What should GW do to balance AoS?

[Dead Scribe]

2 minutes ago, Eevika said:

But that would still be boring as then all factions only had one way to play. just like @michu said the Gloomspite book is great becouse there is a lot of potentially good armies in there and everyone is hyped over the same book but about playing totally different armies. Thats what I want. 

Its way early for me to have an opinion on the gloomspite book.  I like it, it seems fun, but if it has no viable competitive builds than it is useless to me.  If it has a competitive viable build, then I'd consider comissioning someone to paint it for me.  I still haven't decided yet.  There are a lot of armies that you can create with it but a lot of them would get stomped pretty hard in the tournament hall.  I'm looking for a build that has a decent power coefficient.  The jury is still out on that one.

[Dead Scribe]

1 minute ago, michu said:

@Dead Scribe I meant one OP build in army not one OP build in whole game. It goes that way - if only 4-5 units in the army are good why others even exist?

I guess because some people may like those models and play in a more casual environment?  From a competitive standpoint, those other units may not as well exist you are right.  

[Skreech Verminking]

4 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Matched play doesn't need a bunch of battleplans.  In fact I'd say matched play people largely do not want there to be a lot of battle plans to optimize for.

They do put a lot of time writing narrative and open battle plans and thats great.  The core of matched play is not narrative and open battle plans though, nor is it a lot of battle plans in general, it is a standard set of battleplans that don't really change.

Sorry no battleplans in matched play?

the thing that makes it so much more interesting than two armies trying to slaughter each other to oblivion’s.

Don’t tell me you’re a worshipper of khaine (or khorne)😦😧

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I guess because some people may like those models and play in a more casual environment?  From a competitive standpoint, those other units may not as well exist you are right.  

Here's the thing even if people don't play in a competitive environment those bad models will still be used less. They will not be good and people won't advise them to buy them; they won't perform well and in the end they wont' see use. 

So why have that- that's bad for GW and its bad for us too. Far better to have armies where everything has its spot to shine and function; where armies and lists can vary a lot and yet still be competitively viable. What if Gloomspite has no OP list; but instead has 10 lists that are potentially viable at the competitive end. You'd have freedom to choose a style of play and army you want and like. 

[Dead Scribe]

1 minute ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Sorry no battleplans in matched play?

the thing that makes it so much more interesting than two armies trying to slaughter each other to oblivion’s.

Don’t tell me you’re a worshipper of khaine (or khorne)😦😧

No no thats not what I meant.  I meant having like five battleplans as standard is fine.  We don't need more than that. 

[Dead Scribe]

Here's the thing even if people don't play in a competitive environment those bad models will still be used less.

Why wouldn't non competitive narrative casuals use models that aren't OP?  If they are basing what they take on how powerful the model is then that means that they are also competitive.

[Skreech Verminking]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

Why wouldn't non competitive narrative casuals use models that aren't OP?  If they are basing what they take on how powerful the model is then that means that they are also competitive.

I don’t know🤷‍♂️ , I’m just the guy who plays 300++ clanrats on tournaments

[Gaz Taylor]

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Just want to mention this, but this conversation seems to be going round and round at the moment. If anybody is curious about feedback to GW for Age of Sigmar, you can do one (or more) of the following....

• Visit https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/ and post detailed feedback. Also keep an eye out as they will ask for Feedback
• Go to one of the Open Days at Warhammer World and speak to the design team
• email AoSFAQ@gwplc.com (note more for FAQs rather than feedback)
• Ask questions via Warhammer TV

The people in the Studio are approachable and believe it or not do enjoy playing the game. If you want to understand how they design the rules, watch Sam Pearson discuss this on this Stormcast episode..

 

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

Why wouldn't non competitive narrative casuals use models that aren't OP?  If they are basing what they take on how powerful the model is then that means that they are also competitive.

It's not that they wouldn't take them. They'd take them - they'd perform poorly and they'd steadily stop taking them. Even in a non competitive environment the core of the game is still based around competition. These things do filter down. It's why the competitive end is important to monitor because the balance there directly affects the casual.

