Speculation: Will AOS ever be balanced or is this as good as it gets?

[Dead Scribe]

Over the weekend I played in a 32 player tournament ($100 buy in, $2500 first prize) and it was a lot of fun.  However the topic on everyone's mind that was discussed the entire time was the balance in the game, and how a lot of people thought it was very very bad.  Looking around, it was true that the armies present were mainly the same four or five core builds (I am currently running slaanesh, triple keepers and I can pull about 1500 free points from summoning per game roughly (sometimes less, sometimes more, but it usually averages around 1500)

A lot of the players playing are new to wargaming and GW in general, and I myself never played previous fantasy to really have any comparison.  

A lot of people were complaining that it was hard to recruit people lately because the balance is seen as bad and they go play other games (sometimes ninth age pops up, sometimes kings of war, but mostly its things like star wars legion or malifaux that seem to be where everyone is going to these days though I also note 40k has a huge following despite everyone complaining about its balance)

And there's the rub:  40k is hugely popular despite everyone complaining about its balance.  

So do you think the designers will ever put a serious effort into balancing out the game, or is this pretty much typical and you should just keep adapting with new armies that have strong rules?

Edited October 14, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[hughwyeth]

This is discussed a lot. I think the premise is wrong in the first place. For balance, you need to have 2 forces with identical rules played on a symmetrical table. The second you introduce any variation in rules or profiles, balance is out the window. There will always be rock/paper/scissors and there will always be armies that do better in the current meta than others. And with AoS there is such a huge variety of armies and models, i don't think it's even theoretically possible to balance. 

I think GW are doing a decent job at maintaining a general balance for a good chunk of armies. People have beaten Slaanesh. It is possible to beat. They are powerful right now, but how long will that last?

Regarding the designers "putting effort into balancing the game"- i think they do, but GW has always been about models and selling models. AoS had no points when it launched. The serious competitive side is still quite a new thing for GW and AoS.

[PraetorDragoon]

No. AoS isn't ever going to be as balanced as you want. It might get better balance, as the biyearly FAQ/errata might fix big issues. (slaanesh, for example) But overall the designers aren't competitive players nor are they aiming exclusively for tournament play,. There are way too much armies and units for things to be properly balanced. 

So there is a lot to balance, and GW lacks the skill to properly balance. Best we will get is a DnD-like sort-of balance. 

 

[Sleboda]

I believe it's balanced enough to be a wonderfully enjoyable game in pretty much any setting other than tournaments that have prizes, cash or otherwise.

That setting brings out the absolute worst in people (nothing personal intended, just a general observation) and I cross my fingers that GW never allows it to influence their decision-making in any way whatsoever.

I want balance. I just don't want these events to drive that balancing effort.

So I suppose the answer to the question is that I don't expect balance to ever get much better than it is now.

[Overread]

I think GW has taken the first proper steps in many editions toward balance and are starting to realise that fostering a strong competitive wing of their product lines can be good for both the health of the gamer community and the potential sales GW can make. Even just shifting to this new pattern of updating all armies at once instead of one at a time over many many years has made colossal difference (so much so we ran GW out of stock and put enough pressure on their factories that they've bought land and built a new factory in the UK - which is NOT cheap). 

 

I think that we still have the same people at GW writing rules so there ar still some legacy issues with how they approach rule writing and structuring. Also there are still issues with data release and management of beta testing in that most times (from what we've heard) GW open tests things by sending out pre-designed lists to gamers rather than sending out the full rules and letting them build armies and find the broken combos and such. 

This might be something we have to continue to live with until there's staff/attitude changes. In theory a growing and flourishing competitive scene should push GW closer and closer toward increased balance.

It's also important to remember that balance is not a single defined concept. Many times balance discussions can go around in circles with people on both sides convinced that an army is balanced or imbalanced. Not every time of course, but many times the imbalance is not always clear cut. This is before we even get into the fact that, online, we have people of different backgrounds and experiences debating with each other. You've got people with only maths theory arguing with people who play beginner level games on a table with almost no terrain with those playing with so much terrain they can't even see the floor of the board etc... So there's huge variety. 

 

What might change balance a lot is if GW started doing pre-designed tables like they've done with Warcry. Considering that pre-made battlefields have been in computer games for years and that GW is really pushing terrain sales I can see a itme when the Warcry style of setting up a game could bleed into AoS and 40K. 

