Concerns with the development of AOS 2

[Jupiter]

Since Fantasy 6th ED I've been playing and somewhere around early introduction of 8th ED I lost complete interest in the game itself. I have to admit I always like to play with some competitive mindset however I always prefer to play allrounders list (basically taking a few good units and round it off with less optimal but interesting units) so when you pick up a battle its most likely to be interesting.  With the new introduction of AOS I was as most of us sceptical but with the expansion of the new universe and the removal of "jokes" I was hooked again. 

Then came AOS 2 and I was pumped (I have both Death and Stormcast so perfect match), now more than half a year later I'm losing interest again.  I tried to identify this loss of interest and came to the conclusion that the following factors played a role in it: 

1. The imbalance between armies but also within armies (very clear with stormcast old vs new). Before I could pick up any game I knew it would be an interesting bloody battle (with few exceptions), now if you use AOS 1 vs AOS 2 books its not even a game anymore. Just placement of models and removing them. I've tried the new stormcast chamber vs an old book and it was ridiculous. Also tried to play my old stormcast vs new stormcast, same result. Somehow reminds me of the broken books in Fantasy making  tournaments a dying event.

2. The crazy mortal wound mechanic, where at first mw where rare and only available to the most powerful heros or units. If your unit does not have any mw output your not competing anymore. It's so boring to play with and against it, there's zero tactics behind mw just roll dice and remove models. What happened to rend? why is this interesting mechanic so limited to -1 (usually), if armor saves where such an issue why not increase rend. Again this is starting to remind me of the terrible magic phase in 8th ED.

3. Free terrain, I've always disliked the Sylvaneth mechanic of terrain spamming. Guess what now most new armies can do it. Every time I play against free terrain I hate it, it usually gives unfair advantages and sometimes even starts dishing out mw... see point 2. Also in most situations it doesn't even make sense, somehow in every battle the same terrain piece pops up for some reason.

Perhaps AOS 2 has to grow on me like AOS 1 did, but for now it feels like much less interesting game then it was before. 

How are you feeling about the development of AOS?

 

[Overread]

I think the old to new balance is fine because in the not too long run all will be running on the 2.0 version of the rules. The interim period of updating is a pain; but  no different to past editions by GW hoenstly - with the big difference being that we have a horizon in sight where we can see the whole game running 2.0. In the past we might wait years and some armies would never get a new edition update. 

Also don't forget early AoS was "messy" and unsure of itself. Many first edition Battletomes were just warscroll cards - no army abilities and very limited other army features. AoS 2.0 adds a lot ontop of that so it makes sense that a direct comparison shows many 2.0 armies are better. 

 

As for terrain I don't mind free terrain so long as its not broken (so far it seems Flesh Eater Courts might be but most of the others aren't); and I can see GW's angle. They are breaking the back of the fact that many gamers never bought much terrain. They either used home made or store terrain so neither generated much revenue for GW. I figure free army terrain is the new fad and once it cools off we might see 3.0 introduce costs for it once people are used to buying terrain "like a model" from GW. Furthermore if they add more per army we might again see costs added. 

Plus we've not yet seen GW do a "Killteam" style game for AoS which is also another way to deliver loads of terrain sales. 

[Requizen]

1 - This is why they're focusing this year on updating every book to be AoS2. They've said at every preview panel that they're going to be pumping out books fast this year, they're already 4 books in and it's not even April yet. While the imbalance is obvious, I agree, just take a deep breath and wait at least until the end of the year before freaking out about Battletome imbalance.

As to internal imbalance, that's what the GHB is for. We've already seen it with Tzeentch switching from mass Skyfires to other things now after those point changes, and I'm sure we'll see another big change in GHB2019. Every time they've done a points balance pass on new, powerful units, it's ended up fairly balanced.

