What should GW do to balance AoS?

[Chikout]

I think GW are on the right path. It is certainly true that Dok and Nagash are very strong and will need a few points changes in the next ghb. 

That said I have been impressed by the variety of lists seen in top tens at major tournaments since aos2 launched. I haven't seen a single top ten that has less than 7 unique factions. There are often a couple of Dok lists or a couple of Nagash lists,  but also a huge variety of other lists. 

A whopping 28 factions have managed to get a top ten in a tournament since aos2 launched. That's pretty amazing. 

Even amoung the factions that are doing the best you don't see copy and paste lists. There are nine Dok lists at cancom (about 5% of the total lists) this year and they are all different. 

Another thing to consider is that part of balancing is the arrival of new armies that change the meta. GW is living in the future. There are other armies coming that may have a strong effect on the abilities of the current top armies. 

GW has been guilty of over nerfing three times already with Beastclaw, Ko and Tzeentch. I much prefer a light touch. 

I don't dispute that a  70% win rate for Dok is much too high but GW probably wants to wait and see how gloomspite,  and other future armies effect this before they start nerfing things too much.

[Kramer]

As they won't get any closer then this without seriously reworking the system. For example changing the hit chance to percentage instead of 1/6th steps, and dropping factions. My choice would either be, accept that this is it but also communicate it like this. Or drop points all together with maybe a side game of only Stormcast vs Grots vs. Khorne vs Death. No more than 10 unit choices per faction and no more factions then that. 

The lack of balance isnt really a problem in my mind, the perception that it should/is balanced is.

[Overread]

 

5 minutes ago, Kramer said:

As they won't get any closer then this without seriously reworking the system. For example changing the hit chance to percentage instead of 1/6th steps, and dropping factions. My choice would either be, accept that this is it but also communicate it like this. Or drop points all together with maybe a side game of only Stormcast vs Grots vs. Khorne vs Death. No more than 10 unit choices per faction and no more factions then that. 

The lack of balance isnt really a problem in my mind, the perception that it should/is balanced is.

I can't see them using percentages, its too big a variation. And no one wants 100 sided dice! There have been pushes for GW to adapt to a D10 system to allow for finer controls and perhaps we might see that happen one day; but I'd wager we'd see it in a side game not a core game first. D6 works for GW and their staff are used to it. 

As for dropping points that doesn't really work in most games. It works in historical games, but that's partly because many of them aim to re-create real world battles and so they aren't building balanced lists by design. Meanwhile in wargames like 40K there aren't real world historical battles to draw from. No one minds if they are playing Napoleon at Waterloo and they lose - but if they are playing the Grand Master of Chaos at the battle for the Realmgate of Life and always lose that's an issue. 

Points might be imperfect, but they allow for strangers to play games without huge pre-game debates. They form a backbone to the game that helps cut out a VAST amount of pre-game debate and disappointment when two people with very different views on how they game should work meet up. Plus we have narrative and open play right next to points; those who want to choose to not use them can do so freely without any issues. Meanwhile the points system continues to be refined for the larger part of the market who do make use of them directly and indirectly. 

[Dead Scribe]

13 minutes ago, Eevika said:

But what if the opponents army has nothing with the same power level. Is that fair? 

We all have the same choices we make in listbuilding.  If my opponent chooses to take an army that is weak, that is their choice to make.

[Eevika]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

We all have the same choices we make in listbuilding.  If my opponent chooses to take an army that is weak, that is their choice to make.

But the entire game is based on choosing an army that you like the lore and look of thats like the entire point. You should have valid choices in every army.

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

We all have the same choices we make in listbuilding.  If my opponent chooses to take an army that is weak, that is their choice to make.

Ahh so you do agree - Balance is a good thing.

See if you've got a balanced game both players, no matter their army, DO have the same choices to make.

However if you've an unbalanced game, if Daughters of Khaine are superpowered to the extreme and Skaven underpowered - then they don't have the same choices. Then the Skaven player has no choice they can make, no pattern or puzzle to find the perfect combo to win. 

