitive play is the big draw where I live. Matched and especially open play game are scarce if not nonexistent. As long as people look for the most competitive builds, there will be balance issues and a lot of players who walk away from what should have been, to them, a casual game thinking "Wtf just happened here?".

That's not conducive to a friendly gaming atmosphere and it is generally discouraged at our local gaming emporium.

That's just my take on it.

[Carnivore]

I really like @Vextol 's point here.

He is indeed right, that balance is indeed due to the point value! Why would GW calculate each single point value of each single unit, weapon & etc. for Warhammer 40k then?
Because it changes the statistics, sometimes drastically, and with that it changes the whole mathematical calculations.


Me, personally, wondering why GW decided to use several "premade"  point avlues ( it seems so to me ) for each unit in AoS.

Did you notice the differences, in wich range point cost are made?

Units:
60 points
70 points
100 points
220 points

( thats basically most of it, from what i see )

Heroes:

60 points
80 points
100 points
200 points
460 points

( average )

So what'sy my point now? I really do not understand, why there is no way to have point values, that are within between any of these point costs.
In 40k it is, also dependend on the equipment, that is given!

I must say, and I am sorry for that now, that I really dislike the way, that GW makes it easy for them, to throw any "randomised" point values to the players. The only thing is like "what points do we have...well...what unit could fit into this".
Simply bollocks, if you ask me.
I would like to bring an example, that is in my mind, that could maybe show, how strange the calculations sometimes are.

Blood Warriors BOK vs Saurus Guard Seraphon

As I remember, bot units sost the same per 100 models, but the saurus gard ignores any rend, when it is not 2 or more. They get a +1 save and +2 for bravery, when within any Seraphon hero. They can be summoned and they modify the enemie's bravery with the icon bearer.
Basic stats are like: 10 bravery, 1 wound, rend 1 weapons, hitting and wounding 3+/3+.
What about Blood Warriors: they can pile in and attack on a 3+/4+ with no rend ( beside 1 guy with the goreglaive ) when they got killed. And a gorefist can inflict a m.wound, when a save was made successfully, and then on a 6. Bravery is 8, btw ( including banner ).

My personal conclusion ( I play BoK, btw since the very beginning of AoS ) is, that I won't never ever play against these guys. The saurus guard is battleline ( was elite ), and the Blood Warriors are too ( was elite at the very beginnings, too )
Where is the balance with this? Why is the point value of such a massively buffed unit, like the saurus guard, the same like the Blood Warriors?
The answer is: cuz' it is Order. That's it.
I could go further with more and more comparisons, bt that shall be enough.

IMO there should be a point cost for the unit, and then for the equipment, Or different point costs for one and the same unit, including the different equipment.

Otherwise I do indeed see a lot of non-balance in AoS.
Beside that, I like the game really, but I don't see how to win with certain armies / factions.

[Mayple]

33 minutes ago, Ba5terD said:

I really like @Vextol 's point here.

He is indeed right, that balance is indeed due to the point value! Why would GW calculate each single point value of each single unit, weapon & etc. for Warhammer 40k then?
Because it changes the statistics, sometimes drastically, and with that it changes the whole mathematical calculations.


Me, personally, wondering why GW decided to use several "premade"  point avlues ( it seems so to me ) for each unit in AoS.

Did you notice the differences, in wich range point cost are made?

Units:
60 points
70 points
100 points
220 points

( thats basically most of it, from what i see )

Heroes:

60 points
80 points
100 points
200 points
460 points

( average )

So what'sy my point now? I really do not understand, why there is no way to have point values, that are within between any of these point costs.
In 40k it is, also dependend on the equipment, that is given!

I must say, and I am sorry for that now, that I really dislike the way, that GW makes it easy for them, to throw any "randomised" point values to the players. The only thing is like "what points do we have...well...what unit could fit into this".
Simply bollocks, if you ask me.
I would like to bring an example, that is in my mind, that could maybe show, how strange the calculations sometimes are.

