Jump to content

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


Dead Scribe

Recommended Posts

I have never seen anyone run a slaves to darkness army so I'm doubtful that any player is going to beat most players with Slaves to Darkness.   They are simply bad.  If it were true that great players would win with any army regardless, you would see that in the armies that show up.  You quite simply almost never see any bad armies, and all of the top players are typically also running top meta armies as well with a few notable exceptions running less effective but still powerful armies.

Edited by Dead Scribe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TimM85 said:

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.

The problem with your argument is that the doubleturn doesn't take into account ranged or close combat natures of the armies present nor their relative powers. There is an equal chance that the army who is weaker will get the doubleturn just as they might not get a double turn or their opponent gets a double turn. Ergo it only "works" for them IF they get it. 

And that's a huge issue because a mechanic which could give an underdog an advantage can equally give a more powerful opponent a quicker victory. But worse it can actually create a situation where two balanced armies opposing each other tip the scale and one get two turns in a row which puts them far ahead of the other. 

 

Same for the shooting issue, again you're making the assumption that the shooting army doesn't ge tthe double turn and that the close combat one does. Again the way the doubleturn works its just as likely the closecombat army gets  a doubleturn and can then lock the whole (or most) of the shooty army into close combat without the ranged army getting a chance to get a shot off. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dead Scribe said:

I have never seen anyone run a slaves to darkness army so I'm doubtful that any player is going to beat most players with Slaves to Darkness.   They are simply bad.  If it were true that great players would win with any army regardless, you would see that in the armies that show up.  You quite simply almost never see any bad armies, and all of the top players are typically also running top meta armies as well with a few notable exceptions running less effective but still powerful armies.

Slaves is a bit extreme because its not had a Battletome EVER and only just about functions with some GHB addendum. Ergo its an army that isn't actually "working" as it should at present. So its no surprise to me that they are well below the power curve along with gutbusters and, well, basically every army until they got their tome .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

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.

Eh this has always been speculated but never really proven. I think its more that their method of testing is limited and doesn't tend to be designed to spot for broken army builds. As a result most armies end up with at least one or two broken builds; and yet along the way we also get forces like Gloomspite - biggest release of the year so far (Reapers aren't out yet) and yet they were not considered broken at launch like some others. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JackStreicher said:

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.

personally I don't even think of it as a deliberate power spiral, it's just the nature of a game that has a ridiculous amount of playable factions which take a long time to update, sometimes a whole cycle or more.

not saying that armies with newer books dont have advantages but I've always seen it as more like a constant evolution of the game itself.

the core rules get updated and then you have battletomes written in the light of that with new mechanics that give them an advantage.

then someone sits down to write the next tranche of BTs and thinks, oh wouldn't it be cool if they could do this or that, and invents a new mechanic, whether it's something to do with summoning or monkeying around with who attacks when.

the books after that then take that into account and either incorporate those mechanics themselves or something new.

ideally, given endless resources and time, whenever a new BT comes out with new mechanics etc they'd go through the older ones to update to reflect those not just tinkering here and there with points but christ that would be a task and a half and just make physical books even more redundant.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JPjr said:

then someone sits down to write the next tranche of BTs and thinks, oh wouldn't it be cool if they could do this or that, and invents a new mechanic, whether it's something to do with summoning or monkeying around with who attacks when.

True, for some reason those abilities are rather broken in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Overread said:

The problem with your argument is that the doubleturn doesn't take into account ranged or close combat natures of the armies present nor their relative powers. There is an equal chance that the army who is weaker will get the doubleturn just as they might not get a double turn or their opponent gets a double turn. Ergo it only "works" for them IF they get it. 

And that's a huge issue because a mechanic which could give an underdog an advantage can equally give a more powerful opponent a quicker victory. But worse it can actually create a situation where two balanced armies opposing each other tip the scale and one get two turns in a row which puts them far ahead of the other. 

 

Same for the shooting issue, again you're making the assumption that the shooting army doesn't ge tthe double turn and that the close combat one does. Again the way the doubleturn works its just as likely the closecombat army gets  a doubleturn and can then lock the whole (or most) of the shooty army into close combat without the ranged army getting a chance to get a shot off. 

