Jump to content

How balanced is AoS now?


Thomas E

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Agent of Chaos said:

This! Harking back to the old shooting rules from fantasy battle which totally make sense.

How do you notch an arrow/load a bolt thrower, cannon or rifle and shoot something on the other side of the battlefield while engaged in melee? Even firing at the unit you are engaged with seems wrong but I could live with it.

I dont like the 40K rule of not being able to target a character with less than 10 wounds but why is shooting a single human sized model as accurate as a unit of 40? A -1 to hit single models (character or otherwise) is fair and reasonable but needs to be balanced by giving +1 to hit monsters/behemoths/war machines (excluding crew). Fluffy & Logical.

I know its a fantasy game with magic etc but that doesnt mean all logic and reasoning goes out the window. And yes we dont want to over complicate the rules however if it makes sense and adds balance I dont think its going to be too complicated. If the above rules were implemented it could coincide with a small point decrease for ranged units.

I'm ok with you, but not on the +1 to hit monster. Most of the monsters are actually quite fragile, and it would make them nearly unplayable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, ledha said:

I'm ok with you, but not on the +1 to hit monster. Most of the monsters are actually quite fragile, and it would make them nearly unplayable.

As far as how much I was totally burnt out on WFB, the way shooting units were handled was absolutely, IMO, handled correctly. Once in HtH there was no more shooting..... they were simply too busy fighting for their lives to sit back and volley fire. The stand and shoot rule (overwatch, if you will) also gave a nod to the historical way things usually worked out. One last desperate volley with a -1 to hit perhaps to demonstrate the fact that these are snap shots before readying for up close interpersonal mayhem. Characters in units would be -1 to hit with the chance of it hitting a regular on a, maybe ,5+?

These can be house ruled, of course, but I'd like to see some kind of response to what I believe is a real unbalancing in the game. Shooting into combat [ala Braveheart] is fine if you don't mind taking the chance of hitting your own troops. Realism and logic can and should be applied to a fantasy game at least as far as to make it appear that the writers acknowledge the way certain fantasy races would react in combat. [As written in fluff pieces] An example would be Orruk archers. They aren't the best shots in the world and would probably eschew using it except as a bludgeon once the opportunity presented itself. More disciplined troops would perhaps be able to still shoot while in melee, but at a much depleted effectiveness. 

These are just a few of my thoughts on what I think is the single biggest inequity in the game. I could literally go on for another page, but I think you all get the gist of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. As someone who never played anything but AOS I never had a problem with how shooting works but I can understand why people in some cases don't like it from a "realistic" standpoint.  If they do change something one day I really hope they don't remove shooting when in close combat because... for several units it makes total sense that they can shoot in combat.

Just looking over my skaven collection:

Why would my verminlord not whip the enemy with his tail?

Why would my stormfiend care that the enemy is close? I can totally see him turning on the flamethrower while flailing his arms around. Same thing with Boneripper.

What about the warlock engineer? Surely he would try to use his handgun to take out the annoying necromancer hiding just over there!

Would a gun crafted into the side of a rat ogre really not be shoot during combat?

You get the point... and yet for others it makes no sense to shoot while fending of the enemy. Just imagine loading a fragile poison mortal while getting hacked at. 

 

No matter what I don't see it as a problem right now but if GW decides to change something about shooting I hope they keep it simple... because that's how I prefer the core rules to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, treeclimber said:

No matter what I don't see it as a problem right now but if GW decides to change something about shooting I hope they keep it simple... because that's how I prefer the core rules to be.

Agreed,  simple is better 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, treeclimber said:

No matter what I don't see it as a problem right now but if GW decides to change something about shooting I hope they keep it simple... because that's how I prefer the core rules to be.

The problems are made bigger than they are (nevertheless, they are there) and therefore suggested solutions tend to be rather complex with a lot of overhead.

In contrast the two adjustments I proposed (I'm not entirely sure if I'm borrowing this idea from somewhere else...) a page ago is probably one of the simplest and most elegant solution out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2018 at 4:34 PM, Xasz said:

The 40k protection rule is really, really bad design in my opinion and gets abused rather handsomely. (besides, 40k suffers from legacy issues from time to time but that's something else)

Why is that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, muggins said:

Why is that? 