Blood Warriors BOK vs Saurus Guard Seraphon

As I remember, bot units sost the same per 100 models, but the saurus gard ignores any rend, when it is not 2 or more. They get a +1 save and +2 for bravery, when within any Seraphon hero. They can be summoned and they modify the enemie's bravery with the icon bearer.
Basic stats are like: 10 bravery, 1 wound, rend 1 weapons, hitting and wounding 3+/3+.
What about Blood Warriors: they can pile in and attack on a 3+/4+ with no rend ( beside 1 guy with the goreglaive ) when they got killed. And a gorefist can inflict a m.wound, when a save was made successfully, and then on a 6. Bravery is 8, btw ( including banner ).

My personal conclusion ( I play BoK, btw since the very beginning of AoS ) is, that I won't never ever play against these guys. The saurus guard is battleline ( was elite ), and the Blood Warriors are too ( was elite at the very beginnings, too )
Where is the balance with this? Why is the point value of such a massively buffed unit, like the saurus guard, the same like the Blood Warriors?
The answer is: cuz' it is Order. That's it.
I could go further with more and more comparisons, bt that shall be enough.

IMO there should be a point cost for the unit, and then for the equipment, Or different point costs for one and the same unit, including the different equipment.

Otherwise I do indeed see a lot of non-balance in AoS.
Beside that, I like the game really, but I don't see how to win with certain armies / factions.

Are you suggesting that Saurus Guard is better than blood warriors? Because that's just not true. Blood warriors have double their wounds, move faster, have access to all the Khorne buffs that makes them even more killy, and even if they die in close combat, they still get to do -something-, meanwhile a unit of unbuffed Saurus Guard dies to a unit of unbuffed clanrats. 

If you were suggesting the reverse, then I agree, but that's also the wrong way to go about it. No unit exists on it's own. Age of Sigmar is all about synergy, so your comparison should really be Seraphon/Khorne, and not two units that serve two different purposes. 

 

Your point calculation is also off. Heroes tend to hit every point mark, going by 20s. So 80-100-120-140 etc. 

Units tend to follow this as well, but with more wild variations

[hughwyeth]

1 hour ago, Ba5terD said:

I really like @Vextol 's point here.

He is indeed right, that balance is indeed due to the point value! Why would GW calculate each single point value of each single unit, weapon & etc. for Warhammer 40k then?
Because it changes the statistics, sometimes drastically, and with that it changes the whole mathematical calculations.
 

I see this point a lot and I think it's completely wrong. Here's why- the points values are a "best guess" at how a unit will perform in a game where they will have millions of different interactions. It is not possible to give an accurate cost to a unit that will have near limitless varieties of interactions.

40k having points cost for weapons is just another way for people to game the system because they'll figure out one weapon at 4pts is actually more powerful than one at 5pts and just equip that. It doesn't actually make the model's cost more representative in any way. I imagine that the margin of error in 40k, for a most cost-effective unit and loadout vs the least cost effective is huge (as in the point values from best value to worst value). AoS helps this a lot because it removes that extra granularity from costing. You just need costs for a unit, equipped with usually either a single choice or one of two choices or weapons. They can then cost them to the nearest 10 points and on average will be about right. 

Ultimately, if you think GW can't point cost, I don't know why you'd urge them to increase the complexity level of costing instead of simplifying it. But I don't think it's that- it's that miniature wargames are by their nature unbalanced. It's just not possible to have perfect balance. And because of their nature, this doesn't even matter. Any perceived inbalance between one force and another is rendered irrelevant in each scenario or game and any imbalance is completely dwarfed by the rock-paper-scissors nature of any wargame. 

That's not to say that if GW get points costing way off they shouldn't fix it. They should! But it would be a terrible idea to start costing equipment and weapons like they do in AoS. 

[Carnivore]

Good points there, also true. But I was happy to be able to "rant" a little bit, and got these points now right Thanks for your replies!
It just was something, that I struggeled with, and also other players, and needed to get it off my chest.