2 - I see this argument everywhere and I still don't understand it. There's plenty of units that don't deal MWs and are considered really strong to OP, and there are some armies that do basically no MWs and are quite competitive. I have yet to see a boogeyman army that does 15+ MWs per turn without some sort of serious setup and without counterplay. They're far more prevalent now than they were previously, sure, but there's also a lot more ways to reduce damage in the game as well, so it's gone both ways. Mortal Wounding is a good mechanic because it keeps crazy big unkillable units from ruining the game. Nobody wants games where nothing dies for 5 turns.

3 - I somewhat agree here, I don't think every new book needs terrain, and it's obvious that it's mostly just a solid way for GW to make guaranteed sales. It doesn't bother me overly much, since they've been fairly well balanced, so I don't think it's overall a problem. Sylvaneth are the worst offenders, covering the whole board, but that's just kinda their schtick, I guess. 

[Luke82]

It seems like every faction is going to get a terrain piece (and spells, even Khorne for crikey’s sake) which is a bit lame and turns an interesting quirk for some factions as just another must buy money grub. It’s been said before but the vision of two armies of bitter enemies holding off so they can both build and decorate their terrain feature really yanks me out of the setting.

[Requizen]

2 minutes ago, Luke82 said:

It seems like every faction is going to get a terrain piece (and spells, even Khorne for crikey’s sake) which is a bit lame and turns an interesting quirk for some factions as just another must buy money grub. It’s been said before but the vision of two armies of bitter enemies holding off so they can both build and decorate their terrain feature really yanks me out of the setting.

Well for most of the armies it actually fits within the lore. Beasts of Chaos have always hauled Herdstones to battle, even in the old world. The Charnel Throne is pretty indicative of what would happen in medieval combats, the serfs bringing thrones or vistas for their leaders to sit on (and that's how FEC see themselves). Nurgle and Sylvaneth grow trees where they roam, and Idoneth Shipwrecks sweep in with the ethersea. Skaven Gnawholes have been part of AoS lore since the beginning and parts of WHFB, and are known to be all over the place.

I think the only terrain piece that is built on-site is the Bad Moon Loonshrine, but even that's a fallen piece of the Bad Moon that Goblins flock to and carve.

[SolomonHelsing]

As a Seraphon only played i've just gotten to the point of getting used to the mis-match between aos 1.0 and aos 2.0 armies. 

Playing skinks was never why I liked the army so I haven't yet comitted to hording those, just for summoning when I make use of that. 

Obviously GW have a plan, but the fact FEC skipped 5 books to get an update earlier makes me hope they don't give other newer books an update first, being third next to SCE and Khorne, both of which have had 4 and 3 books already, Albeit I know those will always get the most updates cause they're the posterboys obviously. 

[Forrix]

17 minutes ago, Requizen said:

2 - I see this argument everywhere and I still don't understand it. There's plenty of units that don't deal MWs and are considered really strong to OP, and there are some armies that do basically no MWs and are quite competitive. I have yet to see a boogeyman army that does 15+ MWs per turn without some sort of serious setup and without counterplay. They're far more prevalent now than they were previously, sure, but there's also a lot more ways to reduce damage in the game as well, so it's gone both ways. Mortal Wounding is a good mechanic because it keeps crazy big unkillable units from ruining the game. Nobody wants games where nothing dies for 5 turns.

Same here, there has also been an increase in mortal wound saves too.

Terrain wise, I generally like that people are actually buying and even painting terrain. It's also a nice way of adding impactful terrain to the table. That said, I feel its a little over done and shouldn't be just automatic for every army. I really like Gnarlmaws for Nurgle but with Khorne I was hoping they wouldn't get terrain (they're pretty nomadic in the lore anyways) but their "Endless Spells" would instead be part of their new allegiance abilities. 

I hate Sylvaneth Wild Woods btw just because the blocking los and movement penalties they cause combined with their ability to carpet a table with them really messes with the game and can massively skew the game on certain scenarios/army matchups.

[SolomonHelsing]

1 minute ago, Forrix said:

Same here, there has also been an increase in mortal wound saves too.

