The Constructive AoS Feedback Thread

[Overread]

We've three topics that have posts from 2019 alone: The first has the most recent posts and would likely be the best to continue, however if you read all three the same arguments tend to go in cycles. 

 

 

[Ksym77]

What if the player who spent fewer points could choose who took the first turn? They would be paying an actual price for it at that point in not taking a full army. And players would have to make a decision on how much they could leave out to try and get the first turn.

[NJohansson]

1 hour ago, Ksym77 said:

What if the player who spent fewer points could choose who took the first turn? They would be paying an actual price for it at that point in not taking a full army. And players would have to make a decision on how much they could leave out to try and get the first turn.

To me the greatest problem is not how first turn is decided - the greatest problem (IMHO) is that it is certain prior to first turn. Having an uncertainty is more complex and forces both players to plan for both defense and offense instead of one player deploying for all out assault and the other for full defense.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Ksym77 said:

What if the player who spent fewer points could choose who took the first turn? They would be paying an actual price for it at that point in not taking a full army. And players would have to make a decision on how much they could leave out to try and get the first turn.

Not a bad idea in theory (there used to be something like it with mercenaries in WFB 3rd), but I don't think GW would go for it as it would encourage people to buy fewer models.

[Mr Spadge]

On 1/26/2020 at 8:57 PM, zilberfrid said:

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.

Awesome, it looks like you're the kind of player I don't want to face anyway 👍

i started petrifex before I'd even read the book, their lore and colour scheme are cool.... but that makes me "the enemy" to a lot of people it seems.... so if people are that hung up about them they would "ban" them.... I'll be glad to avoid such a game.

 

But constructive feedback.... I think literally the only thing I'd change is to make battallions HAVE to deploy as one drop. Doesn't change much, but there are match ups where you don't want to give away your deployment to your opponent so it makes deploying (and listbuilding) a little bit more tactical.

Other than that, I'm loving aos at the moment

Edited February 1, 2020 by Mr Spadge

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, NJohansson said:

To me the greatest problem is not how first turn is decided - the greatest problem (IMHO) is that it is certain prior to first turn. Having an uncertainty is more complex and forces both players to plan for both defense and offense instead of one player deploying for all out assault and the other for full defense.

In my gaming group we often roll for the first turn anyway. It makes it harder for the players in the group setting up alpha strike lists because first turn isnt always guaranteed. 

[Saxon]

3 hours ago, Mr Spadge said:

Awesome, it looks like you're the kind of player I don't want to face anyway 👍

i started petrifex before I'd even read the book, their lore and colour scheme are cool.... but that makes me "the enemy" to a lot of people it seems.... so if people are that hung up about them they would "ban" them.... I'll be glad to avoid such a game.

 

But constructive feedback.... I think literally the only thing I'd change is to make battallions HAVE to deploy as one drop. Doesn't change much, but there are match ups where you don't want to give away your deployment to your opponent so it makes deploying (and listbuilding) a little bit more tactical.

Other than that, I'm loving aos at the moment

Isnt that a criticism of the rules though? People giving up on certain lists because they're just not fun to play against. People ignoring valid criticisms and deflecting from it is not helpful. 

It won't help sell models but these powerful releases (Slaanesh, OBR and Tzeentch) hurt the game long run and i think its reasonable to expect more balance given the cost of the models. I can only recommend significantly more play testing to iron out some of these issues before they get printed in a book.

[Bayul]

It's either more playtesting or more frequent errata plus losing this ancient habit to print points costs into books. Yesterday I watched my (nice) GW store manager, a young customer and his mother going through the unit costs for matched play of SCE and Nighthaunt units in their outdated battletomes. Those pages are worthless in a bigger context and should be replaced with an reference to https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/ or the app.

 

[Overread]

The point changes only invalidates the last page of the Battletome - for AoS its effotlessly easy to update point costs. 5 mins and you've got time to have a cuppa and more when updating them. Even a big army like Skaven is only updating a handful of prices on a single table.