I'll preface this with stating that this is obviously my very own opinion and that I was a tournament player until I lost all motivation between 6th and 7th edition. I still follow the scene  (after all, 40k is by far the biggest tabletop in my country) but I don't see the 8th edition as the divine saviour. GW is  pretty much marathon printing the same codices over and over again, but that is a different topic for another time. (on top of that, the whole primaris thing is lazy writing, but that's a totally different topic as well...)

The rule offers a form of pseudo immunity to possible force-multipliers (which is a common character type in 40k and AoS). This alone is somewhat trouble some, because as opponent you are more or less robbed of your ability to counter the other players strategy. Having a form of (pseudo) immunity in a game, where pretty much the only direct interaction between two players is dealing damage to his units, is really, really dangerous and troublesome. Rephrasing, I don't think it is good design if you cannot interact with another players game plan. Especially if there are no efficient tools available, this will ultimately end with a feeling of helplessness, which is an emotion you usually want to avoid when people are playing your game.

If there are tools available and you as player made the distinct choice of not including them, it is your fault but the 'availability of a choice' is an important factor. Furthermore, the previous paragraph holds true for all types of games. No matter if it is a card game, board game or computer game. Interaction is key in gaming (not limiting the player options and stuff).

But that is not even the biggest issue. Due to being in the base-rules, every existing and newly released army will have access to this rule. You have to balance every coming release accordingly to this one rule or alternatively you don't give a damn and have to write several FAQ entries (or sell it as feature and let the meta run its course). Either way, it is a hamstring as designer and ultimately limits your design space significantly.

Additionally, the rule does not line up with aesthetics either. Try telling a new player that your daemon prince cannot be shot because he is standing behind a blob of cultists. Which are 1/3 of his height... but to be fair, AoS has issues in that regard as well, *cough* unrestricted shooting out of combat *cough*.

I don't think "immunity" (or better, non-interaction) shouldn't exist in tabletops, but it should be severely limited. Either by faction and/or several hard restrictions.

Concerning the legacy thing. They decided to do a rather soft-reset compared to what AoS did with WHFB. I cannot really blame them for that, we are still feeling the shockwaves years after AoS is established... 

The problems are all the old abilities and outdated warscrolls/datasheets out there which are abused for their power. Similar to what the compendium was before it got purged, but way bigger. From a design perspective this is an issue of maintaining an overview. Players are smart and have probably even a better knowledge about all the available rules than the actual designers. This leads to a rather "gamey" meta, which I'm not a fan of. 

This issue will most likely cease to exist if they decide to gut the 40k compendium/Indices the same way they did with AoS. But from a design perspective I'm a fan of hard cuts and having a clean canvas to build upon, instead of slow and gradual change. (in which you have to intervene several times to ensure it...)

A prime example when both of these problems somewhat collide is this list from last year: http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/08/40k-the-unstoppable-list-wgc2017.html (which was FAQ'd after some time, if I remember correctly)

I'd like to add that I'm not a fan of threads like this and that my response is heavily off topic on top of that (and obviously my very own opinion). But you asked and I think you deserve an explanation or reasoning for my statement. To be honest, when 8th edition for 40k dropped I wanted this rule so badly for AoS. I feel that some kind of protection for characters is a good thing but as it turns out the chosen implementation is far from optimal. 

I just hope this doesn't spark another discussion, because this thread (like the hundreds before him) is going nowhere. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2018 at 6:30 PM, Amenhotep said:

I think a better question is are any imbalances in the game sufficient to crush the fun out of playing, and are tournaments getting dominated by a single armybook/list? I remember back in the days of 7th ed. fantasy where you could go to a GT and play against Daemons all weekend, and after the 3rd time playing against Kairos Fateweaver you were about ready to throw your army in the bin on the way out...

I think yearly iterations of the GHB curb the game from becoming too frustrating.

Back in WFB you were really at the whims of how good your army book came out. Some armies seemed good at the beginning of new editions but quickly fell by the wayside, while others came out oppressively strong. And that was it. You were basically stuck with that until the next version of that army book came around. Sometimes a new edition came around and shifted the goal posts slightly.

The GHB however, promises I guess balancing every year. It makes it a bit easier to collect what you want, as in theory stuff will get rebalanced yearly and so even if your stuff is a bit behind the curve in points at the moment, it might become a bit better later on.