Your uber powerful combo build will get shared around the net- casual people will build and make use of it just as they will avoid bad performing models. Even if they aren't competing they'll still make use of the same tricks, tools and models. 

[SwampHeart]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

Why wouldn't non competitive narrative casuals use models that aren't OP?  If they are basing what they take on how powerful the model is then that means that they are also competitive.

Competitive v. Casual or Narrative play is a spectrum not an exclusive binary. 

[Skreech Verminking]

Just now, Gaz Taylor said:

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Just want to mention this, but this conversation seems to be going round and round at the moment. If anybody is curious about feedback to GW for Age of Sigmar, you can do one (or more) of the following....

• Visit https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerAgeofSigmar/ and post detailed feedback. Also keep an eye out as they will ask for Feedback
• Go to one of the Open Days at Warhammer World and speak to the design team
• email AoSFAQ@gwplc.com (note more for FAQs rather than feedback)
• Ask questions via Warhammer TV

The people in the Studio are approachable and believe it or not do enjoy playing the game. If you want to understand how they design the rules, watch Sam Pearson discuss this on this Stormcast episode..

 

Sounds interesting, thanks 

[michu]

@Dead Scribe It's not like MtG where you still can (accidentaly) obtain bad cards when you play limited. As @Overread already said, bad units won't be selling  as much as those OP and that's bad for GW.

And some people, particularly begginers with low budget, are buying mostly competitive units, because if they want to justify spending  so much money on this hobby they want to buy something that will let them win some games.

[Overread]

10 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

 If it has a competitive viable build, then I'd consider comissioning someone to paint it for me.  I still haven't decided yet.  T

I'm not aiming this to be rude nor an attack, but I missed this comment first time around and think it might be important to highlight in a big difference between how you're approaching the game and how many others are.

Most gamers don't commission someone to make them an army. Even at the competitive end many take great joy in buying, building, painting and even converting their army. IT reflects a big time investment before their models ever make it onto a table. An army on a table for 4 hours might have taken days to complete for that player - esp at 2K points. 

As such its a big investment to them in time. Having OP lists in very few numbers means that most will copy those lists; they will aim toward them because they don't want to spend days of their life building a rubbish army. 

Having a more balanced game means that they've far more ability to choose and theme their army how they want. To focus on one or two or more elements. It also means that there's less of the chase toward a single efficient build. They can adapt and vary things and they can use all the really cool models. Sure some might need specific lists and support units to work, that's fine. The key is that with army wide variety and viability there's freedom and choice in the game. For a game that has a huge visual element this is critical to good sales. GW doesn't want to invest hundreds of thousands into moulds for models that won't sell well. 

 

My earlier example of the Hive Tyrant still stands; just consider it not just for the tyrants weapons but for the whole army. 

Remember Warhammer isn't MTG 0 the average player is not buying a new army every single year like many are in magic (as the blocks cycle in and out). Even if they want too many have not the time nor money to achieve such a goal. 

[Eevika]

@Dead Scribe I'm actually interested in what army you play and what OP combo you found on your own as your fun list building? Do you try looking for combos outside of DoK and LoN or other releases? I think some of the more inventive winning lists like the Phonix temple armies and such are very fun and interesting use of old models in top armies. Have you tried doing similar stuff or is your inventing limited to only newly released stuff?

[Dead Scribe]

I was running the kroak build before it got nerfed.  Then I settled on legion of nagash.  I was putting together a daughters of khaine list but am holding off because I think that it will get nerfed and there is only a few months left of it being viable (my guess).

I play whatever is viable.  If the ghb 2019 makes an older faction more viable, I will switch over if my current force becomes less viable.

[Eevika]

1 minute ago, Dead Scribe said:

I was running the kroak build before it got nerfed.  Then I settled on legion of nagash.  I was putting together a daughters of khaine list but am holding off because I think that it will get nerfed and there is only a few months left of it being viable (my guess).

 I play whatever is viable.  If the ghb 2019 makes an older faction more viable, I will switch over if my current force becomes less viable.

Yeah so you made a big deal about how list building and finding the OP stuff is what you like but actually you wait for tournament stats and then just commission the best army?

