The Constructive AoS Feedback Thread

[NJohansson]

5 hours ago, Overread said:

Thing is there will be other factions that used ranged weapons. Plus you can bet one reason many armies don't have many ranged weapons is purely because they are small sized armies. As GW expands those armies you can bet they'll get more models and more options and a good number will be ranged. I can see range growing over time not lessening. As a result good quality detailed terrain rules that allow for cover are going to be critical to avoid the problem taht 40K has where a powerful ranged force can shut down close combat armies - which results in GW typically making close combat armies that can hit the opponent in one single turn - which tends to take a lot of the fun out of the game for both sides. 

Just take a look at the new Disciples of Tzeentch - the amount of strong shooting that they can bring is on a 40K level. Also people forget that spells are also part of the game and  fundamentally both are ranged attacks. I think you either need cover/LOS rules or you need toned down shooting - otherwise AoS will end up to close to 40K for my liking.

Another thing that bothers me with the lack of proper terrain mechanics is that it results in that GW has started to push terain that does weird things (damages units, grants buffs etc.) which feels like a poor solution and complicates the game instead of just fixing the inherent problem that hills, forests, rivers etc have no real meaning in the game.

Anyhow - love the game so this is my wish list not “OMG the world is ending” type of complain.

[Forrix]

1 minute ago, NJohansson said:

Another thing that bothers me with the lack of proper terrain mechanics is that it results in that GW has started to push terain that does weird things (damages units, grants buffs etc.) which feels like a poor solution and complicates the game instead of just fixing the inherent problem that hills, forests, rivers etc have no real meaning in the game.

I've never liked all the weird stuff terrain does. I'd rather terrain just do some combination of block los/provide cover/block movement/reduce movement and be made fairly large. In terms of physical shape I like the newer ruins terrain we got though the stairs still get annoying at times.

[Carnelian]

3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

A roll off takes player agency away.  If I want to guarantee double turn, because in my games so far last year I have won 84% of my games that I got to control the double turn and it is hugely important in AOS, that means I need a mechanism that lets me control and guarantee that I can control it.  List drops are that mechanism that let me know that I will always get that, and if someone comes up with a build that beats mine in drop count to get guaranteed turn order, I will go back and amend my list.

Rolling for it in the beginning would suck because it takes away my control over my list.

Perfectly understandable if that's how you like it to play, but I'd simply point out that by giving one player control over the turn roll and sequence of possible doubles, you have taken that opportunity away from the other player.

Personally speaking I prefer the roll off precisely because it takes a bit on control off one player and means they can't necessarily rely on enacting a plan and deployment with a guarantee of going first or second turn but must instead react more tactically within the game instead. That's how I prefer my games - with as many meaningful decisons made in-game as possible, rather than decisions made pre-game. But that's my personal preference of course. 

3 hours ago, Phasteon said:

There has never been a roll–off. 

People just played it wrong and the FAQ clarified it. 

I won't get into any protracted conversation on this point, as by now it's very old news, I'd just point people to the core rules as written, attached, and people can make up their own mind about how to interpret it 

[Phasteon]

59 minutes ago, Carnelian said:

I won't get into any protracted conversation on this point, as by now it's very old news, I'd just point people to the core rules as written, attached, and people can make up their own mind about how to interpret it 

Why would we even need a conversation about this? GW FAQd it, so the intention is clear. 

FAQs clarify things, they don‘t change them, so it was always supposed to be like this. 

Its just 50% on GW not putting the rules for the first turn into a separate paragraph and 50% on peoples „bad“ reading skills*. 

I‘m a german native speaker and when I read the rules in german it was 100% clear that there is no roll off. Maybe the german wording is a bit more obvious in this regard but I read it the same way in the english original. 

 

*bad reading skills is probably not the right term for it, maybe bad „context understanding skill“ ? I hope people get what I‘m trying to say without feeling offended.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Phasteon

[Vakarian]

 

This wording is very clear (in English) that the ability to choose who goes first on the first turn is conditional upon a tie in the roll-off.

The FAQ establishes that wasn’t ever GW’s intent, but the rule they actually wrote can’t logically mean anything else when applying English grammar.

It’s a moot point now, however, and I personally prefer the FAQ’d version, as it gives some benefit to building low-drop lists. 