It also means that stuff that is quite obviously broken isn't going to be a sour note forever. I bet everyone internally groaned when facing Daemons back in 7th ed in the same way they groan when they come across Skyfires or Changehost in AoS. But presumably they won't stay at the top forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, someone2040 said:

I think yearly iterations of the GHB curb the game from becoming too frustrating.

Back in WFB you were really at the whims of how good your army book came out. Some armies seemed good at the beginning of new editions but quickly fell by the wayside, while others came out oppressively strong. And that was it. You were basically stuck with that until the next version of that army book came around. Sometimes a new edition came around and shifted the goal posts slightly.

The GHB however, promises I guess balancing every year. It makes it a bit easier to collect what you want, as in theory stuff will get rebalanced yearly and so even if your stuff is a bit behind the curve in points at the moment, it might become a bit better later on.

It also means that stuff that is quite obviously broken isn't going to be a sour note forever. I bet everyone internally groaned when facing Daemons back in 7th ed in the same way they groan when they come across Skyfires or Changehost in AoS. But presumably they won't stay at the top forever.

At the same time, you cant balance everything by just changing the points costs. It doesnt seem like a thorough manner to balance a game by raising the cost of something out of existence (example Kurnoth Hunters) EXTENSIVE play testing is the only way. I am glad to hear with the Sisters of Battle codex in 40k they plan to use more community play testing and feedback before the codex is written. With Tzeentch IMO it is simply the allegiance ability is just to strong. When you REMOVE the dice rolls from a game built on randomness of dice (with tactics being a part of that..in part by bettering the odds for yourself) it is fundamentally imbalanced. The great equalizer is dice.. and Tz has an automatic way to get around this in such a meaningful way. I think thats the biggest balance problem in AoS right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It doesnt seem like a thorough manner to balance a game by raising the cost of something out of existence (example Kurnoth Hunters) EXTENSIVE play testing is the only way.

Wouldn't it be better to instead of nerfing units that are being used and being bought, making those units or unit options that are not used better. In case of Kurnoth it is not that they are too good and break the game, and there for spamed, but rather the case of everything else being not worth taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sal4m4nd3r said:

At the same time, you cant balance everything by just changing the points costs. It doesnt seem like a thorough manner to balance a game by raising the cost of something out of existence (example Kurnoth Hunters) EXTENSIVE play testing is the only way. I am glad to hear with the Sisters of Battle codex in 40k they plan to use more community play testing and feedback before the codex is written. With Tzeentch IMO it is simply the allegiance ability is just to strong. When you REMOVE the dice rolls from a game built on randomness of dice (with tactics being a part of that..in part by bettering the odds for yourself) it is fundamentally imbalanced. The great equalizer is dice.. and Tz has an automatic way to get around this in such a meaningful way. I think thats the biggest balance problem in AoS right now. 

Oh, don't get me wrong.

I absolutely agree that allegiance abilities make things extremely hard to quantify. Because no longer are you just looking on a warscroll, or a warscroll plus synergies from other warscrolls, but you've got an entirely new layer that can't directly be effected by points (Only indirectly though point warscrolls).

There are certain elements in the game like as you mention, Tzeentch allegiance abilities that can't be balanced very easily because they are ultimately abilities that effect a whole swathe of units. And while on one unit (say Skyfires or spellcasting) it's extremely powerful, on most units in the army it's just fair.

I'd argue that Stormcast have similar issues. The mirrorshield is fine, except when it's on a Stardrake it starts making it oppresively powerful. Staunch Defender probably fine on the Stormcast infantry, but on anything that already has a 3+ armour save (and most of the time re-rolling 1's) it starts becoming extremely annoying to play against.

 

That being said, at the very least GW can tweak the points yearly. It's a much better solution than Beastmen being stuck with overpriced monsters for an entire edition of the game. Imagine how ****** the game would be if we were stuck with 160 point Skyfires for the next 6 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2018 at 3:27 PM, blueshirtman said:

Wouldn't it be better to instead of nerfing units that are being used and being bought, making those units or unit options that are not used better. In case of Kurnoth it is not that they are too good and break the game, and there for spamed, but rather the case of everything else being not worth taking.

I think Kurnoth Hunters warranted a price hike, as they were too efficient at their original cost. Overall I think Sylvaneth are in a decent place. Though that being said, branchwraiths and spite revenants could use some help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...