Furthermore if there's only one or two power choices even in the overpowered army then there isn't actually a choice to make. There's that one choice  and you take that choice or lose. And with the internet that choice gets found out pretty fast.

 

 

With balance between armies and within each army you've got freedom to choose and skill in list building is a real skill. 

Without balance then there are far fewer to no real choice. There's no reason to take underpowered units or to take the underpowered army. You reduce choice; reduce options and actually take list building down to a very singular skill. 

[Dead Scribe]

A whopping 28 factions have managed to get a top ten in a tournament since aos2 launched. That's pretty amazing. 

This is why I feel things are fine as it is.  There is more than one build to do well.  

[Dead Scribe]

1 minute ago, Eevika said:

But the entire game is based on choosing an army that you like the lore and look of thats like the entire point. You should have valid choices in every army.

I said in a previous reply that I agree that every army book should have an over powered combination or three.  Right now there are a number of factions/army books that have none or used to have them but they got nerfed into the ground (looking at you tzeentch).

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

This is why I feel things are fine as it is.  There is more than one build to do well.  

But you have to temper it against the fact that of all that variety Daughters of Khaine are taking a lions share. Adjust the balance, tweak it a little (not a huge lot) and lower that element just a little. Daughters of Khaine remain viable and the other armies improve their chances to a more even footing

You get that through better balance not worse balance.

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Overread said:

 

I can't see them using percentages, its too big a variation. And no one wants 100 sided dice! There have been pushes for GW to adapt to a D10 system to allow for finer controls and perhaps we might see that happen one day; but I'd wager we'd see it in a side game not a core game first. D6 works for GW and their staff are used to it. 

As for dropping points that doesn't really work in most games. It works in historical games, but that's partly because many of them aim to re-create real world battles and so they aren't building balanced lists by design. Meanwhile in wargames like 40K there aren't real world historical battles to draw from. No one minds if they are playing Napoleon at Waterloo and they lose - but if they are playing the Grand Master of Chaos at the battle for the Realmgate of Life and always lose that's an issue. 

Points might be imperfect, but they allow for strangers to play games without huge pre-game debates. They form a backbone to the game that helps cut out a VAST amount of pre-game debate and disappointment when two people with very different views on how they game should work meet up. Plus we have narrative and open play right next to points; those who want to choose to not use them can do so freely without any issues. Meanwhile the points system continues to be refined for the larger part of the market who do make use of them directly and indirectly. 

It’s not about wanting, it’s about comparing it to systems that can use percentages (with endless decimals I might add) to balance things. Not to mention constant tweaks to the code. Compare that to a system that restricts itself to not only 1/6 chance system but also limits itself by pointing everything in 10 or multiples of that. 

Getting the same balance is an illusion that leads to people being dissatisfied. Which is a shame in my mind. 

Also the  points allow people to play games against each other is true. But I also had great games before there where points by GW. But smaller market i grant you. Doesn’t mean it’s undoable. The premise of the game was at least very clear even if you didn’t like it. 

[Overread]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

I said in a previous reply that I agree that every army book should have an over powered combination or three.  Right now there are a number of factions/army books that have none or used to have them but they got nerfed into the ground (looking at you tzeentch).

Ahh but why should they be overpowered? What gain is there in having them besides having an easy "I win" button in the army through the composition. You don't actually want a game like that if you want for a balanced fun environment where there's multiple army composition choices that are viable and have equal footing to each other. 

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

I said in a previous reply that I agree that every army book should have an over powered combination or three.  Right now there are a number of factions/army books that have none or used to have them but they got nerfed into the ground (looking at you tzeentch).

What you are talking about right now is the balance we are talking about here. Every army should indeed have something that viable.  Thats exactly what I want. Thats balance 

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

Ahh so you do agree - Balance is a good thing.

Maybe its that what I feel is "balance" is not what you feel is "balance".  A lot of people when they are talking about balance want it so that points are equivalent and that 2000 points means you are competitively viable so long as the other person has 2000 points.  That to me is boring.