I believe most of where this complaint has come from is purely those that haven't also gotten this increase in mortal wound saves, and will have to go through plenty of games before they get their update to protect against them.

 

I am happy to hear there's been an increase in the saves for them. Hopefully something is added for seraphon. If not I'll just keep fielding three bastiladons. 

[TheWilddog]

I honestly have had the opposite reactions. As we have moved further in AOS 2 I have enjoyed the game more and more. The command point system has really shifted the resource management of the game in a direction that myself and my group really enjoys.  There is of course some imbalance with older books but they seem to be ramping up to at least attempt to bring most of the factions up to AOS 2 speed within a reasonable time frame. 

As for mortal wounds I agree with @Requizen.  I like a system that is killy, where models are flying off the table. MWs have gotten more prevalent but I much prefer their impact to grindfests that bough down turn after turn and unkillable models.

The negative reception to army terrain is one don't totally get either. I love it. It adds flavor to armies and some diversity to tables. In my experience people play with far too little terrain, I am for almost anything that fills up tables. I also love the different tactical problems it presents to me as an opposing player. I love seeing how my Deepkin opponents try to stick it to me with their huge boats and trying to figure out how I am going to deal with forests popping up everywhere from my tree loving buddy. The only pain I fell here is the trouble transporting some of it around. I am not looking forward to lugging my new Gitz Shrine around. 

[Gecktron]

First of all, I dont want to invalidate your opinion. Im playing AoS since it came out (even before points and the first Handbook) and I just want to state how it looks from my point of view. 

First, the powerlevel between armies. This has been extensively talked about in the "Powercreep" thread, so I dont want to restart the discussion. For me, the main difference is between Pre-GH Tomes and those that came after. If you stick to "real" books with allegiance abilities (read everything past Sylvaneth), you should be fine. Some are obviously better than others but overall they work out alright in a non-tournament environment. 

The current situation is no worse than before when the first allegiance abilities were introduced (remember when BCR were the strongest army for a cycle? Or when Skyfires used to rule supreme?).  As others have already said, the old Battletomes will get an update rather sooner than later. 

 

Second, Mortal Wounds. I hear this from time to time but Im not seeing anything like this. The only MW spamers I know are Warp lighting canons and warp flame projectors (the later of which has recently been toned down). 
If you are playing Stormcasts I can kinda see your point as they are hit the hardest by MWs, its their designed counter after all. But other factions either have saves against MWs or have enough bodies to shrug them off. Sure, 3 MW that kill off your important hero are painful, a swarm of clanrats on the other hand doesnt give a rats ass about them. This is a army specific problem and not so much with the game overall. 

 

Third, here I have to disagree completely. Im loving the new terrain! For me, they really help to breath life into the different factions. Most of the time an army only features humanoid warriors. There is only so much of their culture that can be conveyed by armor and weapons. Terrain adds another layer to it, architecture! The Flesh Eater skull throne shows how they mark their territory and that they can do more than just feast on the weak. 
The Gnarlmaws of Nurgle show how they corrupt a place and leave their mark even after they leave. 

I dont see the danger of spamming the table with terrain. As most games are 1v1 you will likely only have 2-3 unique terrain pieces on the table. Not a problem on a large 72"x48" table. Sure, spamming slyvaneth trees via abilities and the giant gnarl holes can be a bit annoying but they are outliners and can be fixed on a case by case basis. The system it self is great and I hope to see this continued when GW comes around to updating my sky dwarfs  

[Carnivore]

I am totally on the point with the starter of this post.

To an extend it went just ridiculous. GW seems to just cash rush their game pretty much at the moment. Some armies do have the very fist Battletomes, where others ( Stormcasts ) do have their 3rd book already. Or is it even 4th? I don't know anymore.
The entire system seems not really fleshed out, but rushed a lot.

Armies, that don't have terrain do really struggle with that, and even more when those had their first Battletome only. To be honest, this terrain feature and endless spells mechanics are just cash grab, if you ask me. It was only designed to gain more money, imo.
AOS 1 dealed good with no special terrain rules sets, and even with no endless spells. The summoning mechanic went restricted, so people could only summon, what they already paied pointwise.