[Tropical Ghost General]

I think people go too literal with expectations of having a balanced game, referencing chess as an example or that every army needs to be identical, which is utter rubbish. The game is currently massively unbalanced, the fact that there is obvious tiers of performance highlights this. And yes, lower tier armies in the right hands and having the right match ups and playing with the right tournament pack and having the right dice rolls can win games, but that's not a sign of balance, that is a sign of pure luck. 

The issue with balance for this game is there is going to be an element of strong vs weak. Each army has strengths and each army has weaknesses. The balance issue comes when an army has very little weaknesses, Slaanesh at the moment is a key example of that. So they are weak to shooting, great, can every army access shooting, no, so it's not really a weakness. Taking NH as an example (not LoG because that's not NH), the book is actually well balanced. They work really well as hordes, can ignore rend, but they have super squishy heroes that are super important for the army to function. They have some really good strengths but also some big weaknesses, which can be exploited by every other faction, even the old factions without a battletome. Issue is with NH, due to having a balanced book, they can't compete with the utter bent rules of stuff like Slaanesh, Fyreslayers, FEC, etc...

Locally for me there has been a real issue with the balance competitively and I'm hearing of lots of players getting 'bored' of the fact that meta chasing is literally the only way to stay competitive. I've even started running a narrative game night as a direct counter to the competitive stuff because I was getting so little enjoyment from the game compared to this time last year, and it's been loads more fun that taking part in a game which is getting littered more and more with negative player experiences.

One massive issue with the game currently is the increasing amount of 'zero interactive' elements in the game. And by this I mean moments where you are the opposing player have no way of taking part in the transaction between the two players. It started in the activation wars with FEC and has gotten so much worse. The divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots' is getting worse and worse with each book that gets released. And will GW release an over-riding set of rules that effect the entire game to help compensate this, of course not.

Another issue is with subtle changes in the game mechanics. It used to be that unmodified 6's did a mortal wound and no extra damage, then they brought in 6's do mortal wounds on top of regular damage. Instantly creating a shift in power balance between the haves and have nots. Then they introduced reroll hits/wounds, rather than reroll failed hits/wounds, meaning that if you are hit with any negative modifiers, you can reroll them all, rather than just the failed hits, while a seemingly subtle change, again it creates a massive shift in power balance between the haves and have nots. Summoning is always a sore spot for those players whose armies lack summoning. FEC always get the sore end of this, as the archregent can summon 200pt of ghouls, but are ghouls even worth 100pts for 10, when you look at the other basic battleline of other armies, no, they are overcosted and should be 80pts, so technically it's only 160pts of ghouls they can summon, which is still more free models than a lot of other armies can bring on. So even the points costs of units is skewed and heavily unbalanced.

There is so many smaller elements as well as larger elements that all contribute to a massive imbalance. Why do some armies get endless spells and terrain while others don't? Why are the endless spells or some armies usable and a viable choice, while others are a pointless options from a competitive view point? Why are some armies given a decent spell lore and artefacts while others aren't? If GW plan on creating elements of the game that are dependant on being able to get involved, such as realm specific stuff/spells/terrain, then they need to let all of the armies get involved with their own unique bits and pieces, rather than just giving a core select few by the recipients of the special stuff, otherwise it just creates more and more 'zero interactive' elements in the game. 

Do I still enjoy playing the game, yes. But competitive play locally has just become an exercise is creating lists that offer your opponent zero chance to interact with what you are doing, is that a balanced game, no. 

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

a

nd I'm hearing of lots of players getting 'bored' of the fact that meta chasing is literally the only way to stay competitive

This is the primary catalyst for what started the whole conversation at the tournament so your experience is matching mine.

The second catalyst comes from our more casual crowd who don't like playing because they feel they have to put a lot of energy into making sure their opponents aren't bringing too strong a list since they don't have tournament lists themselves, and don't want to get blown off the table and don't want to buy new armies after having spent a lot on their current force, which happens to also not be very competitive but were under the illusion that 2000 points would be viable against 2000 points.

. I've even started running a narrative game night as a direct counter to the competitive stuff

We had a guy try that over the summer but he gave up a few months into it because people kept bringing tournament lists to his narrative nights and he got tired of arguing with people.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[chord]

Ever since they did a pivot on AoS to try and bring back the more dedicated competitive gamer they have strayed further from balance.  It makes sense from a short term financial decision.  They are getting a sales boost for people chasing the meta, but I think in the long run they will cause more harm.  Of course developing warcry they can use that to help drive new gamers into their offerings.