[Mayple]

5 hours ago, Ba5terD said:

Good points there, also true. But I was happy to be able to "rant" a little bit, and got these points now right Thanks for your replies!
It just was something, that I struggeled with, and also other players, and needed to get it off my chest.

No worries ranting is healthy for body and soul

[ledha]

If we except the most insane list (changehost, clown car, the whole fyreslayer range, vanguard wing) and the weakest (lol ironjaws) i find the game pretty well balanced. 70% of the armies at least can do a good showing and build nice lists, and are quite balanced between them

[Vextol]

On 3/5/2018 at 11:28 AM, hughwyeth said:

I see this point a lot and I think it's completely wrong. Here's why- the points values are a "best guess" at how a unit will perform in a game where they will have millions of different interactions. It is not possible to give an accurate cost to a unit that will have near limitless varieties of interactions.

40k having points cost for weapons is just another way for people to game the system because they'll figure out one weapon at 4pts is actually more powerful than one at 5pts and just equip that. It doesn't actually make the model's cost more representative in any way. I imagine that the margin of error in 40k, for a most cost-effective unit and loadout vs the least cost effective is huge (as in the point values from best value to worst value). AoS helps this a lot because it removes that extra granularity from costing. You just need costs for a unit, equipped with usually either a single choice or one of two choices or weapons. They can then cost them to the nearest 10 points and on average will be about right.

Actually, for at least a decade they did that.  It wasn't that complicated really and it allowed for things like artifacts to be 'unbalanced'. 

Balancing artifacts is definitely an issue.  You either end up with really really obviously better artifacts (now) or you end up with really boring generic artifacts (all the ones that aren't obviously better now).  Point costs would help that a lot.  Battle brew WAS unbalanced but only compared to the other artifacts.  It's a fine artifact...at 200 points (just a number, no implied true value).  +1 attack to a non mounted hero in the combat phase?  Well...that's kind of bad most of the time.  Once per game do a mortal wound to every enemy unit within 3 inches on a roll of a 6?  That's major poop.  10 points?  Well, when I ALWAYS have 1980 in my armies, what the heck!  I'll throw it on.

I don't think every option should be pointed.  I am a MAJOR opponent to the "overly complicated" voices out there.  We're one step from war most of the time, but I don't think pointing unit heroes and standard bearers and great swords vs hand crossbows is going to fix the huge balance issues. 

On 3/5/2018 at 11:28 AM, hughwyeth said:

Ultimately, if you think GW can't point cost, I don't know why you'd urge them to increase the complexity level of costing instead of simplifying it. But I don't think it's that- it's that miniature wargames are by their nature unbalanced. It's just not possible to have perfect balance. And because of their nature, this doesn't even matter. Any perceived inbalance between one force and another is rendered irrelevant in each scenario or game and any imbalance is completely dwarfed by the rock-paper-scissors nature of any wargame.

Aside from warscroll changes, FAQs, new books or complete game overhaul,  points are the only way to balance armies.   Game overhaul is akin to crucifixion (at least on this forum) so I'm not even going to say that's a viable option.  And personally, I hate FAQs and warscroll changes because they invalidate the books. 

I LOVE official books and think that GW is missing a huge opportunity to sell books more often.  I, and a lot of people I know, would buy a new army book every single year.   I know books are difficult to make so it's a big deal to release one BUT if they abandoned the lore, the how to paint, all the pictures and all the fluff, they could trim the books down to only a few pages and release one every year.  Then, every few years, they could release another big book to satisfy the people who get something out of the fluff.

I went tangent there...anyway, barring hated FAQS, warscroll updates, that THING THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED,  or a complete restructuring of book releases what are we left with?  Points.  The game is so totally out of whack that I'd be happy to even get point balance across a faction.  As it stands, units within the same specific allegiance are wildly unbalanced in relation to units in the same allegiance.  That's....sad.

So while I agree that GW can't get points perfect, it is the best thing to evaluate and manipulate to try to find some semblance of balance.

