The Constructive AoS Feedback Thread

[NJohansson]

And now we are once again back to competitive/vs fluff vs balance and one to two pages from this thread being locked. Not saying anything - I am contributing to the escalation - but my proposal, let’s start a competitive vs fluff thread and keep this to positive feedback. 
 

On that notion - I really like the idea that less drops only gives you +1 to start. In such case both players have to deploy not knowing if they will go first - much more tactical and much more logical. 
 

Edited January 25, 2020 by NJohansson

[Dead Scribe]

12 hours ago, Phasteon said:

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. 

I think thats kind of like saying "no offense... but..." and then saying something offensive lol.

 In such case both players have to deploy not knowing if they will go first - much more tactical and much more logical. 

Thats not tactical, and I don't see how it has anything to do with logic?

Tactical means it provides a decision to be made.  Thats what a tactic is, a decision.  

Choosing elements in your army to make sure you have low number of drops, for example, is a choice, and therefore closer to tactical.

Depending on the roll of a dice is not tactical.  Its random luck.  The opposite of tactical.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Phasteon]

4 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

1) I think thats kind of like saying "no offense... but..." and then saying something offensive lol.

 

 

2) Thats not tactical, and I don't see how it has anything to do with logic?

Tactical means it provides a decision to be made.  Thats what a tactic is, a decision.  

Choosing elements in your army to make sure you have low number of drops, for example, is a choice, and therefore closer to tactical.

Depending on the roll of a dice is not tactical.  Its random luck.  The opposite of tactical.

1) Except that „I dont like that style of play and in my opinion its sad to only care for maximum efficiency, not giving a damn about the background“ is not offensive in any way - just my opinion, so you better deal with it. You ca answer to that and say why you disagree but you cant blame me for being offensive when its just my view on the matter in a thread where people say what they wanted GW to improve.

And again, I want them to further improve list building that goes hand in hand with the background. List diversity is a good thing, but imo if you get punished by sticking to the background sometimes people just dont do it. 

Btw. its a very small issue that shows how perfectly fine AoS is imo. Maybe I should have made that clear. 

 

2) 100% agree with that.

 

Whats your take on Initiative roll-off then? Just curious. 

Because I think even if it is a random dice roll that decides who has priority it makes people playing around the fact that the opponent might have a doubleturn at some point, which I think is great, as it allows for more dynamic gameplay as its not always the best thing to take the turn and fully commit as it can backfire. 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Phasteon

[Overread]

17 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

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

 

Out of interest what is their reasoning behind their stance. So far we've only your reasoning - which is mostly that it makes it much easier to just buy the best and use it. So the only real reason for the game to have wide imbalances is so that purchasing "to win" is very simple. This essentially means that you are actually arguing the exact same point that people who have invested in a weaker army are arguing for a more even balance field.

Basically you and them are arguing for defence of your purchase choices. The only difference is you've bought one "that has the greatest statistical chance to win" and they "bought the army that they think looks cool". Neither of those purchase choices are wrong, however when both of those groups intend to play a competitive game; only one is going to have a higher statistical chance to win (ignoring all differences in player skill and assuming both bring a competently built army from that force). 

The argument that its bad for the game is because not everyone maths out the game to stat with and, as you've noted, many also buy armies that they visually like rather than purely based on maths. Yet both groups will play the game. Having a flatter field of balance won't actually invalidate your choice of buying the statistically best, it just makes the best less of an "I win" button. However it does mean that the statistically "weaker" forces are not vastly underpowered. It actually gives those players a greater and more even chance to win based on player skill (which in theory is the point of a competitive game) rather than purely the numbers GW assigned to the army.

 

 

In the end it seems that both groups are arguing for the same thing - defence of their financial investment. The downside of the current state is that GW makes it much easier for one group over the other - the argument thus is that GW could do more to level the playing field. This defends the investments of a greater portion of the playerbase. That means better profits for GW because now everyone has reason to invest more into their own army; it means greater return on investment for a greater number of players since the maths is more even and investment into gaming and learning can result in an increased win and competitive rate for the players. 