[Kronos]

I don’t know much about the deep background of Age of Sigmar (I do find a bit of the stormcast storylines rather trivial, and I couldn’t care much about these vaults) Necroquake was cool. However what I love thats theres so much unknown, leaving room to write in areas as a fan to make concepts which are just fantastic and wild. Still love the Old World, but the  Mortal Realms, and the Realm of Chaos is so vast it’s an open canvas for creativity.

 

My criticisms is my old broken record. I wasn't more damn God models. Hopefully in a few hours we see Teclis which is a step in the right direction. Once you start seeing the likes of Nagash, Mathlanns Eidolon, Alarielle and Morathi its difficult to appease that level of Awe for another static general. So give me Sigmar, give me some Idol of Grungni and please give me Kurnoth. 

[Kadeton]

1 hour ago, Kronos said:

Once you start seeing the likes of Nagash, Mathlanns Eidolon, Alarielle and Morathi its difficult to appease that level of Awe for another static general.

Ah, I have such mixed feelings about this aspect of the game. On the one hand, these models look awesome on the tabletop and bring so much presence to the game. On the other hand, it really dilutes and diminishes what it means to be a "god" when you see them get beaten up by a bunch of goblins with sharpened sticks.

(It also more than slightly annoys me that since those characters can't gain the General traits, armies are often led by some no-name rando while their actual god just hangs around like an oversized cheerleader.)

Edited January 24, 2020 by Kadeton

[OkayestDM]

25 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

(It also more than slightly annoys me that since those characters can't gain the General traits, armies are often led by some no-name rando while their actual god just hangs around like an oversized cheerleader.)

That's something I'd really like them to address. I'm frustrated that making the named character your general feels like you're getting less bang for your buck, even though both the fluff and common sense make them the obvious choice.

I wish they'd let you take an extra command point or two for loosing out on the trait you would have gotten otherwise. That would work both as a trade-off and thematically, because the named character would probably be considered a superior commander anyway.

Edited January 24, 2020 by OkayestDM

[Joseph Mackay]

I have a few suggestions
-roll off for first turn, +1 to the roll for the player who finished deploying first like in 40k.
-I would prefer the double turn went away, but as long as priority is changed to the above I’d be ok with it remaining.
-Battalions no longer affect number of deployments, don’t give extra command points or artefacts.
-artefacts become like WFB magic gear that you buy.
-command points, you get 1 Every battle round + D3 (if your general is alive and on the battlefield). You can buy  only 1 command point like now.
-subfactions become like mega-battalions but can include any Units and battalions from the correct allegiance.
-mortal wounds should be a rare occurrence, maybe 1 or 2 units per faction have access to them (outside of spells).
-base size = number of wounds. 25mm=1w, 32mm=2w, 40mm=3w etc. heroes get +2 wounds. Mounted models (that aren’t monsters) get +1w etc.
-terrain having simple rules like Trees block shooting etc rather than warscrolls as nobody really uses them except faction terrain.
-remove this ‘standing halfway up a wall’ nonsense with terrain, if your model can’t fit you can put it there (wobbly model syndrome is the only exception). Flyers would ignore vertical distance when moving over terrain, but if there base can’t fit then they can’t finish a move on it.

more controversial suggestions
-remove allegiance abilities and go back to aos1 days when the rules on your warscroll and battalions is all you had. My reasoning is that I feel the game was better without them and I don’t feel that they’re factored into points costs as much as they probably should be. Additionally they create a lot more imbalance within the game.
-scrap points and use something like 40ks Power Levels. Points don’t create balance but rather a way of structure for building an army. Unfortunately people assume points are balanced. AoS honestly was fine in the beginning where you just had to have a discussion with your opponent to decide what we’re fair army lists.
-ditch matched play completely. Focus purely on Open Play and Narrative Play. Tell the competitive scene that they can play it competitively if they wish but acknowledge that it isn’t how it’s meant to be played and therefore any issues that arise only in a competitive environment won’t be addressed. My reasoning for this is simple, I’m sorry that some people will be offended by this, but I strongly believe that the competitive scene has and are ruining the game. A lot of faqs and erratas wouldn’t have been needed if people weren’t trying to ‘game the system’ or interpret rules in ways that obviously weren’t supposed to work in such a way.
-remove Nagash and those types of heroes from Matched Play (assuming the above doesn’t occur).
-if you include any named characters then at least one of those must be your general. Ie no Bloodwrack Medusa general when you have Morathi in your list.
-endless spells/Khorne judgements etc become free but you can only include 1 per wizard/priest. However they’d all get toned down so they’d basically be like a normal spell except it moved and does it’s thing every turn. If the caster dies it dies with them.