I do agree with that but having a 50/50 out is better than having no outs, alternating turns will always give shooting armies with cheap chaff the advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JPjr said:

personally I don't even think of it as a deliberate power spiral, it's just the nature of a game that has a ridiculous amount of playable factions which take a long time to update, sometimes a whole cycle or more.

not saying that armies with newer books dont have advantages but I've always seen it as more like a constant evolution of the game itself.

the core rules get updated and then you have battletomes written in the light of that with new mechanics that give them an advantage.

then someone sits down to write the next tranche of BTs and thinks, oh wouldn't it be cool if they could do this or that, and invents a new mechanic, whether it's something to do with summoning or monkeying around with who attacks when.

the books after that then take that into account and either incorporate those mechanics themselves or something new.

ideally, given endless resources and time, whenever a new BT comes out with new mechanics etc they'd go through the older ones to update to reflect those not just tinkering here and there with points but christ that would be a task and a half and just make physical books even more redundant.

 

It would be nice if a BT had at least a 50/50 chance of killing a keeper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TimM85 said:

I do agree with that but having a 50/50 out is better than having no outs, alternating turns will always give shooting armies with cheap chaff the advantage.

Eh I don't think its a fair system to basically have part of the games core balance rely on a single dice roll every few turns. Considering that its most critical is likely in the first 3 or 4. That's basically consigning the whole of victory or loss to basically 3 or 4 dice rolls. To me that just seems really bad for a game which takes hours to play. What's the point of tactics, model choice, deployment, movement etc.... if so much of the battles win/loss potential hinges on those rolls. 

I just feel it takes so much out of the game and throws it to a single chance dice roll. It's not the same as when you declare attacks or charges because those are multiple rolls and individual - one unit might work well and the other might fail all in the same turn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can it be more balanced? Absolutely. summoning could be be reigned back a significant amount, activation tricks could be made more expensive/difficult to use, some particularly broken units could use a little warscroll rework, and points could be adjusted more aggressively in both amount in frequency.

Will it be more balanaced? not likely. Slaanesh and FEC will remain broken until GW runs out of stock for them, then likely they will get the KO treatment. It's highly likely that Bonereapers will break the game yet again, as GW will need to move stock of that new line.

As long as players continue to meta chase it will be profitable for GW to keep this up. Personally, I just refuse to play against armies that are so broken as to be unfun to play against. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

True, for some reason those abilities are rather broken in most cases.

 

sure things can seem overpowered/broken at first (and there will always be instances where they are, I imagine more games get played with new rules in the first weekend a BT is released than they can playtest it during the development phase so things will always slip through, and take time to fix, time during which people are either complaining about or ruthlessly exploiting the situation) but generally I would have thought that it's more likely to be that because they're new they don't have an obvious counter yet and so seem grotesquely overpowered rather than being totally broken.

once a few factions have access to those same abilities it evens it out a bit, or similarly once people have come up against it a few times they figure out how to play against those mechanics.

as I said we're just at the mercy of a game that takes several years to update every faction, and by the time the last factions have been updated the earlier ones will be lacking in several departments. I genuinely cannot see any way around this, which is why I'd say they're doing about as good a job as they can at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with "unbalance" in AoS is largely about how is delivered.

 In Blood Bowl unbalance is sold as a feature, and people are happy with it. Some teams are just harder to win with, and in exchange, they offer either a rewarding experience (teams that become powerful at the latter parts of a league if you stick with them and level up wisely) or just a fun experience.

 As @JPjr has explained, the way armies are released for AoS (as in old Warhammer, or 40k) leads inevitably to power creep, as designers want to try new, cool things, and people inevitably wonder if this unintended or not (although the annual adjustments with the general handbook should minimize this, so they really manage this better than in the old world era).

Anyway, most people I know are happy with not being crushed consistently for playing the army they like against similarly skilled players, I haven't met anyone who expected "perfect balance" in games like this.
 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Eh I don't think its a fair system to basically have part of the games core balance rely on a single dice roll every few turns. Considering that its most critical is likely in the first 3 or 4. That's basically consigning the whole of victory or loss to basically 3 or 4 dice rolls. To me that just seems really bad for a game which takes hours to play. What's the point of tactics, model choice, deployment, movement etc.... if so much of the battles win/loss potential hinges on those rolls. 

I just feel it takes so much out of the game and throws it to a single chance dice roll. It's not the same as when you declare attacks or charges because those are multiple rolls and individual - one unit might work well and the other might fail all in the same turn. 