I feel that every faction or army book should have an over efficient choice of combos so that they would be "OP" if you did not bring your army book's over efficient choice because that is what makes listbuilding fun.

GW made the right decision with things like evocators and legion of nagash and daughters of khaine, its just that they did not apply that design philosophy universally and that is where the problem may lie.  It would probably take more than just point raises or decreases as well.  

If every army book has one or two broken things then nothing is broken and everyone then has a choice between taking the optimal version of their army and having a chance to win, or taking the sub optimal choice (everything else) and being ok with losing.

For me right now that means recognizing what has the OP combos, and collecting those.  And when GHB comes out and changes that I am ok with selling my army, buying a new army, paying someone to paint it for me, and continuing my tournament season a couple months later with that army.

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

Maybe its that what I feel is "balance" is not what you feel is "balance".  A lot of people when they are talking about balance want it so that points are equivalent and that 2000 points means you are competitively viable so long as the other person has 2000 points.  That to me is boring.

How is it boring? If both players bring 2 well build 2K lists why shouldn't they have an even chance of winning? Why should one player have less chance of winning. And why should it be that a well built list has to be Overpowered. Why can't it just be even powered

[Eevika]

6 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Maybe its that what I feel is "balance" is not what you feel is "balance".  A lot of people when they are talking about balance want it so that points are equivalent and that 2000 points means you are competitively viable so long as the other person has 2000 points.  That to me is boring.

I feel that every faction or army book should have an over efficient choice of combos so that they would be "OP" if you did not bring your army book's over efficient choice because that is what makes listbuilding fun.

GW made the right decision with things like evocators and legion of nagash and daughters of khaine, its just that they did not apply that design philosophy universally and that is where the problem may lie.  It would probably take more than just point raises or decreases as well.  

If every army book has one or two broken things then nothing is broken and everyone then has a choice between taking the optimal version of their army and having a chance to win, or taking the sub optimal choice (everything else) and being ok with losing.

For me right now that means recognizing what has the OP combos, and collecting those.  And when GHB comes out and changes that I am ok with selling my army, buying a new army, paying someone to paint it for me, and continuing my tournament season a couple months later with that army.

No one wants any 2k point list to be viable against every 2k list. We want every army to have a chance to build a 2k list thats viable. I dont want balance between every unit and character. I want balance between armies so that they all fall between 55-45% winrate at high level play with optimized lists

[Kramer]

1 minute ago, Overread said:

How is it boring? If both players bring 2 well build 2K lists why shouldn't they have an even chance of winning? Why should one player have less chance of winning. And why should it be that a well built list has to be Overpowered. Why can't it just be even powered

Are you deliberately cutting out parts of @Dead Scribe's post that answers your questions? I'll quote it for reference:

 

6 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I feel that every faction or army book should have an over efficient choice of combos so that they would be "OP" if you did not bring your army book's over efficient choice because that is what makes listbuilding fun.

 

Every army should be able to go GT winning efficient but not every build should be #1 spot. Where is the fun in experimenting if everything is perfectly balanced? Seems boring to me as well... Give me figuring out the underdog any day. 

[Dead Scribe]

How is it boring? If both players bring 2 well build 2K lists why shouldn't they have an even chance of winning? Why should one player have less chance of winning. And why should it be that a well built list has to be Overpowered. Why can't it just be even powered

Because even powered is boring.  I love listbuilding and spending a lot of time figuring out where the over efficient units are.  Thats most of the fun for me.  Thats why I invest in the game.  Thats why I feel it would be a shame if GW went on a balance crusade.  I think all that they need to do is address the armies that have no OP combinations and give them those and people would largely be happy because then they could use a faction they like a lot and it be viable.  

There are other games that want to be balanced like Kings of War or T9A.  A big complaint about those games is how balanced they are where listbuilding is not as powerful. 

I think if balance really sold well then games like AOS wouldn't be as successful and other games like Kings of War would have huge events regularly and a thriving community (which it does not).  To me that is an indicator that people do not really want that type of game.  