to better control balance within the game
-all battletomes should be written at the same time and compared with each other during the writing stages to prevent unintended power creep from new ideas that occur later. The books would then be released in the usual way. This would stop the issue of the Haves and Have-Nots battletomes. I’m talking about things like Sylvaneth aos1 introducing Allegiance Abilities, Kharadron Overlords aos1 introducing a type of sub faction, Ossiarch Bonereapers possibly introducing Unit Leaders working like Heroes (it is my hope that for the health of the game, this is rolled out to other factions otherwise Bonereapers need a massive points hike to account for this).

[Phasteon]

6 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

I have a few suggestions
-roll off for first turn, +1 to the roll for the player who finished deploying first like in 40k.
-I would prefer the double turn went away, but as long as priority is changed to the above I’d be ok with it remaining.
-Battalions no longer affect number of deployments, don’t give extra command points or artefacts.
-artefacts become like WFB magic gear that you buy.
-command points, you get 1 Every battle round + D3 (if your general is alive and on the battlefield). You can buy  only 1 command point like now.
-subfactions become like mega-battalions but can include any Units and battalions from the correct allegiance.
-mortal wounds should be a rare occurrence, maybe 1 or 2 units per faction have access to them (outside of spells).
-base size = number of wounds. 25mm=1w, 32mm=2w, 40mm=3w etc. heroes get +2 wounds. Mounted models (that aren’t monsters) get +1w etc.
-terrain having simple rules like Trees block shooting etc rather than warscrolls as nobody really uses them except faction terrain.
-remove this ‘standing halfway up a wall’ nonsense with terrain, if your model can’t fit you can put it there (wobbly model syndrome is the only exception). Flyers would ignore vertical distance when moving over terrain, but if there base can’t fit then they can’t finish a move on it.

more controversial suggestions
-remove allegiance abilities and go back to aos1 days when the rules on your warscroll and battalions is all you had. My reasoning is that I feel the game was better without them and I don’t feel that they’re factored into points costs as much as they probably should be. Additionally they create a lot more imbalance within the game.
-scrap points and use something like 40ks Power Levels. Points don’t create balance but rather a way of structure for building an army. Unfortunately people assume points are balanced. AoS honestly was fine in the beginning where you just had to have a discussion with your opponent to decide what we’re fair army lists.
-ditch matched play completely. Focus purely on Open Play and Narrative Play. Tell the competitive scene that they can play it competitively if they wish but acknowledge that it isn’t how it’s meant to be played and therefore any issues that arise only in a competitive environment won’t be addressed. My reasoning for this is simple, I’m sorry that some people will be offended by this, but I strongly believe that the competitive scene has and are ruining the game. A lot of faqs and erratas wouldn’t have been needed if people weren’t trying to ‘game the system’ or interpret rules in ways that obviously weren’t supposed to work in such a way.
-remove Nagash and those types of heroes from Matched Play (assuming the above doesn’t occur).
-if you include any named characters then at least one of those must be your general. Ie no Bloodwrack Medusa general when you have Morathi in your list.
-endless spells/Khorne judgements etc become free but you can only include 1 per wizard/priest. However they’d all get toned down so they’d basically be like a normal spell except it moved and does it’s thing every turn. If the caster dies it dies with them.

to better control balance within the game
-all battletomes should be written at the same time and compared with each other during the writing stages to prevent unintended power creep from new ideas that occur later. The books would then be released in the usual way. This would stop the issue of the Haves and Have-Nots battletomes. I’m talking about things like Sylvaneth aos1 introducing Allegiance Abilities, Kharadron Overlords aos1 introducing a type of sub faction, Ossiarch Bonereapers possibly introducing Unit Leaders working like Heroes (it is my hope that for the health of the game, this is rolled out to other factions otherwise Bonereapers need a massive points hike to account for this).