I do know that malifaux is becoming way more popular than GW (minus 40K) around these parts.

[Overread]

Personally I think balance could be addressed far better if the double turn were retried to open play as a mechanic. Talking of "haves and not haves" its an extreme example of it where one player can have two whole turns and the other player has very little to do  but roll saves and remove models (esp if the army against them is ranged heavy so there isn't even much/any close combat comeback).

Summoning has always been a huge issue because the potential for broken lists. Slaanesh is currently rather broken but its also highly variable depending on the opponent. A Skaven army with lots of 1 wound models can do really well against Slaanesh, whilst a Stormcast army with lots of multi wound models has a much harder time because the SC army is generating way more depravity for the Slaanesh army.

 

If anything Summoning needs to be designed almost around fixed values per game rather than values that can so widely swing and that's before you get to summoning that requires certain models. Again Slaanesh wants to put loads of leaders on the table and summon more to keep increasing depravity. That's not a good play mechanic and speaking as a fan and collector of the range its also not as fun to play with because you get the feeling that there's 1 option (lots of keepers) otherwise every other option is weaker by a distinct margin. You can't even go fluffy with a troop or chariot heavy list easily unless its, again, all in the leaders. 

 

 

 

Edit - I'd be interested to know what profits GW actually makes from "meta chasers" as in my experience the competitive scene is far smaller than the casual. Furthermore meta-chasers who are serious about it are FAR more likely to buy secondhand models than they are to buy and build new. Most often they might be putting more money in to painting companies than into GW models. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Overread

[Tropical Ghost General]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

We had a guy try that over the summer but he gave up a few months into it because people kept bringing tournament lists to his narrative nights and he got tired of arguing with people.

I am really strict with how it's run. There are 2 rules for my narrative night, one is there is no restrictions on army build, if you want just hereos or no battleline that's not a problem, the other (which is the most important one) is no cheesey stuff, so anything that is going to be OP or too strong isn't allowed to be brought along, so for example if you want to play FEC, then leave the throne at home, leave the chalice at home, don't take the reroll maw trait for the mount, etc...It's still early days for the night so far, but it's been going down well and starting to get a good regular turn out.

 

22 minutes ago, Overread said:

if the double turn were retried to open play as a mechanic

The issue isn't with the double turn, because it doesn't matter if it's I-Go-U-Go, when you are always fighting last in both your turn and your opponents turn. It's still 2 player turns of having zero interactivity in the game.

[Sartxac]

Respect the double turn mechanics. This isn't unbalanced. 

The player who can choose the first player know that if begin first the other player has a huge probability to do a double turn in any round. This isn't a concept of lucky.

Secondly, as in the real live i like the existence of rock, paper scissors mechanics. For example, slaanesh have a huge advantatges vs elite army, and elite army of idoneeth with his cavalry have good advantatges vs horde army that can't control the bravery. The problem is the existence of armies very competent vs any strategy as Slaanesh, skavens or FEC. And the armies as Beastclaw Raiders, Gutbusters, Kharadron or Slave to Darkness that are very poor vs any type of army. They need a god actualitzation as orruk warclans.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Sartxac

[Dead Scribe]

The double turn is something a lot of people complain about here as well and we have lost a lot of players because of it, but I don't think that has to do with imbalance so is probably off topic.

[Panzer]

Speaking from experience with GWs ability to balance their games ... it will never ever be 100% balanced. There will be better times and worse times but ultimately it's very swingy and one is better off focussing on the fluff and models of their army and accept that the game is not always perfectly fair.

[Smooth criminal]

GW doesn't give a damn about balance, so you shouldn't too. They only produce new shiny cool stuff for people to buy.

 

Personally I wouldn't play this game if it wasn't for the hobby aspect. The competitive balance is terrible, if you're focused on having highest win percentage possible you are forced to constantly jump factions. Just accept that and move on, and if you can't accept the inherent unbalance then this game is not for you.

[Dead Scribe]

That begs the question:  if the game is considered by so many to be inferior or badly balanced, why then do so many people play it?  

[Ruhraffe]

Because they care less about balance and more about atmospheric games, with pretty models, nice scenery, an army backed up by their own lore, and so on.