Was totally ok. Now it is totally different. Additional Point mechanic makes several armies add models again. Is it balanced? I really doubt it. I don't think that GW concidered, what would actually happen, when some armies can gain points to add units to the game.
MW output went the new victory condition, as it seems. Wizardry was concidered to be fixed, together with shooting,  but went totally bonkers.

As an example:
A skaven player killed my entire army within 3 turns, just because he used his endless spell ( that one with those 3 flying balls, don't know the name ). He really set up the spell, blocked my units...done. The wipe was not to prevent.
Gitz wizardry did kind of the same.

The fact, that actual releases are rushed, will result in a great debalance, or it did already.
Guess what? Will the new Khorne Battletome bring Khorne back to the tables and make it competetive?
Relying on insight and information I have right now, it will certainly not.

GW lacks of consistence and a clear roadmap right now.

[Ravinsild]

8 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

I am totally on the point with the starter of this post.

To an extend it went just ridiculous. GW seems to just cash rush their game pretty much at the moment. Some armies do have the very fist Battletomes, where others ( Stormcasts ) do have their 3rd book already. Or is it even 4th? I don't know anymore.
The entire system seems not really fleshed out, but rushed a lot.

Armies, that don't have terrain do really struggle with that, and even more when those had their first Battletome only. To be honest, this terrain feature and endless spells mechanics are just cash grab, if you ask me. It was only designed to gain more money, imo.
AOS 1 dealed good with no special terrain rules sets, and even with no endless spells. The summoning mechanic went restricted, so people could only summon, what they already paied pointwise.

Was totally ok. Now it is totally different. Additional Point mechanic makes several armies add models again. Is it balanced? I really doubt it. I don't think that GW concidered, what would actually happen, when some armies can gain points to add units to the game.
MW output went the new victory condition, as it seems. Wizardry was concidered to be fixed, together with shooting,  but went totally bonkers.

As an example:
A skaven player killed my entire army within 3 turns, just because he used his endless spell ( that one with those 3 flying balls, don't know the name ). He really set up the spell, blocked my units...done. The wipe was not to prevent.
Gitz wizardry did kind of the same.

The fact, that actual releases are rushed, will result in a great debalance, or it did already.
Guess what? Will the new Khorne Battletome bring Khorne back to the tables and make it competetive?
Relying on insight and information I have right now, it will certainly not.

GW lacks of consistence and a clear roadmap right now.

Did you not have a wizard or two or something? You can unbind spell attempts and you can dispel endless spells... 

[chord]

I enjoyed the first AoS much more. I'm not a fan of command points.  

Endless spells are growing on me, but would rather they do away with predatory ones as I rarely see anyone use them 

[Requizen]

3 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

Armies, that don't have terrain do really struggle with that, and even more when those had their first Battletome only. To be honest, this terrain feature and endless spells mechanics are just cash grab, if you ask me. It was only designed to gain more money, imo.
AOS 1 dealed good with no special terrain rules sets, and even with no endless spells. The summoning mechanic went restricted, so people could only summon, what they already paied pointwise.

AoS1 had terrain summoning mechanics, it was called Sylvaneth and was literally the first Battletome released. Considering all the current terrain pieces are just one-of (unlike Sylvaneth or Nurgle which need to summon a bunch), then I have no idea how it's any more of a "cash grab" than any other model with good rules they put out. 

Endless spells are even less of a "cash grab" since they cost points, and therefore are exactly the same as any other model in the game. You don't need to buy them, and you only do buy them if you want to include them in your army and pay points for them. 

AoS1 had "balanced" summoning in that literally no one used it. Yes, it meant there was nothing for free... but the mechanic was completely unused in pretty much any setting other than maybe people putting aside 100 points here or there. So they made it usable, and imo overall balanced in how armies need to build up points to utilize it. It's fluffy, it's balanced, and in pretty much every case, can be played around in some way.