I personally found even your first suggestions very controversial as they would change AoS fundamentally which I dont like.

Interesting view point though, even if I disagree on most points.

Dont want to address them though as I did comment on most of those points in different threads already.

 

One point I agree on though: 

– If you play a named character like Nagash, Morathi they must be your general. 

I cringe everytime when someone even plays characters that have different standing in the armies hierarchy and make the lower one their general. And its always because of some trait / conditional battleline shenanigans that people spit on the background of the army. 

It kind of makes games less enjoyable for me if people dont respect their characters and dont make their highest ranking Hero their general.

Sadly this is a thing people must do themselves as GW cant write a priority list of generals in every battletome, maybe its just me and people generally have no problem with that. But I find it very hard to imagine a reason why a battlemage (for example) would be the general of a freeguild army and not the character that has literally „general“ in his warscroll name (Freeguild general). 

 

 

Fun Fact: Aos points are pretty much power level in 40k as the only difference is that they are higher. You dont pay points for Upgrades.

Divide them by 10 and divide the points you play by 10 and you have 40k powerlevel. 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Phasteon

[JPjr]

20 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

It kind of makes games less enjoyable for me if people dont respect their characters and dont make their highest ranking Hero their general.

 

Whilst I get your point, and it can seem odd, I reckon it’s  easy enough to waive away if you just think of the senior figure as someone kind of reviewing the troops/battle group/whatever but not necessarily the on the ground leader of that task force.

i mean technically he’s commander in chief of all the US armed forces, but were, for example, Iraqi insurgents to launch an attack on a US base whilst Trump was having his photo taken there I doubt anyone, bar the sponge brained maniac himself, would expect him to take control of the forces.

Back in days of yore ‘n ****** you’d have times when a King might be present at a battle and nominally be in charge but actual generals, or lords or something, would really be running things. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by JPjr

[NJohansson]

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

 

One point I agree on though: 

– If you play a named character like Nagash, Morathi they must be your general. 

I cringe everytime when someone even plays characters that have different standing in the armies hierarchy and make the lower one their general. And its always because of some trait / conditional battleline shenanigans that people spit on the background of the army. 

It kind of makes games less enjoyable for me if people dont respect their characters and dont make their highest ranking Hero their general.

Sadly this is a thing people must do themselves as GW cant write a priority list of generals in every battletome, maybe its just me and people generally have no problem with that. But I find it very hard to imagine a reason why a battlemage (for example) would be the general of a freeguild army and not the character that has literally „general“ in his warscroll name (Freeguild general). 

Fluff and the actual game is two different beasts. From a fluff perspective - Archaon dying on the battlefield by a goblin arrow is much worse than the general being a random sorcerer who Archaon gave command to test the sorcerers ability under Archeons stern gaze (you can validate anything by fluff).

Removing named characters from matched play will remove fantastic models from those of us who both enjoy collecting beautiful centerpieces and playing matched games (I have never played a purely narrative game in close to 30 years of being in this hobby). On the other hand - giving Archy, Nagash and Gotrek access to artifacts and command abilities (as suggested in other places of this thread) will create a balancing problem of Herohammer (there was a time when your armies were a couple of heroes with fly high and units for roadkills) proportions.

[Dead Scribe]

The warlord/general is to me the one with the most efficient command ability.  I don't care what his fantasy title or rank in the stories are.  I am sure I could write stories about why that warlord is the warlord instead of the king to satisfy most narrative people.

[Phasteon]

3 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

The warlord/general is to me the one with the most efficient command ability.  I don't care what his fantasy title or rank in the stories are.  I am sure I could write stories about why that warlord is the warlord instead of the king to satisfy most narrative people.

Thats really sad. 

Especially because playing like this basically makes the game easymode. 

[Dead Scribe]

2 hours ago, Phasteon said:

Thats really sad. 

Especially because playing like this basically makes the game easymode. 

Not when you are playing people who are doing the same thing.  It makes it so everyone is on the same footing then.  Its only easy mode when you're playing against people NOT doing this.  And if I'm playing to win and be competitive there isn't a reason why I should handicap myself while my opponent is not.  The good thing in my opinion is that at least the command abilities are pretty easy to judge in terms of power so there is very little trial and error; we all know what powers are the best after flipping through the book for a few minutes.