 

Balancewise, what I'd find interesting to try out is a "sideboard"-System like in magic. Like a extra mage to dispell with against tzeentch, some more cheap chaff against slaanesh, whatever you think is favorable and exploits the weaknesses of your opponents army. 

Being abale to adapt to the army you're facing up against might be interesting.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Ruhraffe

[Panzer]

7 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

That begs the question:  if the game is considered by so many to be inferior or badly balanced, why then do so many people play it?  

Because it's still balanced enough to be fun for the most part.

[JPjr]

6 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

That begs the question:  if the game is considered by so many to be inferior or badly balanced, why then do so many people play it? 

honestly I think if you asked me or any of the people I've ever played with or, as equally important, painted with, modelled with, discussed lore & fiction with, etc etc etc over the years for our top reasons for being into Warhammer then it being a well balanced, serious, competitive game to be played in tournament halls would generally come somewhere around 328th on the list, just after 'it being a great way to meet people of the opposite sex'.

[Dead Scribe]

But then why is there always so much complaining about balance if balance is something not really considered or cared about?

[schwabbele]

Isn’t it normal that the vocal crowd is the one who has some issues with something? And the rest usually way bigger is ok with it but just doesn’t feel to post/ talk about it? Latest Ryzen boost „issue“ comes to my mind as example

[Forrix]

I think balance will get better simply because I expect the rate of new battletomes to drop off within the next year once all the existing armies are updated to 2.0. GW could definitely be better with their playtesting and more aggressive in the GHB and FAQs but they generally move things in the right direction at least and no longer let unbalances continue indefinitely.

Edit: I went to a tournament that experimented with a sideboard and it was actually disliked quite a bit. They went with 500 points and it was surprisingly difficult to write a list that could have 500 points changed out in such a way that it meaningfully got better against certain match ups or scenarios and required more time between matches. Most people just juggled endless spells around or had one unit to switch out (or just didn't use a sideboard). Since our scene was newer a lot of people just didn't have the models for the extra 500 points either.

Also, I think Balance is very important in AOS as people generally don't play very many games (outside of tournaments I probably only play one or two games a month) due to how long they are. So just one or two very bad games can really skew a person's perception and enjoyment of the hobby.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Forrix

[overtninja]

13 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

But then why is there always so much complaining about balance if balance is something not really considered or cared about?

It's definitely considered, but often people complain about unbalance when one player brings a list the other person's army simply can't deal with. No one has a good time in a one-sided contest - especially if both sides are not on the same page about the competitiveness of the game taking place. Most of the complaints I've seen have been because of Slaanesh and FEC making melee lists just not a thing in the competitive scene, when they have been for a while - which is a fair point, but such lists are shredded by ranged-focused lists - which are in turn shredded by infiltrating lists that can lock things in combat - which are in turn shredded by hordes, which are countered by elite armies, etc.

To play at a high level you have to decide how you want to win and bend your whole list around that win condition, working towards that win condition and minimizing the chances of that win condition failing. This necessarily means that while you engineer a very competitive list you are also conceding, and indeed engineering, the circumstances that flatly beat you. Some lists in such an environment will simply destroy you, because you are leaning so far towards a certain strategy.

Basically, a competitive environment encourages specialization and intense focus, which creates a lot of counter-comps and ultimately one-sided matchups. This is the nature of competitive play and it's certainly not a new situation in the hobby.

With all of that said, for almost every person playing, these things are not, nor should they be, a consideration. Most people aren't playing at the ruthless bleeding edge of competitive play - they are collecting the models they like, fielding the armies they think are cool, and playing against friends and others in a more relaxed setting. For this level of play, AoS is pretty great, and will let you field anything reasonable and stand a decent chance. That's pretty good balance, for that level of play.

At a competitive tournament level though? You get filth lists that will either hose their opponent or be hosed. Very few games will be down to the wire unless the two armies at the table match up well in terms of both win conditions and strategies.