3 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

A skaven player killed my entire army within 3 turns, just because he used his endless spell ( that one with those 3 flying balls, don't know the name ). He really set up the spell, blocked my units...done. The wipe was not to prevent.
Gitz wizardry did kind of the same.

Well it really sounds like you probably need a Wizard to unbind, and maybe need to work on positioning your army. If Warp Lightning Vortex ruined your whole game, then you probably set up in such a way that everything important could be caught in one hit, which is definitely something to worry about. Yes, the area is big, but if you're only in range of one base then it's actually not so bad. Just spread out more, and perhaps decentralize your army list a bit.

3 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

Guess what? Will the new Khorne Battletome bring Khorne back to the tables and make it competetive?
Relying on insight and information I have right now, it will certainly not.

I somehow doubt you know more than anyone else on the matter, and most playtesters are already saying it's easily in line with other recent releases in terms of power level. But by your own logic, it has free summoning, endless Judgements, and a terrain piece, so it should be really powerful, right?

[hughwyeth]

This is really a subjective topic, so I'm not saying you're wrong. But in my limited experience, if you want to be a competitive player you need to shift your armies around- get new units or new armies quite regularly. You could say that's because GW have power creep, but in my experience it's more that a new force upsets the current meta and as a consequence is powerful. It takes a few months for things to settle down before people realise they weren't as powerful as they thought. For example, FEC right now seem crazy powerful. Give it a couple of months and every competitive player will have a list to neutralise FEC. FEC ain't no longer powerful. 

On the MW thing- i sort of agree, but this is really a perception thing. AoS had MW as a limited feature in the game. It's now pretty common. All that means is it's being redefined as a separate avenue for damage output, not as an overuse of a powerful thing. If all armies have big MW output opportunity, that's a good thing- some forces are resistant against mass non-rend damage output, some are resistant against rend damage output, so having MW as an alternative just means there's more flexibility there and more opportunity to not have a rock-paper-scissors scenario in the meta. 

Terrain- mechanically i think they're great. Visually i don't think it makes sense that the equivalent of 150ft away from my charnel throne, where my ghoul king sits resplendent overseeing his kingdom, is a massive moonshrine. Like, why the hell have we only just noticed the bloody thing now? How long did it take the goblins to build the bloody thing?? Thematically, i think Nurgle's and Sylvaneth's work (though sylvaneth's need to be taken back a bit. End of turn 5 can mean literally half the table surface is covered in trees.), the others don't so much. But in the balance of things, I'm ok with it. 

[Carnivore]

9 minutes ago, Requizen said:

I somehow doubt you know more than anyone else on the matter, and most playtesters are already saying it's easily in line with other recent releases in terms of power level. But by your own logic, it has free summoning, endless Judgements, and a terrain piece, so it should be really powerful, right?

Not really. My concerns do go in direction of units that are clear losers of the Battletome and will scrath the edge of "why am I even using them, why did I buy them before?".
Example: Wrathmongers, Skullreapers

But that might only be my point of view.

We will see, but I really think that Battletome is not that great.

[Ravinsild]

24 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

Not really. My concerns do go in direction of units that are clear losers of the Battletome and will scrath the edge of "why am I even using them, why did I buy them before?".
Example: Wrathmongers, Skullreapers

But that might only be my point of view.

We will see, but I really think that Battletome is not that great.

What exactly about Skullreapers is bad? They went up 10 points but they have so many strengths, and are comparable to their last incarnation. The worst thing they lost was a bit of rend and the ability to re-roll all wounds upon having killed double the amount of units than is in their unit. They gained not hurting themselves, in addition to doing mortal wounds upon dying with a 5+. Plus innate battleshock immunity (which has been lost army-wide), they still have mortal wounds on natural 6's to hit. They now re-roll all hits no matter what against any unit with >4 models and they have base 4 attacks each (plus the mutilated arm for the leader)...?