With such a viewpoint the only group that loses out are those who are not as highly skilled (nor care to invest time into being so); but who bought a powerful army for the easy win. That group loses out because they will meet increased opponent skill as a greater factor rather than army choice. This is basically a null point for competitive environments because such a player will typically not place well in the competitive environments (because everyone is already bringing high performance armies so player skill comes back as the core deciding factor)

[NinthMusketeer]

I'll keep this short:

-Reform the design team/process. It isn't working. There is a tremendous amount of content being pushed out but some of it is so imbalanced, so unfun, that I keep losing new and even veteran players to it. No playtesting is needed to see that a terrorgheist dealing 6mw on a hit roll is too strong, that depravity sets Slaanesh up for massive hero skew, that a sub-faction giving +1 to saves army-wide is game breaking, that the mortek crawler is unfun rules design. There is a lack of quality control that is reducing people's fun and costing GW sales.

-The point of the game is to have fun. The double turn isn't. Discuss balance if you like, but it isn't fun. Get rid of it. 

-Assuming the above happens, change deployment to 'deploy first, go first' where the player going first puts down their entire army, allowing the player going second to mitigate their disadvantage via counter-deployment. It isn't perfect but it is better than now where people are taking battalions they don't like so they don't get screwed by turn choice. It is getting in the way of players enjoying the game.

[Sleboda]

25 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

The point of the game is to have fun. The double turn isn't. Discuss balance if you like, but it isn't fun. Get rid of it. 

And yet many people say it IS fun. It's subjective.

Keep it.

[Dead Scribe]

11 hours ago, Phasteon said:

1) Except that „I dont like that style of play and in my opinion its sad to only care for maximum efficiency, not giving a damn about the background“ is not offensive in any way - just my opinion, so you better deal with it. You ca answer to that and say why you disagree but you cant blame me for being offensive when its just my view on the matter in a thread where people say what they wanted GW to improve.

And again, I want them to further improve list building that goes hand in hand with the background. List diversity is a good thing, but imo if you get punished by sticking to the background sometimes people just dont do it. 

Btw. its a very small issue that shows how perfectly fine AoS is imo. Maybe I should have made that clear. 

 

2) 100% agree with that.

 

Whats your take on Initiative roll-off then? Just curious. 

Because I think even if it is a random dice roll that decides who has priority it makes people playing around the fact that the opponent might have a doubleturn at some point, which I think is great, as it allows for more dynamic gameplay as its not always the best thing to take the turn and fully commit as it can backfire. 

My issue with the double turn is that there really is no way to defend against it.  Yes knowing it is going to happen or could happen provides tension - I get that.   And that makes people happy, the tension, and also makes people feel that you have to be tactical and play around it.  

But here's the thing - there really is no good defense against it short of massive misplay by your opponent.  There are so many things in this game that can devastate you in turn 1, from either ranged or charging / melee attacks, that there just is no way to castle against a double turn short of "screens", and "screens" only do so much.  Not getting too close to your opponent because he may double turn you doesn't really matter when they could have just charged you turn 1 anyway with their special rules and long movement bonus rules.

The double turn has in my case been an indicator of winner 4 out of 5 games roughly for the past two years.  I don't find the double turn very tactical or strategic.  I find it a heavy bludgeon that wins games for people without requiring a lot of effort, which honestly is why I think its so popular.  I find it one of the least rewarding and tactical things about AOS.

That being said, I won't disparage someone using the double turn for what it was engineered to do - win games for people.  Thats why I guarantee my list keeps minimal drops to win the ability to choose to go second and control who gets the double turn.  

Now is double turn fun?  Well winning is fun.  So if I can win an easy game because I got to double turn you then sure.  Double turn is fun.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

Out of interest what is their reasoning behind their stance. So far we've only your reasoning - which is mostly that it makes it much easier to just buy the best and use it. So the only real reason for the game to have wide imbalances is so that purchasing "to win" is very simple. This essentially means that you are actually arguing the exact same point that people who have invested in a weaker army are arguing for a more even balance field.

I can't speak for them.  They would have to provide their own input.

In the end it seems that both groups are arguing for the same thing - defence of their financial investment. The downside of the current state is that GW makes it much easier for one group over the other - the argument thus is that GW could do more to level the playing field. This defends the investments of a greater portion of the playerbase. That means better profits for GW because now everyone has reason to invest more into their own army; it means greater return on investment for a greater number of players since the maths is more even and investment into gaming and learning can result in an increased win and competitive rate for the players. 