[Carnivore]

Clearly every wargame out there is kind of unbalanced. But the major difference I see between the different games is simply, how MUCH they are unbalanced.
A company like GW ( so is my point ) should have enough experience to figure out the point cost, in realation to other aspects, mechanics, possible buffs etc. .

Let's take Blades of Khorne as an example here. This army is really based on synergies. So what does it mean? Players would need several key elements, to stay competetive. If these elements ( mostly heroes ) cost oo much, the respectively playable part of the army is reduced due to a minimum, simply because of the limitations given within the mechanics themself.
Me myself, I play BoK a long time now, since AoS started. The army went from "ok" to "pretty good" to "partially redundant" for me.
The things, that where changed where artifacts, and POINT VALUES.
There we go, we got the bad points out here again. But it is really it. The only thing to balance is not to regulate the warscrolls only. The point cost has to be justified for that, too.

Kurnoth Hunters used to be the most cost efficient unit choice within order, when did not cost 220 points. Skullreapers have also been a solid choice for 140 points, but with 180 now this changed a lot.
If we all are honest, we all know, that at some point, the point values are far away from justified.

From the tournaments, that I participate / organise here, I see players complaining ( since GH17 significantly more ), that some armies should not be played anymore. Other armiesd therefore are very competetive now.
Biggest things people told me there ( quotes ):

"Why would I every even concider to play Blades of Khorne under 2000 points?"
"Why are the Kharadron so bad? Their units are just too expensive, and the synergy doesn't really change it."
"I will never bring my goblin army again."
"Well, i didn't know my Stormcast list ( pretty simple list with 2 units of Retributors, no stardrace ) was so evil. I really didn't wanto to humiliate my enemy that much."
"I guess I am gonna sell my High Elve Army now."

I know my points might not be concidered to be relevant by most people. But trust me, it really depends on what army you play. Some are just not really competetive atm, Blades of Khorne included IMO.

And if we come to buffs again, that they justify the point cost. No. Just No. A unit, that can buff other units, justifies their point cost maybe. But the units, that have to be buffed, are often not justified by any means.


 

[Killax]

Absolutely agree with the last two/three statements. One thing I think Generals Handbook does well is reconsider costs for all units and for the most part the costs are there. In terms of the evolution of Khorne though I think I'd say that in the last (close to) three years all that really occured for the Khorne fans is that the army got weaker overall.

GH2016
Honestly speaking when we look at the past I'd say that initially Khorne and Chaos where top dogs due to Bloodsecrator's stacking and Sayl being able to fly over Bloodletters also. Mono Khorne was an okay option too but since we didn't have a true Allegiance ability for a while it was far from mandatory in the competitive scene. What kept us going even against the hardiest of shooting lists was the two to three Bloodsecrators that if anything could even make the last 5 models of a unit preform scary.

GH2017
Currently we work with a few great units, one of which can indeed be seen as somewhat undercosted even, being Bloodletters. However in the grand scope of things, just having one unit like that be somewhat undercosted isn't a real issue. We basically got an irrelevant shift in some named character costs and Keyword (Mortal and Daemon) oddities remained exclusive to Khorne.

However the biggest impact we still work with and the thing that hasn't changed for the better is both Bloodsecrator and the Blood Tithe table. What I hope is that Games Workshop's design team will reconsider how the Blood Tithe table works. Basically have it occur at the beginning of the Hero phase OR at the end of the Hero phase would allready be a great boost. While initially I could have seen where the change came from the 'cap' on the Bloodsecrator doesn't make this Allegiance all to wild anyway. Those Blood Tithe points still arn't something we start with.

I honeslty believe that a lot of players step into an Faction/Allegiance when they like abilities obtained. By other chaos god comparison Khorne's is the worst. Equal to non-god Allegiances such as Grand Allegiance Chaos or Slaves to Darkness. Luckily we have a lot of units who make up for this weakness!