I think were probably always disagree on this. Go and try it with a circle of mates do at least 10-20 games you will find the stronger army always wins for also find that shooting is overly effective and some armies always go second, the game always becomes stagnant but thats only my opinion on my experience of playing without the risk of a double turn just having the risk means you screen double screen and place differently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets also keep the phrase "perfect balance" out of the discussion since that was never one of the requirements or wishes.  

I've not seen that pivot. It's there in Warcry and Underworlds, but I don't see it in AoS.

Its as much there in AOS as it is in Warcry.  The designers do live streams where they talk excitedly about their tournament experience and the next armies they are building for the new tournament season.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO AOS currently aims to be a semi balanced interactive tabletop game with beautiful models.

In my opinion AOS as is, is currently hitting that mark. Moves such as digital points and frequent 2.0 updates to get books current makes be confident that the game will remain in a good state.

Will it ever be fully balanced? IMO no. I don't think GW wants that either. I think the target is for the new hotness to be slightly better than older books to promote sales yet allow the older armies to remain viable.

Often in the past GW has missed the mark on semi balanced and gone into the realm of broken and non interactive (Vwing, Changehost, Activation Wars, etc). Slaaneshs' DP are probably the biggest offender currently. However FAQs have me hopeful that most things will be brought in line relatively quickly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

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)

IMO "four or five core builds" is decent for a competitive game. MTGA during the last rotation only had about 3-5 core builds so I find this standard. Yes slaanesh summoning is an issue. Not its strong imo but because it is non interactive. No one wants to play the guy who gets a free second army.

7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

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?

No. See my above post on why I think they will only aim for semi balance.

7 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

or is this pretty much typical and you should just keep adapting with new armies that have strong rules?

Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hughwyeth said:

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.

100%

Everyone read this as it sums the state of GW up well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

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.

Honestly I even think its balanced enough for tournament play with cash as long as all participants realize what they are getting into.

TO need to be aware that prizes incentivize bending the rules as much as possible. TOs need a tight pack and be ready to make tough calls and ejections if needed.

Nothing wrong with everyone running one build if they are there to win. 

Everyone should be aware of what they are getting into though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you tell the people quitting who don't want to keep up with the more powerful armies who don't want to have to keep buying models to keep up?  The its balanced enough doesn't work for a lot of people, especially when they show up and have their semi casual army have to face off against one of our tournament armies (and my group only has a tournament army, so we can't "tone down").  

This was the topic that sank my store's attempt at a narrative night and caused a lot of angry feelings.

Do we tell those people the game is balanced enough and they should just be ok with auto losing?  At that point is it really a game?  That kind of feels like playing monopoly where one player gets 1000 when they pass go and a free property and the other players play by normal rules.

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

What do you tell the people quitting who don't want to keep up with the more powerful armies who don't want to have to keep buying models to keep up?  The its balanced enough doesn't work for a lot of people, especially when they show up and have their semi casual army have to face off against one of our tournament armies (and my group only has a tournament army, so we can't "tone down").  

So I hear you completely... when I play in organized matched play I only use my tournament army.  I'm not really interested in "toning down" or "balance" I'm interested in winning. However when I play a game with my brother or a friend I'd say i'm playing something closer to open play. I either write both army lists or I ask to see theirs and then match it in power.

14 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

What do you tell the people quitting who don't want to keep up with the more powerful armies who don't want to have to keep buying models to keep up? 

I would tell them not to play in a tournament. Or be okay losing a few rounds and only getting in 1 or 2 games with other people on lower tables.

14 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

That kind of feels like playing monopoly where one player gets 1000 when they pass go and a free property and the other players play by normal rules.

I would disagree with this. I think it's much more like playing Monopoly against a person who knows the optimal properties to purchase and such. If two people agree to play a game of AOS or Monopoly they both have an equal chance to win the game at the point of agreement. 

The issue with AOS vs Monopoly is AOS is not a symmetric game like @hughwyeth wrote. AOS has a pregame and during that pregame you build your army. I would say that if one person wants to participate in the pregame and the other does not then there is no reason the more prepared player should not have the advantage.

This pregame exists in most games I play. MTG, WoW battlegrounds, etc.

Edited by svnvaldez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...