With such a viewpoint the only group that loses out are those who are not as highly skilled (nor care to invest time into being so); but who bought a powerful army for the easy win. That group loses out because they will meet increased opponent skill as a greater factor rather than army choice. This is basically a null point for competitive environments because such a player will typically not place well in the competitive environments (because everyone is already bringing high performance armies so player skill comes back as the core deciding factor)

Here's my counter question for you - and for everyone I have read that defends the notion that imbalance in the game is bad for the game and drives people away from the game (which i believe to a point because i have seen it but on the flip side we gain far m,ore people than we lose because of the huge community)

If GW doesn't change the imbalance - which they have operated for as I understand it over twenty - maybe thirty years - will you reach a point where you will stop buying and playing?  Or will you keep on playing anyway and defend the game despite that?

For my money I know where I would bet most of the people who complain about the bad balance and the double turn will be in a year from now.  Still here playing the game and largely defending it.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Dead Scribe]

This forum software is sometime very deficient.  It won't let me edit the quote above and it is ignoring end quote block.  So I'm retyping my post here without Overread's quote.

Here's my counter question for you - and for everyone I have read that defends the notion that imbalance in the game is bad for the game and drives people away from the game (which I believe to a point because I have seen it but on the flip side we gain far more people than we lost because of the huge community)

If GW doesn't change the imbalance - which they have operated for as I understand it over 20 or 30 years, will you reach a point where you stop playing and buying it?  Or will you keep on playing anyway and defend the game despite that?

For my money I know where I would bet most of the people who complain about the bad balance and the double turn will be in a year from now.  Still here playing the game and largely defending it.

[NinthMusketeer]

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

And yet many people say it IS fun. It's subjective.

Keep it.

True, I should say this is based off my experience where the overwhelming majority of players do not enjoy it. I have also encountered players who avoid AoS entirely because of it. I also raise that if the double-turn is generally a fun mechanic why does no other game use it? Why not add it to 40k? Why is it so unique to AoS?

[JackStreicher]

This isn‘t supposed to be a discussion on balance but a gathering of constructive feedback. So let‘s please get back to it.

 

[Overread]

I would say talk about the doubleturn is constructive feedback, however because its such a polarizing topic its best that its left to its own thread (of which we have at least two semi recent ones that went on for quite a few pages). It's a topic really unto itself - though in my view its such a polarizing thing that moving it to open play and out of matched would be a positive move for the game. 

[zilberfrid]

27 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

This forum software is sometime very deficient.  It won't let me edit the quote above and it is ignoring end quote block.  So I'm retyping my post here without Overread's quote.

Here's my counter question for you - and for everyone I have read that defends the notion that imbalance in the game is bad for the game and drives people away from the game (which I believe to a point because I have seen it but on the flip side we gain far more people than we lost because of the huge community)

If GW doesn't change the imbalance - which they have operated for as I understand it over 20 or 30 years, will you reach a point where you stop playing and buying it?  Or will you keep on playing anyway and defend the game despite that?

For my money I know where I would bet most of the people who complain about the bad balance and the double turn will be in a year from now.  Still here playing the game and largely defending it.

I do not play vs Petrifex Elite or double/triple Keeper players.

Any new similarely ridiculous lists will be added to my personal banned lists. This means anything over 66% winrate (excluding mirror matches) with relevant numbers.

This means I will not participate in any tournaments. If balance were better, and all factions had multiple lists with which they could participate (not saying shoving random units into a list should work as well as a carefully crafed list), I would consider that.

I will not stop painting and building models, or playing vs well-balanced factions.

[Overread]

39 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

If GW doesn't change the imbalance - which they have operated for as I understand it over 20 or 30 years, will you reach a point where you stop playing and buying it?  Or will you keep on playing anyway and defend the game despite that?

For my money I know where I would bet most of the people who complain about the bad balance and the double turn will be in a year from now.  Still here playing the game and largely defending it.

It depends actually. I've seen many people leave from burn=out when their army got ignored for long periods. Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, a huge portion of the Old World players - heck you can bet many Tombkings players have gone.

Sure GW producing good quality models keeps customers coming back; however if an army remains with poor quality rules for long enough it will die off. Even the most die-hard players who support an army can find it hard when the rules mean that they will lose more matches than win through no fault of their own. When the game is stacked against them from the outset; or when the game is stacked heavily in favour of another army. 