GH2018
My wishes for Blades of Khorne specifically would be to:
- Reconsider Bloodcrusher cost, they have no business being 160 points. Some might wonder what a correct cost would be but if Games Workshop wants to make them an interesting unit choice within Khorne and Chaos I'd say 120 points would not be too low. I do know some assume they are roughly akin to Skullcrushers but they really arn't  
- Reconsider Bloodletter cost, I am totally cool with then being 270 points but in reality they where good at 300 points with GH2016 and it really set a more clear standard. If things need to be balanced well it shouldn't be such an obvious 'best/easy' thake within Khorne.
- Reconsider Skullreaper cost, they can be justified at 180 points. However we also see Blightkings drop to 160 so in my opinion this is where their correct cost should be at.
- Perhaps re-Errata the Blood Tithe ability. 

Other than the things I think we can expect in terms of cost changes I hope AoS will consider the following as bigger overlapping rules changes:

• A more restricted shooting phase. With this I mean that smaller heroes can be protected from incomming fire. Long suggestion short, I'd lik it if heroes that have less than 10 wounds could 'pawn' shooting phase attacks to units 3" nearby on a 3+  roll. This still can lead to Hero sniping, just far from being that easy.
• Redesign how Battalions work. I prefer the Stratagem like 40K system over it. This really doesn't make the game harder.

 

[hughwyeth]

3 hours ago, Ba5terD said:

Clearly every wargame out there is kind of unbalanced. But the major difference I see between the different games is simply, how MUCH they are unbalanced.
A company like GW ( so is my point ) should have enough experience to figure out the point cost, in realation to other aspects, mechanics, possible buffs etc. .

......

"Why would I every even concider to play Blades of Khorne under 2000 points?"
"Why are the Kharadron so bad? Their units are just too expensive, and the synergy doesn't really change it."
"I will never bring my goblin army again."
"Well, i didn't know my Stormcast list ( pretty simple list with 2 units of Retributors, no stardrace ) was so evil. I really didn't wanto to humiliate my enemy that much."
"I guess I am gonna sell my High Elve Army now."

I think there's a couple of things here- first GW have only just decided they'll help with competitive play. In both 40k and AoS, the emphasis is on casual open/narrative play.  Before 8th ed 40k, they didn't bother helping with tournaments. Before GH, they were as clear as they could possibly be that AoS isn't about perfectly balanced forces. Even after GH, I think they still don't consider AoS to be a primarily competitive game. 

 GW are producing casual games that a lot of players want to be a serious game. GW are a lot more about the hobby than the game (there's much more money in miniatures, paints and accessories than a single £15 book updated once a year!). So it's true GW should be better at points, but they likely don't care. And it's possible that the majority of their player base don't care. I mean what's the proportion of AoS players who enter tournaments?

On the "why would I play x force ever again", in my opinion, that's the terrible attitude that we're better off without. I don't get players who only care about winning. They spend hundreds of pounds for models they don't care about, quickly put together with basic paint jobs, just to win a 2 hour game. There's so many games that don't need that cost or time investment that you could win if that's all you care about. Most of which offer more tactical depth than AoS. 

[Carnivore]

I partially agree in overall with you, @hughwyeth.

The only difference I see is, if GW would not be too much interested n tourmanents, and competetive play, why do they officially support big tournamnts then? I see them being present on tournaments often. But yeah, maybe they "just" wanna sell their product, and because it is realated to the tournament itself, they show up there.

But for me, you absloutely got the point:

43 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

 

43 minutes ago, hughwyeth said:

I don't get players who only care about winning. They spend hundreds of pounds for models they don't care about, quickly put together with basic paint jobs, just to win a 2 hour game. There's so many games that don't need that cost or time investment that you could win if that's all you care about. Most of which offer more tactical depth than AoS. 