[prochuvi]

7 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Maybe its that what I feel is "balance" is not what you feel is "balance".  A lot of people when they are talking about balance want it so that points are equivalent and that 2000 points means you are competitively viable so long as the other person has 2000 points.  That to me is boring.

I feel that every faction or army book should have an over efficient choice of combos so that they would be "OP" if you did not bring your army book's over efficient choice because that is what makes listbuilding fun.

GW made the right decision with things like evocators and legion of nagash and daughters of khaine, its just that they did not apply that design philosophy universally and that is where the problem may lie.  It would probably take more than just point raises or decreases as well.  

If every army book has one or two broken things then nothing is broken and everyone then has a choice between taking the optimal version of their army and having a chance to win, or taking the sub optimal choice (everything else) and being ok with losing.

For me right now that means recognizing what has the OP combos, and collecting those.  And when GHB comes out and changes that I am ok with selling my army, buying a new army, paying someone to paint it for me, and continuing my tournament season a couple months later with that army.

I guess the lol where every champion is balanced and it is all around skill of the player and it is the most played and seen esport is wrong because balance is boring?

 

The balance is a must.where is the fun when you can be a top worldwide player vs a noob playing his first game but if the top player choose dispossesed and the noob choose dok then it is game over for the top player only due to the bad balance of the game.

 

For me is funnier if every army is 100% the same,not as you says 2000 points of every army be the same.i want choices inside every army.

Per example the slow,low dps but tank unit of every army have same stats.

The fast,high dps but low save unit of every army have same stats etc etc

So it isnt so boring as you says,every player must have his army build in mind,and you build gonna be good vs others builds and bad vs others(thypical papper stone of every pvp game)

 

But rigth now we have units as dok,faster,more dps,more tanky and cheaper than every other unit of other army.whats fun about that?????

 

For me when i win due to zero skill only because my army is so such better than the rival isnt fun for me or the rival.as tau player in 7th edition i can say this for sure

 

A game fun is a game balanced,where every game is fun to play and not as it is rigth now where every game is won before play only due to the army being overpower

[Overread]

Here's the thing. 

What I am arguing is that there are viable lists within each army which are broadly balanced against each other. There's no OP element, no power combo, no secret/hidden "I win" button that makes the army near impossible to lose with. Instead its a system whereby there are a broad range of lists; where no unit within the army is useless. Some might be niche, some might be specialist toward certain army plans and choices; but the won't be without use. 

What you appear to be pushing for is "I win" buttons within each army. The thing is that cuts down on choice. It means that there are units that will always see play and units that will always be left out. That's not fun in a hobby where a great part is building and painting.

 

In the end you actually do want the same thing, the only difference is that you're pushing for two or three or so power-lists within each army; whilst myself and others are pushing for perhaps ten or twenty or more. Where the difference between two good lists is not night and day. Where each game for all of  those 5 hours is a break neck struggle to win; where each roll; each choice of what to move and shoot is important; where each great dice roll is a moment of elation and where  each mistake is a punishment to yourself. 

I'd far rather that than have one or two lists I can take where I can put them down and, unless my opponent took their power list too, I will win with marginal risk of losing. That's not fun for either player.

 

 

Like I said balance won't degrade list building as a skill. You just reduce the impact it has. It's still important to build a good list in a balanced game; it just means you won't auto win with it. 

 

[Overread]

Let me show an example - in previous rules editions Tyranids had a Hive Tyrant. A unit that can take ranged weapons, artillery, machine guns, close combat weapons and a mix. A huge amount of variety. Yet the only viable build was a winged tyrant with devourers. That was the puzzle and the solution. All the other builds; all the other weapons and variety and choice and change of game style were not OP - were not efficient and were not the best. You took the winged tyrant with devourers or nothing else. 

Today you've got far more variety. You can load it up with close combat weapons and let it dive into battle; or take long ranged artillery or the wings and devouerers etc.... 

