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

[whispersofblood]

It totally depends on your definition of balance. If your definition of balance includes instantaneous balance, then I doubt any game can really achieve that. The biggest hurdles model games face in that regard is not rules but the economics of model games. And, artistic expression.

As a system I would fiercely argue AoS trends towards balance. New factions are introduce changing the relative value of every model in the game in the universe of possible outcomes. I feel strongly that if you remove the skins(physical representations of rules) and economic hurdles, the rules themselves are actually the best arguably the best of any game I've ever played. Every package of rules (army list) has an a package which forces some form of moderation to that list bringing it back to a realm where even bad match ups are manageable affairs. If you want a universe of factions with strong stylistic themes bad match ups will exist. What you want is the universe to present enough theoretical hurdles that you can't maximize the desparity without compromising your position in the universe. 

There are some practical limitations here such as release schedule for instance. But here is the biggest problem, some rules packages are just more popular and more affordable than others. There isn't a mechanics way to solve for this problem that I can see. So we end up with metas that don't actually represent the mechanical universe. Which I'm not sure GW can solve for. 

 

[Dead Scribe]

1 hour ago, TheWilddog said:

I have played and still play a variety of table top war games and other competitive games like MTG (many at relatively high levels of competitive play), and honestly most every other system I have played exhibit the same imbalance that we currently see in AOS.  I have played dozens of Standard MTG formats over the years and in almost everyone there were 3-5 best decks that were truly competitive tier 1 and everything else would be dominated by, in fact the current standard format is dominated fairly heavily by 1 deck with most people playing it if they really want to win.  The same goes for War Machine. For most of the game's life each faction has had certain casters that dominated and 80 percent of the rest of the range was just left on the shelf. The CID structure has rotated what is good based on the set themes and the meta chases the top builds, while most other lists are relegated to non-competitive.  These other games spend way more time and resources than GW on game balance and rules writing and end up in similar spaces.  It is honestly the model of the modern competitive/collectible game, a constantly shifting unbalanced meta where new things are promoted to induce sales. This reality is only more frustrating for us as war gamers because unlike magic players we can not just move on to a new deck and recycle the old ones very easily, due to the hobby investment in painting and building the models.   

 

I am a tournament magic player and I agree with you mostly.  However, when the designers introduce things like the summoning mechanics which are going to be off the wall with what they can do to break the game and frustrate players, I have to wonder why they would shrug their shoulders at imbalance and then simply add more things that are known to cause the game to break on top of that.

Its one thing to realize that the games will never be balanced and cannot ever be balanced, its another to build foundations in your system that are based off of creating imbalance in the first place.

[TheWilddog]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I am a tournament magic player and I agree with you mostly.  However, when the designers introduce things like the summoning mechanics which are going to be off the wall with what they can do to break the game and frustrate players, I have to wonder why they would shrug their shoulders at imbalance and then simply add more things that are known to cause the game to break on top of that.

Its one thing to realize that the games will never be balanced and cannot ever be balanced, its another to build foundations in your system that are based off of creating imbalance in the first place.

Summoning has some issues, but I think the only place it is currently breaking things is in the context of Slaanesh. The Depravity Mechanic will take a hit to get it back in line. Nurgle, Khorne, Serephon LoN and I would argue FEC summoning are mostly fine and don't break the game system. 

As for Magic, R and D has consistently pushed new mechanics that broke the game and frustrated players for the purpose of introducing new "cool stuff" and driving sales. Affinity, Storm, Phyrexian Mana, Energy, they do it over and over. I just don't really see a difference. 

[Clan's Cynic]

22 hours 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 for 99% of wargamers, GW products are their entry point and thus creates a monopoly on the wargaming hobby. It only tends to be after people have invested hundreds if not thousands of both [insert your currency] and man-hours that they might contemplate looking into other company's offerings. But then there's another problem... to play those games, you need people to actually play with. This naturally leads to the conclusion that they don't want to 'risk' spending hundreds of pounds on something that might not even get a game with.