That's exactly the thing. People investa ton of money to the hobby, just to see, that GW might not care? They are just into the hobby itself? Why then would they release rule books, insted of generelly say "We make the miniatures, you make your rules 100% yourself." But that's what they don't do, by giveing us the GH.
In the GH are rules that should clarify the different games, that shall be played with the AoS miniatures. And therefore they give generell rulessets, battletomes and more support.
And that's basically a good thing.
What's the other side of the coin is, that ( for example me & maybe Killax too ) just could sit there and watch, how your beloved army became the the rim of being redundant.
Khorne is "promoted" as the god of hate, brutality and raw blood lust.
And what did it become is an army of glass canons, that can not withstand an enamy in their "blood lust", when that one Blood Secrator got sniped. Demons charging in, dealing damage, just to get destroyed after that.
"Khorne doesn't care whom's blood is shed on the battlefield." True, but it's mostly his own!

I just see, that factions, that gain the love of GW ( Stormcasts, Sisters of Khain now, the new elves possibly ) get more and better abilities, and better point cost. I guess that's maybe the issue.
From a marketing perspective it makes sense, that the "new" factions get strong, point worthy and good. Because they shall be bought. And that's where I would generelly criticise the lack of having justified point cost in generell.

Maybe people don't agree with me, but that's totally ok!

Yeah I know, that old GW management was eben worse, but is the new now that much better? In terms of community presens, and customer support, yes! But within their decisions of the game itself, sometimes I doubt it a little bit.

 

[hughwyeth]

2 hours ago, Ba5terD said:

Maybe people don't agree with me, but that's totally ok!

Yeah I know, that old GW management was eben worse, but is the new now that much better? In terms of community presens, and customer support, yes! But within their decisions of the game itself, sometimes I doubt it a little bit.

I agree with you- this isn't black and white. Power creep is always going to be an issue I guess. RE competitive play- I think GW are now interested because it's a potentially lucrative source of income, but historically they've always emphasised the game shouldn't be seen as a balanced competitive game. And i personally think that while GH matched play scenarios provide some great gaming moments, the most fun I've had is open war cards in a more relaxed (but point matched) game. 

[Carnivore]

These cards are pretty fun, I have had some funny games with it too, But the bad taste stays for me, to know, I can basically not win with my army anymore. And I can not, trust me. So can't others.

Why are here tournaments then? Seems pretty clear to me, that tournaments are not intended to happen in AoS.

[Mayple]

18 hours ago, Ba5terD said:

These cards are pretty fun, I have had some funny games with it too, But the bad taste stays for me, to know, I can basically not win with my army anymore. And I can not, trust me. So can't others.

Why are here tournaments then? Seems pretty clear to me, that tournaments are not intended to happen in AoS.

There was a Dispossessed player that broke into top 10 recently. There is no such thing as an army being unable to win, only players. Blaming the tools, and all that

[hughwyeth]

4 minutes ago, Mayple said:

There was a Dispossessed player that broke into top 10 recently. There is no such thing as an army being unable to win, only players. Blaming the tools, and all that

Yeah it seems to me the best players could field any force and get top 10. It seems to be top 3 you have to be a very good player and have a favourable-in-the-meta force. Which makes me think that the difference between forces isn't that great for us mortals if you know how to build an all-comers list. 

[Killax]

1 hour ago, hughwyeth said:

Yeah it seems to me the best players could field any force and get top 10. It seems to be top 3 you have to be a very good player and have a favourable-in-the-meta force. Which makes me think that the difference between forces isn't that great for us mortals if you know how to build an all-comers list. 

This is completely true. Plus another thing I think is very important to highlight is that if you play a particular army there are basically three roads to succes that have been there since AoS' inception:
1. Strong shooting, thus leading to easy removal of (support) Heroes.* 
2. High mortal wound output.*
3. Attrition and large attack numbers (for model count).
* Long ranged Magic offense also counts towards 1 and 2. Accesable for anyone who wants to thake a Vortex basically.

What I see is that the moment you are capable to do one of these 3 you are 'competitive' and the moment your list is able to do two out of these 3 you are 'top competitive'. I also ordered them in this way because usually 1 still outbeats 2 and 2 still outbeats 3. So just relying on high mortal wound output, like Khorne does, makes you competitive but not super top competitive. Likewise the reason why Fyreslayers can make a great appearance on the scene with a very mono dimensional list is because they have a unit that fufills point 1 and 3.