 

Some might switch armies which can mask the issue for a time. However that means people who would be supporting army A are now supporting army B. Given enough time you hit the Tombkings problem whereby army A no longer has enough customers to be viable and you're left with having to consider major investment to bring them back. 

[Kramer]

36 minutes ago, NinthMusketeer said:

True, I should say this is based off my experience where the overwhelming majority of players do not enjoy it. I have also encountered players who avoid AoS entirely because of it. I also raise that if the double-turn is generally a fun mechanic why does no other game use it? Why not add it to 40k? Why is it so unique to AoS?

The thing I always wonder when these discussions come up... how representative of the whole consumerbase are the people that are so invested in the game they post on this forum?

because you say your circle of players dislike and even avoid it. I only know people who Like aos for the double turn or at worst are ambivalent about it. 
 

genuinely wonder which group is bigger and if GW would actually win/lose players by removing it.

I personally tried three games without and hated the experience. it was just so easy from turn 2 to talk out the rest of the game and making the rest of the turns feel pointless. But with the double turn there is always the lifeline of if I get the double then maybeeee. Just my experience and two cents. 

[JackStreicher]

I like the double turn due to making the next battleground rather unpredictable -  you really have to plan for it not going in your favor.

[Dead Scribe]

48 minutes ago, Overread said:

It depends actually. I've seen many people leave from burn=out when their army got ignored for long periods. Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, a huge portion of the Old World players - heck you can bet many Tombkings players have gone.

Sure GW producing good quality models keeps customers coming back; however if an army remains with poor quality rules for long enough it will die off. Even the most die-hard players who support an army can find it hard when the rules mean that they will lose more matches than win through no fault of their own. When the game is stacked against them from the outset; or when the game is stacked heavily in favour of another army. 

 

Some might switch armies which can mask the issue for a time. However that means people who would be supporting army A are now supporting army B. Given enough time you hit the Tombkings problem whereby army A no longer has enough customers to be viable and you're left with having to consider major investment to bring them back. 

From a business perspective though do you think that keeping things how they are now vs changing things will bring MORE people in?  I don't think honestly it would.  I do get people leaving from burn out but for every person that leaves from burn out or gets annoyed at the game and leaves from the game, three or four more step up to fill their spot.

[Dead Scribe]

Quote

 But with the double turn there is always the lifeline of if I get the double then maybeeee. Just my experience and two cents. 

Yeah as I noted above, it means anyone can win a game and thats why people like it.  Because at any point if you get the double turn, chances are you are going to win the game.  I can see why people like that.

Quote

you really have to plan for it not going in your favor.

How do you plan for getting double-turned?  What do you do to prevent the double turn from making you lose the game?  You're probably going to say screens.  What happens if your screens have been hit and its turn 3 or 4 and you get double turned?  What else do you do to plan for it?

I know one of my strategies is, and maybe its stupid to share my strategies but I think its an obvious one, is to guarantee me picking who goes first to control double turn and then trying to hold it until the screens are gone (if they have any) and then double turn because they have no defense and its almost always a win for me.

Edited January 26, 2020 by Dead Scribe

[Mutton]

Suggestions:

1) Battalions are too impactful.
1b) Drops affecting who gets to choose the first turn isn't fun or thought-provoking---it's a test to see which factions have the better battalions. I think the entire "# of drops" mechanic needs to be...well, dropped.

2) Price non-hero monsters appropriately. That is, big, single model units with fewer attacks need to be sub-200 points, unless their warscrolls are really efficient or have some other nuance that makes up for their inherent downsides. Because objectives mostly rely on number of models, and because number of models = more attacks = better statistical average to do something, monsters are always immediately at a disadvantage. Monsters also tend to have damage charts, so they get worse over the course of the game (shorter move, less reliable attacks, worse abilities, etc.). The latest change to Ghorgons and Cygors was the right direction to steer.

3) More serious analysis of statistics when designing weapon profiles. Aka, why a single attack that does d6 damage is usually terrible. Nothing more to add, except why on earth are recent unit champions getting worse weapons than their underlings?