[JPjr]

I think people want a modicum of balance, of course (though personally I have zero issues with certain armies being less, let's say, effective. In fact I'd be more than happy if they were to lean more into that with certain armies*). But the fact there's so much complaining probably is more to do with the part of the scene that you're involved and engaged in.

it's like you can have a 40000 page thread on this forum of people endlessly arguing in pointless circles that model x must be 10pts more or some other nonsense whilst outside of this forum when I think of nearly all the people I chat to/follow on social media who are into the hobby I can barely think of any discussions like that, at all. everyone's more into modelling, creating scenarios, discussing the stories, I honestly dont think I've ever seen half the people I follow on Twitter/Instagram, for instance, who are really into Warhammer ever discuss playing an actual game.

but then again much like the tournament scene that's just one small part of the Warhammer cheese wheel. for many of them the idea you'd spend hours discussing points is almost as alien as it would be to many 'competitive' players that people spend hours trying to figure out how to convert blood bowl halflings into a novelty free guild force complete with lengthy back stories and pie recipes.

personally much as I joke about it there's no right way to play the game or be into the hobby (well apart from extreme narrative play but...) and somehow GW have to balance that, and really at the moment they're probably doing an ok job considering how the hobby is growing, it's just that negative voices, no matter if they're a small minority, are nearly always louder and more insistent.

I mean there's half a dozen people on here that I don't think I've ever seen even a hint that all the time and money they put into the hobby has ever provided them with even the faintest moment of joy and their sole mission in life seems to be to make sure everyone else is as relentlessly miserable as they are, but that doesn't mean they are representative of people in the game in general. 

at least I hope not anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* by that I don't mean they're weaker as such but less optimised for just purely smashing the opponent, for example factions like Skaven I thin should be powerful but come with genuine risks of doing as much damage to yourself as the opponent, destruction armies should hit like a train but you're just never exactly sure what they might hit, etc etc.

Edited October 14, 2019 by JPjr

[TimM85]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Personally I think balance could be addressed far better if the double turn were retried to open play as a mechanic. Talking of "haves and not haves" its an extreme example of it where one player can have two whole turns and the other player has very little to do  but roll saves and remove models (esp if the army against them is ranged heavy so there isn't even much/any close combat comeback).

Summoning has always been a huge issue because the potential for broken lists. Slaanesh is currently rather broken but its also highly variable depending on the opponent. A Skaven army with lots of 1 wound models can do really well against Slaanesh, whilst a Stormcast army with lots of multi wound models has a much harder time because the SC army is generating way more depravity for the Slaanesh army.

 

If anything Summoning needs to be designed almost around fixed values per game rather than values that can so widely swing and that's before you get to summoning that requires certain models. Again Slaanesh wants to put loads of leaders on the table and summon more to keep increasing depravity. That's not a good play mechanic and speaking as a fan and collector of the range its also not as fun to play with because you get the feeling that there's 1 option (lots of keepers) otherwise every other option is weaker by a distinct margin. You can't even go fluffy with a troop or chariot heavy list easily unless its, again, all in the leaders. 

 

 

 

Edit - I'd be interested to know what profits GW actually makes from "meta chasers" as in my experience the competitive scene is far smaller than the casual. Furthermore meta-chasers who are serious about it are FAR more likely to buy secondhand models than they are to buy and build new. Most often they might be putting more money in to painting companies than into GW models. 

I have to disagree with getting rid of the double for a significantly weaker army it maybe the only chance they have, and also it would significantly increase the shooting meta always stay in range with a screen etc.

Again I disagree with summoning with the exception of slaanesh where theres is way overboard.  If you look at BOC,BOK, Seraphon, Nurgle, FEC theres is all pretty balanced and i think LON is pretty on point as well though rather irritating.

I think with the new army books everything seems more balanced and creates better gameplay with the exception of skaven and slaanesh. Khorne, Orruks, COS, Sylvaneth are also nice and smooth pretty well balanced, O and S the streamlining without losing character I think is awesome I used to hate the old Ironjaws and sylvaneth with long as hero phase with the trees, the waaagh and free moves getting out of hand i'd go get a coffeee and still wait 10minutes before I'm doing anything (hallow heart maybe a bit op but early days) 

I've got to agree I don't think there are that many meta chasers most people who play build an army they think looks cool and will run pretty good, also I don't believe in meta chasing its a stupid idea most people who do it aren't the top players and only ever finish mid table anyway or they just win their local tourneys and think they're good. (low mid table player who's beat a few meta chasers) A top tier player will beat most of us with a slaves to darkness army end of story.

[JackStreicher]

It will never be balanced because balance is not what GW stands for, they stand for a constant power-spiral as a means to increase sales.