Edited January 24, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Phasteon]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

The good thing in my opinion is that at least the command abilities are pretty easy to judge in terms of power so there is very little trial and error; we all know what powers are the best after flipping through the book for a few minutes.

See? You admit its easier to build a list if powerlevel is your only concern, thats basically my point in saying its easymode. 

I‘m probably more sad about the fact that competitive play is very narrow–minded, while narrative focused lists are far more creative and still can be played competitively. 

Nothing wrong with your way of playing of course, I think it would just not be worth my time, because if I wouldnt care about the narrative I would probably go for online games or sth like that as its not as expensive to be a „flavor of the month“ player there.

[NJohansson]

38 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

See? You admit its easier to build a list if powerlevel is your only concern, thats basically my point in saying its easymode. 

I‘m probably more sad about the fact that competitive play is very narrow–minded, while narrative focused lists are far more creative and still can be played competitively. 

This should probable be in another thread - since this is about positive feedback but this type of comments really puzzles me. There are a lot of competitive players that do care about narrative (like myself) - I have read dozens of books from the black library, I own the majority of army books since the Lost and the Damned and I do so because I have always loved the story/narrative. But although I name every character and my armies always have a story to them I still enjoy playing with points against equally competitive armies. If Kairos is not the general of my army, I can easily explain it through that he has been summoned by the Gaunt Summoner or Sorcerer in charge of the Coven or a dozen other possible narrative stories. It is a game where you get to use your imagination and saying that X should be the general because of Y reason is simply your interpretation of fluff in a way that is not really supported by the game - just read Architect of Faith for example, it gives a great example when a mighty character holds a very low key profile.

[Sleboda]

14 hours ago, Phasteon said:

cringe everytime when someone even plays characters that have different standing in the armies hierarchy and make the lower one their general. And its always because of some trait / conditional battleline shenanigans that people spit on the background of the army. 

It kind of makes games less enjoyable for me if people dont respect their characters and dont make their highest ranking Hero their general.

The thing is, though, it leaves open some interesting narratives if you allow it. Perhaps the named orruk character has had his leadership position challenged by an upstart and he is willing to let him show off a bit before he thrashes him in front of the rest of the boyz. Or Morathi wants to allow a rival to lead and expose her flaws in preparation for taking her down. Maybe Thanquol is letting another be general so he gets killed while Thanquol is safe further back. Maybe ...

 

You get the point.

Yes, some are doing it for rules reasons, but some are into a story.

[Sleboda]

16 hours ago, Phasteon said:

Thats really sad. 

Especially because playing like this basically makes the game easymode. 

I'm not a huge defender of Dead Scribe or his preferred style of play (though I have no ill will toward him (her?)), but I think it's a bit rude to make that statement. There's nothing wrong, or "really sad", about that way of selecting forces.

There's room for all of us here.

 

Except elf players.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Sleboda

[Overread]

4 hours ago, Phasteon said:

See? You admit its easier to build a list if powerlevel is your only concern, thats basically my point in saying its easymode. 

I‘m probably more sad about the fact that competitive play is very narrow–minded, while narrative focused lists are far more creative and still can be played competitively. 

Nothing wrong with your way of playing of course, I think it would just not be worth my time, because if I wouldnt care about the narrative I would probably go for online games or sth like that as its not as expensive to be a „flavor of the month“ player there.

Competitive play is only as narrow as the game balance allows for. 

If the armies are more evenly matched both internally (offering multiple viable options) and externally (to the other armies) then in theory the matched play becomes far more complex and engaging. Because then the gains and losses are more subtle and slight and might even rely upon certain play styles and tactical approaches. Instead of having an "easy mode 3 Slaanesh keepers and 2 more on the side bench to summon"; you instead have four or five core forces you could use for the army; each bringing their own twist to the game. 

DeadScribes main argument for the benefit of imbalance is that it makes it easier to just buy the best for competitive. There's nothing wrong in that, many people play just for the competition. My personal disagreement with the stance is only that this isn't a healthy position for the game nor gamers. It means some armies are easy win and some are hard win and some are neverwin (getting less with those now that most are on 2.0 battletomes). In theory even balance across the game (as much as possible) and better internal balance so that armies are not reliant on a single "trick" results in a better game for all concerned. Even those wanting to buy-into the best army have it easier because now they can't so easily make a mistake - heck with a flatter system of balance the optimum lists are often a matter more of opinion and theory than fact. 