To thake a peek back into why Khorne used to be more relevant is that multiple Bloodsecrators used to lead to Khorne being 2 and 3. As mentioned elsewhere. The moment you did have 2 Bloodsecrators active your numbers wouldn't be extremely important because you still had a form of attrition and large attack numbers. If 5 models for example still can dish out 15+ attacks, you are 'top competitive'.

With this in mind I'd say we can currently still quite easily spell out the top competitive armies. With the latest three armies also clearly being a part of this!
- Stormcast; Strong shooting, attrition and large attack numbers (for model count). There is also some mortal wound output if you want to.
- Seraphon; Strong shooting and Magic, attrition and large attack numbers. Magic for mortal wounds etc.
- Fyreslayers; Odd combination of having a unit with strong shooting and attrition and large attack numbers  
- Desciples of Tzeentch; Strong Magic and shooting, High mortal wound output.
- Legions of Nagash; High mortal wound output (if you want to), attrition and large attack numbers.
- Maggotkin of Nurgle; Strong Magic leading to mortal wound output and arguable strongest attrition and large attack numbers.
- Daughters of Khaine; High mortal wound output, attrition and large attack numbers. There is also some shooting if you want to.

This is also basically why I'd ideally see the Shooting phase being somewhat altered because I still to this date believe it's impact is just too much of a presence. Regardless of unit cost, every army is reliant on support Heroes. However if one army has the option to thake them out while the other doesn't it quickly cascades into an army that suddenly cannot play to it's strenghts anymore. The same applies to Khorne, losing your Bloodsecrator quickly and/or Bloodstokers pretty much leads to a fold. We still have decent combat presence but the moment others do have their support still we too lose out.

Lastly I do think that anyone should play however and what they want to. At the same time I will say that if you objectively aim to win the tournament you are indeed best of playing one of the above right now. 
In this idea I basically skipped on the speed/deep strike options all these armies have. While that too is important it's only as relevant if you have two out of the three points aswell. Because 'just speed' doesn't really lead to anything in particular either. This is commonly highlighted in Slaves to Darkness. Really quick, but no strong shooting, offensive magic, high mortal wound output or amazing attrition. If none of those points are there it still doesn't matter too much if you reach your opponent early. Luckily with the Bloodsecrator they can come somewhat close to point 3.

 

[Carnivore]

@Killax Wow! What a post. But you are 100% right IMO. There is absically nothing left, that I would like to add to your points.

What I would like to do is, bring a topic ( I will create it within the next minutes ) whether Khorne specifically is still a thing, because that bohters me the most. Because I play it, obviously

Back to topic:

It means kind of, that the balance is not completely ruined, but is has kind of shifted into the direction of specified armies.
That basically could be concidered to be not balanced at all, and it would be right. But it also wouldn't be 100% correct at the same time.

What should have happened is, that all factions could have had rebalanced in some knd, when a new faction arrives, or another one gets reworked.
Other named companies for tabletop games do that already, and it is easy for them, because they have their statistics & rules & armybooks ONLINE available.

So I would roughly suggest, that GW could work much much much more efficient, when they would just provide allt he armystuff in a digital way. Yeah there could be books maybe for the hardcore veterans, but I guess online versions could make the difference.

Becasue otherwise they would have to rework entire books, print them, publish them, release them and that over and over again.

My conclusion at the moment:

AoS is certainly not unbalanced within the factions, that Killax mentioned, plus maybe a few others.
But in generell he is totally right.

Where the unbalance appears is, when someone play an older army, that's stats / abilities & point values didn't get reworked recently.

What would you Ladies & Gentlemen think about this?


Here we go with that other topic:

I don't want to disctract the discussion here from it's original topic
 

 

[Skreech Verminking]

On 3/8/2018 at 2:11 PM, Carnivore said:

@Killax Wow! What a post. But you are 100% right IMO. There is absically nothing left, that I would like to add to your points.