4) More serious analysis when designing sub-factions. These sub-factions tend to be the make or break factor for an army. This is where we see the game-shattering combos unfurl, and it's also where we see entire swathes of a book languish in their sub-optimal graves. Petrifex, Hagg Narr, Gristlegor...we know how seriously they affect the entire scene.

5) More crazy off-the-wall stuff. You've made a fun, popular wargame---now think of ways to break the rules. Stuff like Drakfoot, Spell in a Bottle, or Morathi's Iron Heart are all really interesting abilities that change the way we look at the game. Sure, rerolling hits is fine, but it's not interesting. Not everything has to break the mold, but it's something to keep in mind.

[NinthMusketeer]

Edit: I originally missed the above request to drop the subject, erasing my response now to comply.

Edited January 27, 2020 by NinthMusketeer

[Overread]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Because of the very polarized nature of the Doubleturn can we please move discussion of it into one of the other threads (there's at least one recent one) or start a fresh thread relating to it. I'm not saying its wrong to have wanted to include it in this thread, just that I feel this thread is already looking and discussing other things and when the double turn comes into a topic it tends to dominate and leave little space for others. 

So because its such a big thing for so many people its better that it takes its own thread rather than dominates this one. 

[NinthMusketeer]

I apologise, I missed your previous post. That is a very reasonable request and I will go back to remove what I posted.

[Fulkes]

My main focus for AoS improvement would be for the Idoneth Deepkin, more specifically the Namarti Thralls. 2" reach would allow them to better synergize with healing buffs by letting them run larger units, and balance their 32mm base size when used in said large units. As is they just lack enough punch to compete with eels, and at least making larger units more viable might make them pop up a bit more often.

As for the game proper, I feel like a lot of it is getting old models replaced with either straight replacements, or a more AoS version of the old models and continuing to expand factions so they have more ways to be played.

Well that and Chaos Mortals could use some balancing so they feel like real playable options over their daemon counterparts (since said daemons get locus style bonuses, and mortals don't get much if anything to balance that).

[Kasper]

12 hours ago, Mutton said:

Suggestions:

1) Battalions are too impactful.
1b) Drops affecting who gets to choose the first turn isn't fun or thought-provoking---it's a test to see which factions have the better battalions. I think the entire "# of drops" mechanic needs to be...well, dropped.

Why are batallions too impactful?

 

I actually think drops affecting who goes first is a very good and interesting concept, IF all armies were on a somewhat even playing field. Tzeentch getting a no-brainer 1 drop batallion goes against this when other armies are almost impossible to get below 4-5 drops unless you do some major sacrifices. List building is a big part of the tactical aspect of AoS, so I think it makes sense that you take some initial tactical choices prior to game start, to reduce your drops in order to increase the odds of you going first, vs. saying ****** it all, I'll go 12 drops but optimize what my list is trying to do. This is where some batallions come into play - You might have to sacrifice certain units or heroes in order to keep drops low, but alas if some armies get a free-pass (Changehost), then the whole thing is pointless.

Simply doing a roll-off is a much worse option for me. 

12 hours ago, Mutton said:

5) More crazy off-the-wall stuff. You've made a fun, popular wargame---now think of ways to break the rules. Stuff like Drakfoot, Spell in a Bottle, or Morathi's Iron Heart are all really interesting abilities that change the way we look at the game. Sure, rerolling hits is fine, but it's not interesting. Not everything has to break the mold, but it's something to keep in mind.

Agreed. As much as people complain about always-strike-first, double pile-ins etc., I think it makes the game much more interesting, as long as there is some kind of counter play to it. If every army played according to the pace of the core rules, it would make for some rather uninteresting experiences imo. I want GW devs to go nuts and break the rules within a certain limit. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Kasper

[Dead Scribe]

11 hours ago, Overread said:

MODERATOR NOTICE

Because of the very polarized nature of the Doubleturn can we please move discussion of it into one of the other threads (there's at least one recent one) or start a fresh thread relating to it. I'm not saying its wrong to have wanted to include it in this thread, just that I feel this thread is already looking and discussing other things and when the double turn comes into a topic it tends to dominate and leave little space for others. 

So because its such a big thing for so many people its better that it takes its own thread rather than dominates this one. 

I'm not really interested in talking about that forbidden topic because no one's mind will change, but I don't see any topics on that either  where did it move to?