For most people, you play 40k/AoS or you don't play. This is especially true in the UK due to the prevalence of GW stores being in about every major town/city. Wargaming is expensive but at least with 40k/AoS you're almost guaranteed to find a game local to you. In the States you find a wider palette of games due to the prevalence of LFGS' after GW wiped out (and is now slowly rebuilding) their North American stores a few years back.

This I feel is why GW products do have such a notoriously loud, negative fandom - because a lot of those people would genuinely be happier taking their money elsewhere, the problem is they can't justify taking that step due to the above limitations. As a result, they continue to hope that GW actually improves their pretty horrendous balancing, or else they just don't wargame at all.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Clan's Cynic

[Overread]

Yep its a huge part of why GW are so much bigger than many others. Another aspect is that marketing is VERY hard these days as many avenues are simply too expensive for most games. So they often rely on local clubs since they don't have stores; they don't have game licences; they don't have books or school programs. Just look how much Warmachine and Hordes have suffered since doing away with their Press Ganger system - even something as simple as one person in each region having a vested interest in pushing the game made a huge difference in someone locally promoting the game; organising events; introducing new people to it etc.... 

[Dead Scribe]

For most people, you play 40k/AoS or you don't play. This is especially true in the UK. Wargaming is expensive but at least with 40k/AoS you're almost guaranteed to find a game local to you. This I feel is why GW products do have such a notoriously loud, negative fandom - because a lot of those people would genuinely be happier taking their money elsewhere, the problem is they can't justify taking that step due to the above limitations. As a result, they continue to hope that GW actually improves their pretty horrendous balancing, or else they just don't wargame at all.

I think you answered the thread sir. 

[IneptusAstartes]

A truly balanced game would be like chess - both players using the exact same armies with the exact same terrain and starting points. Considering all the armies and playstyles, true balance would be next to impossible. And as previous posters said, new armies are released taking the older ones into account, so in general armies with newer rules are overpowered in comparison.

[Jamopower]

I find the Middle Earth SBG to be reasonably well balanced for a game like this. I have never felt that I have lost because of my list, but because of my opponent playing better than me, or that I have taken too big risks that have backfired (that some people like to call luck). Of course, I'm not aware of all the fine details from the tournament play as we mainly play it quite casually, but what I've looked at the big tournaments, the winning lists are very varied and "balanced", i.e. there's no spamming of one unit type in most of them. Maybe it has something to do, that the main game designer is one of the best competitive players in the game? In any case, it has very different feeling from playing any sort of Warhammer, where you often know after the deployment who will win. Both games are from the same company, so surely there are things that can be done differently.

 

Of course, in MESBG, big part of the balance comes from pretty simple mechanisms. The game is very dependent on how you use your limited might points, where are your heroes and how you position the models and use your opportunities as the differences in statlines and special rules are quite minor compared to WH.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jamopower

[JPjr]

On 10/14/2019 at 3:45 PM, 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?  

I think interestingly another current thread may also provide an answer to this in that, as it stands, it seems most people get into this hobby aged around 10.

We're playing a game that is designed to appeal to and hook in 10 year olds.

We're just the oddballs that can't let go of their childhood and think that having made up stats, dice  and the occasional bit of cartoony grim darkness makes this hugely different from bashing He-Man figures together.

Anyway on that note I think I'm going to start a ultra competitive Crossbows & Catapults tournament scene.

 

EDIT: Great, I am now, oh so bloody predictably, looking at Crossbows & Catapults sets on eBay... There's a dragon?! Why did I never have the dragon!?

Edited October 15, 2019 by JPjr

[mmimzie]

3 hours ago, IneptusAstartes said:

And as previous posters said, new armies are released taking the older ones into account, so in general armies with newer rules are overpowered in comparison.

I think getting the balance right on new armies is just a bit tough. As  they don't have literally thousands of players testing the rules before they come out. I think for new armies GW should take an aggressive points adjust stance on each new book for about 6 months. Tweaking the points of models every 2 months till they preform near the levels of other armies. 