I'm bringing them in a Skulltake Battalion and I expect they'll still be the giant killers they used to be, and honestly Wrathmongers are in a different role now, as a backline support troop (that can fight from 2nd ranks) rather than a suicide squad into monsters and dropped 40 points...but they're still good... 

[Skreech Verminking]

28 minutes ago, Carnivore said:

Not really. My concerns do go in direction of units that are clear losers of the Battletome and will scrath the edge of "why am I even using them, why did I buy them before?".
Example: Wrathmongers, Skullreapers

But that might only be my point of view.

We will see, but I really think that Battletome is not that great.

Well as a Khorne daemon player who doesn’t really use his armie because only Daemons where weak, I am very happy that they are getting an update.

[Carnivore]

I'd like to stay with the topic, Khorne will for sure be discussed, when it arrives at saturday, but I already appreciate your opinions.

[Requizen]

1 hour ago, Carnivore said:

Not really. My concerns do go in direction of units that are clear losers of the Battletome and will scrath the edge of "why am I even using them, why did I buy them before?".
Example: Wrathmongers, Skullreapers

But that might only be my point of view.

We will see, but I really think that Battletome is not that great.

You mean Wrathmongers, which no longer buff the enemy, buff shooting attacks from Skull Cannons now, and are (from reliable sources) quite a bit cheaper? Don't really seem like losers to me. 

There'll always be good and bad units in a book for sure, just due to the nature of the game, but I don't think that suddenly means the book is terrible or unplayable.

[SwampHeart]

4 hours ago, Jupiter said:

...now if you use AOS 1 vs AOS 2 books its not even a game anymore...

If this were the case then you wouldn't see things like mixed order as still viable, nor would you have seen KO almost win CanCon (which was also won by BoK, another early AoS 1 book). This is a level of hyperbole that is simply untrue. Yes new books are generally better because they have access to more toys and tools - that's been GW's model since I've been involved in the hobby. However the idea that if you're playing with an older book you simply cannot win games is false. I hate to toss out the phrase 'git gud' but practice and army understanding are still incredibly valuable. Swinging back to CanCon a BoC player took 4th with an army composed largely of models people don't think are very good. Russ Veal consistently does well with armies that don't fit the current idea of 'best list'. 

4 hours ago, Jupiter said:

If your unit does not have any mw output your not competing anymore.

Since when? There are tons of viable units that don't produce MW output - there are strong MW units in the game for sure but again this is hyperbole. I've yet to see or play against this magic MW cannon army that people seem to post about. There are plenty of units with a save after save mechanic to help negate MW output as well as access to realm artifacts which give similar saves. Maybe the way to deal with MW spam is to understand how it functions and learn to leverage your army to stop it? Figure out its ranges, its triggers, etc and work out what tools you have available to counteract it - but I guess that runs counter to your narrative that there is no interaction in MWs. 

4 hours ago, Jupiter said:

...it usually gives unfair advantages...

You mean advantages your particular army doesn't have but are otherwise accounted for in the course of the way the army functions? This point I'm most willing to concede because the general argument is 'I just don't like it' and at that point its an opinion and everyone has one. But the idea that they're unfair is pretty laughable - probably the most unfair piece is the Sylvaneth Wood and its the oldest one out there. They provide a game bonus - you know what they do, adapt to how they function and either play around them or learn to deal with what they do. 

Ultimately I disagree on a pretty global level with your point of view and the level of hyperbole makes it difficult to pursue an actual conversation. It mostly reads as someone with an older tome or a limited collection who doesn't like the current shift in play. Unfortunately (for someone at least) that's how moderately competitive play goes, it shifts as GW releases and updates products. What used to work won't continue to work because things evolve. I think there are probably plenty of other games out there that you might enjoy more that have a much more stagnant rules base though. 

[Jupiter]

32 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Ultimately I disagree on a pretty global level with your point of view and the level of hyperbole makes it difficult to pursue an actual conversation. It mostly reads as someone with an older tome or a limited collection who doesn't like the current shift in play. Unfortunately (for someone at least) that's how moderately competitive play goes, it shifts as GW releases and updates products. What used to work won't continue to work because things evolve. I think there are probably plenty of other games out there that you might enjoy more that have a much more stagnant rules base though. 