[Dead Scribe]

Remember Warhammer isn't MTG 0 the average player is not buying a new army every single year like many are in magic (as the blocks cycle in and out). Even if they want too many have not the time nor money to achieve such a goal. 

Currently as it stands now, competitive AOS is very much like MTG.  The average competitive tournament player does indeed buy new armies as their armies go out of power and new ones come into power.

[Dead Scribe]

1 minute ago, Eevika said:

Yeah so you made a big deal about how list building and finding the OP stuff is what you like but actually you wait for tournament stats and then just commission the best army?

I don't have any attachment to any faction.  I play purely off of performance of the models.  If I had an attachment to a faction I'd probably be disappointed unless  I lucked out and my favorite faction was also tournament viable, but I know from other games that if you want to be playing at the highest levels you can't have emotional attachment to any faction.

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I don't have any attachment to any faction.  I play purely off of performance of the models.  If I had an attachment to a faction I'd probably be disappointed unless  I lucked out and my favorite faction was also tournament viable, but I know from other games that if you want to be playing at the highest levels you can't have emotional attachment to any faction.

So surely if GW approached balance and attempted and aimed toward evening out the balance so that any army/faction could be viable at the competitive table that would be a benefit for gamers at large and for yourself. Even if you don't mind it all that army hopping must cost you a significant sum of money (esp if you're paying others to build and paint). 

A healthier game isn't one where players have to "luck out" at picking their faction and hope that its the competitive meta faction. It should be where any  faction can get there - the player just has to build the right sensible army (one of several) and play well.

[Dead Scribe]

This is where we may be going circular and I dont want to violate any forum rules as the mod stepped in.  I will say that my primary concern is not that there are more builds, I think that would be fine and have already stated that if every faction had a tournament viable build I'd be  content.  My concern is that it would be easy to go too far and trivialize the listbuilding aspect by making a lot of things viable.

[Skreech Verminking]

Hey Dead scribe, should you ever start a skaven armie, and are looking for somebody who would buy it, if it gets nerfed  in the near future, contact me, and I’ll happily take it, if the price is right.

[Overread]

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

This is where we may be going circular and I dont want to violate any forum rules as the mod stepped in.  I will say that my primary concern is not that there are more builds, I think that would be fine and have already stated that if every faction had a tournament viable build I'd be  content.  My concern is that it would be easy to go too far and trivialize the listbuilding aspect by making a lot of things viable.

Aye but I think you're mistaken. Take the new Goblins Battletome. Having lots of viable lists doesn't make the list building any less important. It just means that instead of aiming the building toward one meta you've got multiple. That actually makes it more complicated and detailed because now player style and situation and subtle differences start to come into the mix. Two armies might be viable, but one might just have a tiny edge over the other. 

The key is having smaller army balance differences so that two well built competitive armies are going to fight it out more on player skill. But also so that each army is capable. 

Like we've said all along, even balance through the game isn't ever going to make it so that any army list can win - that's never going to be possible nor should be the focus at all. On that I think we fully agree. The key is allowing for more than one or two builds and for allowing most if not all the models in the range to have a potential place within the right army list. 

[Overread]

2 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Hey Dead scribe, should you ever start a skaven armie, and are looking for somebody who would buy it, if it gets nerfed  in the near future, contact me, and I’ll happily take it, if the price is right.

Please don't sell trade your army to Skreech - he's an addict! You're feeding enabling his addiction need. 

I think he ate too much warpstone onetime. 

[Eevika]

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't have any attachment to any faction.  I play purely off of performance of the models.  If I had an attachment to a faction I'd probably be disappointed unless  I lucked out and my favorite faction was also tournament viable, but I know from other games that if you want to be playing at the highest levels you can't have emotional attachment to any faction.

See this is what I was looking for. You only enjoy winning. You dont enjoy being better than your opponent you enjoy winning. You dont want to even compete. You want to walk to a table and know you will win. I personally find enjoyment in games that stay even for as long as possible and the better player not the better list will win. 

[michu]

Exactly @Overread, how can be listbuilding  trivialized  by having more options? Listbuilding shouldn't be like "find the only combination that works", but "find how many different combinations you can make work".