What I would like to do is, bring a topic ( I will create it within the next minutes ) whether Khorne specifically is still a thing, because that bohters me the most. Because I play it, obviously

Back to topic:

It means kind of, that the balance is not completely ruined, but is has kind of shifted into the direction of specified armies.
That basically could be concidered to be not balanced at all, and it would be right. But it also wouldn't be 100% correct at the same time.

What should have happened is, that all factions could have had rebalanced in some knd, when a new faction arrives, or another one gets reworked.
Other named companies for tabletop games do that already, and it is easy for them, because they have their statistics & rules & armybooks ONLINE available.

So I would roughly suggest, that GW could work much much much more efficient, when they would just provide allt he armystuff in a digital way. Yeah there could be books maybe for the hardcore veterans, but I guess online versions could make the difference.

Becasue otherwise they would have to rework entire books, print them, publish them, release them and that over and over again.

My conclusion at the moment:

AoS is certainly not unbalanced within the factions, that Killax mentioned, plus maybe a few others.
But in generell he is totally right.

Where the unbalance appears is, when someone play an older army, that's stats / abilities & point values didn't get reworked recently.

What would you Ladies & Gentlemen think about this?


Here we go with that other topic:

I don't want to disctract the discussion here from it's original topic
 

 

Yes Blades of Khorne still is a thing,

but in my opinion, aos isn’t balanced at all, since there are only a few Battletomes and updates for some armys.

And since Gw has splittend some old factions like skaven, highelfs or even Darkelves, it just got worse (ok, darling coven aren’t bad at all, since you can literally but out a decent number of shoots).

Now we have armys which can’t even compete against most units of other armys like I don’t know, anything that has a Battletome or an  great update.

 

[Tasman]

On 2/1/2018 at 6:59 AM, Killax said:

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. 

Yup. I'm really p!$$3d off about what happened with Nurgle.... Basically a fun book with lots of different ways to build an army, but then being handcuffed by the cost of the battalions. I don't see the same expense for battalions in DoK for example....

Not much chance to be really competitive with Big Papi. I'm dusting off the dark aelves now. May as well try the DoK. I've got most of the stuff already. Just need a couple of boxes of medusai and the harpies and I'll be good to go. I can always add Morathi later. I've almost always played exclusively Chaos armies, and I've collected over 60k points over the last 25+ years. I'm just at a loss by how many releases there have been for order in particular and now Death too. Sure, we got the DoT and Maggotkin books, but Nurgle is a far cry from the Tzeentch release. I was hoping for at least one spell that would give Nurgle +1 to hit. Nope. Added to a still rendless force [mostly] it leaves me wanting more. So I'm going to dust off the elves and see what's going on with that.

[Tasman]

On 3/8/2018 at 5:38 AM, Killax said:

This is also basically why I'd ideally see the Shooting phase being somewhat altered because I still to this date believe it's impact is just too much of a presence.

Amen brother

[sal4m4nd3r]

On 3/8/2018 at 5:34 AM, hughwyeth said:

Yeah it seems to me the best players could field any force and get top 10. It seems to be top 3 you have to be a very good player and have a favourable-in-the-meta force. Which makes me think that the difference between forces isn't that great for us mortals if you know how to build an all-comers list. 

I kind of agree. but then you have mixed order taking third at Adcepticon. 

[Killax]

@sal4m4nd3r to me such a list simply confirms that Shooting is still an extremely strong attribute to the game and being able to thake out support pieces before your opponent has a chance to reach you most certainly can lead to multiple wins, as it isn't like your handing over anything in melee or 'close combat' either.

Another thing as to why shooting is very relevant also boils down to the oddity that is the Vortex. While Magic isn't that efficient against us most of the time there are quite some lists who have nothing to do against this play the moment either their Slaughterpriests are removed and/or the single WoK Bloodthirster is gone. Not saying this is very easy to do, just highlighting that in certain aspects of the game odd design leads to more potent tactical options available to some.

[Sheriff]

The argument that mixed armies are viable always mentions order but not chaos or death or destruction