The need to keep physical books relavent and as a product really slows down balance. I think stepping into something more digital and being more aggressive with pts changes is an important factor to balance. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by mmimzie

[Zanzou]

1 hour ago, JPjr said:

We're playing a game that is designed to appeal to and hook in 10 year olds.

We're just the oddballs that can't let go of their childhood 

If you took a poll for the age that most people had their first alcoholic beverage and made a conclusion based off of that, you would think that alcohol was designed for minors. I think that if you took a poll for the *current* age of warhammer players, the average age would be in the 20s. 

That all being said, the direction they're pushing seems to be younger lately...

[amysrevenge]

3 hours ago, IneptusAstartes said:

A truly balanced game would be like chess - both players using the exact same armies with the exact same terrain and starting points.

Not picking on this post in specific, but there are several similar posts in this thread.

This isn't a useful point.  The only argument that results from the chess comparison is "we can't be perfectly balanced like chess, therefore F it, we don't need any balance at all". 

That's not a good argument.  We're not chess, and we don't have perfect balance.  So what?  Just because we can't have *perfect* balance doesn't mean we shouldn't hope for *better* balance.

[Overread]

2 hours ago, JPjr said:

I think interestingly another current thread may also provide an answer to this in that, as it stands, it seems most people get into this hobby aged around 10.

We're playing a game that is designed to appeal to and hook in 10 year olds.

We're just the oddballs that can't let go of their childhood and think that having made up stats, dice  and the occasional bit of cartoony grim darkness makes this hugely different from bashing He-Man figures together.

Eh I think its more that its a game that kids and adults jointly enjoy. Keeping in mind it was developed by adults who enjoyed playing the game they were developing and the game itself has retained its adult customer base really well. 

It's just not a kids nor an adults "hobby" its cross generational. 

Plus kids actually LIKE clearly defined boundaries and rules. Most people do because they provide a framework that is predictable to operate within. Introducing rules that are fuzzy or hard to understand or which don't work the same way every time etc... can actually be hard for both kids and adults. Tighter, better rules are better for all parties involved. From that foundation anyone can then far more easily branch off in their own direction. 

[Dead Scribe]

Yeah.  I think that whenever balance comes up it seems common people throw chess and perfect balance and how thats impossible in the mix, and I don't think most anyone is asking for perfect balance.  

I do think the post above is the correct answer as to why people stick around even though the balance isn't great.  After investing so much money into GW, its hard to let it go and invest money somewhere else, especially when other games don't have the GW community that guarantees games, which kind of gives them leeway to be as lax as they want to be knowing people will stay anyway because going elsewhere is a giant financial risk for players.

And because people have invested so much money and time into GW, they will handwaive bad balance and convince themselves its not that bad, and the people complaining about balance they dismiss as not being realistic or throw the chess analogy in to try to disprove that you can't have balance anyway.

I've also been called "that guy" because I run triple keeper slaanesh list, being a competitive player.  And the lead designer Ben Johnson has pictures of his triple keeper list on twitter and other social media outlets, so the explanation that you should just avoid "that guy" and the balance is fine,  is fairly insulting, considering I'm using an army that the lead designer himself uses.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Dead Scribe

[amysrevenge]

14 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I've also been called "that guy" because I run triple keeper slaanesh list, being a competitive player.  And the lead designer Ben Johnson has pictures of his triple keeper list on twitter and other social media outlets, so the explanation that you should just avoid "that guy" and the balance is fine,  is fairly insulting, considering I'm using an army that the lead designer himself uses.

This is also definitely a thing.  Hard list plus personal charisma (I've met Ben and I like Ben) is fine. You take off your toys and never complain.  Hard list plus stand-offish or awkward personality is "that guy".  You cry and moan whilst taking off your toys and then complain about it on the forums later.

Edited October 15, 2019 by amysrevenge

[chord]

6 hours ago, CDM said:

I think it was fairly balanced in 40k when they did the indexes. People.demanded more flavour in a codex and all of a sudden it was all over the place. 