[Phasteon]

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'm not a huge defender of Dead Scribe or his preferred style of play (though I have no I'll will toward him (her?)), but I think it's a bit rude to make that statement. There's nothing wrong, or "really sad", about that way of selecting forces.

There's room for all of us here.

 

Except elf players.

Why is everything in this forum considered „rude“, you even said yourself that you dont „like“ his view of the game. I said if its his style of play its ok, but my opinion is that saying „I dont care for the background, I just care for rules“ is sad because it disrespects everything this game is about from a designers perspective. 

Also the point that every general can be a background choice: I dont buy it. 

People dont make some second in command their general because its a cool narrative behind it. They make it because there is a rule benefit. If it would be the best choice to make a name character your general than everyone would do it. You know its true. 

 

Edit: I‘m totally fine with a mage being your general but dont bring the actual general then. Thats my point. Feel free to disagree, I dont tell people what to play but I can say that I dont like it. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Phasteon

[schwabbele]

Something else which came to my mind...

Would be super nice if all bases get premade magent mounting holes.

[JackStreicher]

7 hours ago, Overread said:

Competitive play is only as narrow as the game balance allows for. 

If the armies are more evenly matched both internally (offering multiple viable options) and externally (to the other armies) then in theory the matched play becomes far more complex and engaging. Because then the gains and losses are more subtle and slight and might even rely upon certain play styles and tactical approaches. Instead of having an "easy mode 3 Slaanesh keepers and 2 more on the side bench to summon"; you instead have four or five core forces you could use for the army; each bringing their own twist to the game. 

DeadScribes main argument for the benefit of imbalance is that it makes it easier to just buy the best for competitive. There's nothing wrong in that, many people play just for the competition. My personal disagreement with the stance is only that this isn't a healthy position for the game nor gamers. It means some armies are easy win and some are hard win and some are neverwin (getting less with those now that most are on 2.0 battletomes). In theory even balance across the game (as much as possible) and better internal balance so that armies are not reliant on a single "trick" results in a better game for all concerned. Even those wanting to buy-into the best army have it easier because now they can't so easily make a mistake - heck with a flatter system of balance the optimum lists are often a matter more of opinion and theory than fact. 

I 100% agree.

[Dead Scribe]

18 hours ago, Phasteon said:

See? You admit its easier to build a list if powerlevel is your only concern, thats basically my point in saying its easymode. 

I‘m probably more sad about the fact that competitive play is very narrow–minded, while narrative focused lists are far more creative and still can be played competitively. 

Nothing wrong with your way of playing of course, I think it would just not be worth my time, because if I wouldnt care about the narrative I would probably go for online games or sth like that as its not as expensive to be a „flavor of the month“ player there.

I don't see the point of your post other than to try to shame competitive players or players that play different than you.  (that its sad and narrow-minded) I think that your post should be saved for a thread that is talking about competitive play vs narrative play pros and cons.  

Yes Age of Sigmar's balance is pretty bad and easy to pick out what is powerful and what is not with little effort.  I don't see how that pertains to anything though?  If you're competitive gaming you need to bring the most powerful list because everyone else is also bringing the most powerful list.

Quote

My personal disagreement with the stance is only that this isn't a healthy position for the game nor gamers. It means some armies are easy win and some are hard win and some are neverwin

Thats subjective.  The tournament players I follow and play against and travel to play against nominally disagree with that stance.

If you don't feel its healthy for the game nor gamers, then take that up with the game designers that keep on leaving it in the game.  Obviously I would say they disagree with that stance as well or they wouldn't be releasing the type of game that they do, that we all buy regardless.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Phasteon]

23 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I don't see the point of your post other than to try to shame competitive players or players that play different than you.  (that its sad and narrow-minded)

Now who is shaming another person? You even quoted me saying „There is nothing wrong with your style of play“ 

Pls read the whole post before making accusations. 

This thread is about criticism and ideas how to improve the game and I think making it a bit more hand in hand with the actual narrative* would be a good thing. 

 

*Some armies already do that perfectly, its just some armies require very weird „builds“ to be considered competitive.