You dont have to reply, I was just posting my current view of the state of development.  The way you respond is quite disrespectful.

[Ravinsild]

50 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

Since when? There are tons of viable units that don't produce MW output - there are strong MW units in the game for sure but again this is hyperbole. I've yet to see or play against this magic MW cannon army that people seem to post about. There are plenty of units with a save after save mechanic to help negate MW output as well as access to realm artifacts which give similar saves. Maybe the way to deal with MW spam is to understand how it functions and learn to leverage your army to stop it? Figure out its ranges, its triggers, etc and work out what tools you have available to counteract it - but I guess that runs counter to your narrative that there is no interaction in MWs. 

 

You'd think everyone would be agreed at how great Chaos Warriors/Knights are then because they can take shields that prevent mortal wounds from any source on a 5+ and that's pretty good. However the common consensus still seems to be that they are pretty trash?  I still think I will buy some for my Blades of Khorne army incase I have to fight Skaven or another army I know really can put out a lot of mortal wounds. Blood Warriors are great but they can't no respite if they get shot!

[Jupiter]

2 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

This is really a subjective topic, so I'm not saying you're wrong. But in my limited experience, if you want to be a competitive player you need to shift your armies around- get new units or new armies quite regularly. You could say that's because GW have power creep, but in my experience it's more that a new force upsets the current meta and as a consequence is powerful. It takes a few months for things to settle down before people realise they weren't as powerful as they thought. For example, FEC right now seem crazy powerful. Give it a couple of months and every competitive player will have a list to neutralise FEC. FEC ain't no longer powerful. 

On the MW thing- i sort of agree, but this is really a perception thing. AoS had MW as a limited feature in the game. It's now pretty common. All that means is it's being redefined as a separate avenue for damage output, not as an overuse of a powerful thing. If all armies have big MW output opportunity, that's a good thing- some forces are resistant against mass non-rend damage output, some are resistant against rend damage output, so having MW as an alternative just means there's more flexibility there and more opportunity to not have a rock-paper-scissors scenario in the meta. 

Terrain- mechanically i think they're great. Visually i don't think it makes sense that the equivalent of 150ft away from my charnel throne, where my ghoul king sits resplendent overseeing his kingdom, is a massive moonshrine. Like, why the hell have we only just noticed the bloody thing now? How long did it take the goblins to build the bloody thing?? Thematically, i think Nurgle's and Sylvaneth's work (though sylvaneth's need to be taken back a bit. End of turn 5 can mean literally half the table surface is covered in trees.), the others don't so much. But in the balance of things, I'm ok with it. 

It is, thats the thing I like to play a game that is somewhat competitive and is fair enough in balance. The collection of models I have them all so that's not it, I started to realize that I was having more fun playing my old stormcast army vs old books then I had when I'm playing the new collection. Perhaps it also is the gaming group where most people have old armies due to their old collection of fantasy armies. It might be that this enhances the aspects a lot while in other groups where ppl play mostly new armies its not much of an issue.

[hughwyeth]

1 minute ago, Jupiter said:

It is, thats the thing I like to play a game that is somewhat competitive and is fair enough in balance. The collection of models I have them all so that's not it, I started to realize that I was having more fun playing my old stormcast army vs old books then I had when I'm playing the new collection. Perhaps it also is the gaming group where most people have old armies due to their old collection of fantasy armies. It might be that this enhances the aspects a lot while in other groups where ppl play mostly new armies its not much of an issue.

Yeah that's totally fair. The game is much more fast moving development wise than fantasy was. "Meta" is different every 3 months and it's very hard to keep track! I'm not competitive myself so I find players who are not either and we play whatever we like and i love it. But i can see that for many competitive inclined players there's a frustration at the frequent changes in the game and the consequences on power-level of certain forces.