I'd advocate for a tournament's to use just points from the generals handbook or a future tournament book and leave out all army and unit special rules. You cant balance varied rules through points. You cant create an interesting game without special rules (pre GHB 1 in AoS)

You cant cater to both crowds with the same rules, casual AoS gaming took off with the more structured approach of GHB1 and beyond so indent think there is that mythical gamer who throws down whatever and just plays for fun, some structure is needed but it ain't tournament structure!

There is no balance if they're is a vast array of rules and factions. Why do we kid ourselves otherwise.

I agree,  once they started introducing allegiance abilities, artifacts, etc the balance really got thrown out of whack.  If you play just warscrolls it is much more balanced since the over the top combos tend to be based on all the "extras"

[Dead Scribe]

What does it mean when you say "you cry and moan while taking off your toys"

[Panzer]

People need to learn that being "That Guy" has absolutely nothing to do with bringing a hard list or not. It's the overall attitude and behaviour towards others that makes someone "That Guy". That can be the case even if he brings a weak list.

[Dead Scribe]

The context that it is being used is if you bring a triple keeper list, you are "that guy", so in many cases it is being used 100% to denote what type of list you are bringing.

[TheWilddog]

Again my basic position is that GW has made a business decision, that to my mind all other successful large scale tabletop war games and collectible card games have made, get a vague modicum of balance where the new stuff is pushed to increase sales. I play War Machine and this is true, especially true with the new Grykim and Infernal releases, I have played Kings Of War and the general modicum of balance seems about the same, Magic, particularly in the Standard format is the same.  

You can argue that smaller skirmish games like Mailifuax and similar games have better balance but that is almost a different genre than large scale battles. Also you can argue that fan projects without the sales incentive, like the 9th Age have better balance because they are not constantly using rules to push models. However, what other model are people asking GW to adopt? Most other games of AOS's size I have played suffer from the same commercial driven unbalance and I would argue that it is intentional and mostly the industry standard. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by TheWilddog

[PensivePanther]

@TheWilddog basically beat me to it.

I'm afraid the only way you're going to make AoS "balanced" is by putting rules creation in the hands of people who are not associated with the sale of the models themselves. For the most part, every codex and every rule supplement has to be bigger and better than the last. I dont think any of us blame GW for being that way. I think we all understand. 

Its up to passionate people like the fine folks who post on this forum day in and day out to make the kind of game we all want to see. I think something like that is the only way a "balanced" game is going to happen. I whole-heartedly challenge any of you to prove me right!

~Happy Gaming

[amysrevenge]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

What does it mean when you say "you cry and moan while taking off your toys"

I mean that when you are soundly and thoroughly defeated you might complain all the while about how unbalanced the books are. 

Unless the fellow is super affable and charismatic, in which case you take just as many toys off just as quickly, but don't have a whinge about it.

Edited October 15, 2019 by amysrevenge

[Dead Scribe]

Got it thanks for the clarification.  Yeah I can see that.  If you like the person who is crushing you, you tend to not complain about it as much.

[Panzer]

Considering the usual replies, explanations and actual actions GW gives/takes and sometimes even immediate nerfs after a release I'm pretty confident that strong releases are less of a business decision and more of them simply underestimating the impact of their new releases.

[TheWilddog]

5 minutes ago, Panzer said:

Considering the usual replies, explanations and actual actions GW gives/takes and sometimes even immediate nerfs after a release I'm pretty confident that strong releases are less of a business decision and more of them simply underestimating the impact of their new releases.

MTG designers and pretty up front about the fact that they are constantly trying to balance introducing cool new toys to generate interest and promote sales verses the concerns of internal game balance. 

GW and most of the industry has borrowed heavily from this approach. In my opinion GW has a conscious plan to weight sales and appeal over balance as a marketing philosophy.  That is the reason the release schedule is fueled by the new. Every week new stuff is pushed for us to buy.  Primaris replace old marines, ect. Their focus is on the rules pushing the new models. Yes they want a modicum of balance, but their main focus is pushing out the next product.  They will now react to obvious overly powerful rules, but they still value pushing the rules power for sales over balance. Again this is not inherently bad, in fact it is the industry standard and a proven winning technique.  I just don't see any other companies taking a drastically different approach in our niche.