In one version there's one pathway - in the other there's more even balance, more fun and far more variety and choice. It's more entertaining for the player and the opponent. 

 

And yes it you take one close combat tyrant in an army of artillery units its a bad list; you will likely lose (or win if very lucky) and you will have to change the composition to have a chance. building the working army; biulding the list hasn't been devalued.

[Dead Scribe]

I don't really see a way to have 10-20 power combos in every list reasonably.  That would also erode list building to the point where its not as important, which would lose me as a customer.

Regardless of if we want to see that as an "I win" button or however we want to label it, I am interested in games where I build a force and find the most OP combo that I can find.  My interest is in playing other players that do the same.  I have no interest in "tabling noobs" with my list.  That is boring.  We have new players every month that we coach up and I find it interesting to coach them up because I find that fun, but I dont randomly walk through our store seeking out noobs and their sub optimal lists to beat down.  

I think that if GW would implement the system you are requesting, that they'd take a serious financial hit because I don't think a lot of people would be interested in that world you are envisioning.  I again reference the other games that do exactly what you are asking and point out that they have tiny communities largely because of that.

[Eevika]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't really see a way to have 10-20 power combos in every list reasonably.  That would also erode list building to the point where its not as important, which would lose me as a customer.

Regardless of if we want to see that as an "I win" button or however we want to label it, I am interested in games where I build a force and find the most OP combo that I can find.  My interest is in playing other players that do the same.  I have no interest in "tabling noobs" with my list.  That is boring.  We have new players every month that we coach up and I find it interesting to coach them up because I find that fun, but I dont randomly walk through our store seeking out noobs and their sub optimal lists to beat down.  

I think that if GW would implement the system you are requesting, that they'd take a serious financial hit because I don't think a lot of people would be interested in that world you are envisioning.  I again reference the other games that do exactly what you are asking and point out that they have tiny communities largely because of that.

To me it seems like you are exactly the meta gamer most people dont enjoy playing against and warn new players about as you only want to play the I win armies not reliant on good gameplay but just forking out money to buy the latest most op stuff... 

[Mosquito onthe TenthFloor]

7 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I am interested in games where I build a force and find the most OP combo that I can find. 

Bit of a klaxon, that. Sorry! This is the sort of approach that led WFB to dwindle in players over the years.

[Dead Scribe]

To me it seems like you are exactly the meta gamer most people dont enjoy playing against and warn new players about 

I don't see how a personal attack is constructive here.  We have a thriving community with over forty players playing competitively and all of us get along.  We bring in 1-2 new players every month that also get along just fine.  We have yet to have a problem and all of us enjoy the hobby and game tremendously.  Additionally many of us travel the country and play in tournaments and we play with people that are pretty much just like us and want the same things (this topic is constantly something that I have been a part of with dozens of different groups all last year as I traveled from tournament to tournament). 

I'd say that the view point I am expressing is definitely not in the minority and that the viewpoint I am expressing is backed by a large number of competitive players that I interact with weekly that participate and pay thousands of dollars a year for to GW for producing a product that we engage with.

The attendance at the larger conventions also proves what game directions are popular and which ones are not.

[Overread]

8 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think that if GW would implement the system you are requesting, that they'd take a serious financial hit because I don't think a lot of people would be interested in that world you are envisioning.  I again reference the other games that do exactly what you are asking and point out that they have tiny communities largely because of that.

Kings of War has a smaller market not because of rules- if anything its their greatest reason for getting their head up as high as it has got. 

Their models are not as good as GW nor many others on the market today; many of them look about 20 years old in design aesthetics and it seems that their most recent releases are only just catching up. 

They don't have 30 years of market domoination - they don't have highstreet stores selling only their product; they don't have a big Press Ganger system of players promoting their game; they don't have  7 day a week marketing. Heck they don't have extensive lore books and artwork divisions. There's so much that they lack which explains why they are not a big fish compared to GW.

Rules is their strength, its what has let them get big enough to at least be a contender at the level they are at.