40K its a bit more complex, but again its a small number of updates. 

 

The whole "points are invalide" is overblown in my view - you print off your 1 or 2 pages of Errata/FAQ and lean over the shoulder of the store copy of the GHB to update your handful of points and you're done. I'd rather complimentary digital products rather than this move to "all digital" which I think for a physical product line is a big mistake that can run the risk that it only appeases the established experienced/active/pro crowed and can be detrimental for new player recruitment. Now instead of it all being in the shop when they leave; you've got to send them home to the internet and rely on them bothering to remember an hour or so later. It's FAR more engaging when they are holding a book in their hands- even if some of the prices are a little out of date by a bit. 

[Saxon]

32 minutes ago, Overread said:

The point changes only invalidates the last page of the Battletome - for AoS its effotlessly easy to update point costs. 5 mins and you've got time to have a cuppa and more when updating them. Even a big army like Skaven is only updating a handful of prices on a single table.

40K its a bit more complex, but again its a small number of updates. 

 

The whole "points are invalide" is overblown in my view - you print off your 1 or 2 pages of Errata/FAQ and lean over the shoulder of the store copy of the GHB to update your handful of points and you're done. I'd rather complimentary digital products rather than this move to "all digital" which I think for a physical product line is a big mistake that can run the risk that it only appeases the established experienced/active/pro crowed and can be detrimental for new player recruitment. Now instead of it all being in the shop when they leave; you've got to send them home to the internet and rely on them bothering to remember an hour or so later. It's FAR more engaging when they are holding a book in their hands- even if some of the prices are a little out of date by a bit. 

Its personal taste but i like to have a quick reference I.e. a battletome and not loose pieces of paper with updates everywhere. It gets out of hand and you forget stuff. I also think it hinders the game if players arent up to date with  faq/errata. Not everyone  has time to keep up to date.

I love the warscroll cards GW makes as you can line them up in front of you for quick reference. It annoys me when 2months after i buy them abilities change. GW needs to play test their rules better to stop all these cards/tomes being redundant. 

[Kirjava13]

43 minutes ago, Overread said:

you print off your 1 or 2 pages of Errata/FAQ and lean over the shoulder of the store copy of the GHB to update your handful of points and you're done.

This is somehow more complicated than, "use an app on the phone that almost everyone has".

[whispersofblood]

On 2/1/2020 at 1:57 PM, Kirjava13 said:

This is somehow more complicated than, "use an app on the phone that almost everyone has".

A phone is a barrier to entry. Personally my kid wouldn't have an portable internet capable device until they were 16/17, unless they were exceptional mature.

Battletomes are fine, I don't even read the fluff anymore and I still pick them up. The problem is the expectation of value, which will eventually stop being a problem once GW sells the points booklet separately every summer and the culture changes to match.

[Overread]

On 2/1/2020 at 1:57 PM, Kirjava13 said:

This is somehow more complicated than, "use an app on the phone that almost everyone has".

It's not so much a case of complexity as choice and suitability. 

Right now we've the choice of digital or paper or both - although if I were GW I'd be tempted to put activation or one use discount codes in the paperback versions. That said its a choice and that means those who want to go full digital can and those who want to stick with books can. 

 

I think going either way in todays market is a bad choice. I think for companies that have very little to no highstreet/retail exposure then a fully digital rules system works because their entire customerbase and marketing is being run online through online shops. So basically their customers come to find them online to connect with them anyway. So having a fully digital rules system works because your customer already HAS to come online and use digital technology.

For a company with physical highstreet shops and with their own shops as well, physical products work far better. It's something tangible they can put in a prospective customers hands without distraction. Phones and tablets are full of distractions, but a Codex or Battletome is fully product only. 

 

 

Personally I find reference easier with physical over digital products and I'd prefer to stick with physical game aids and tools; its even nice to be able to shut off or ignore the digital world at times. No facebook update; no new forum thread; no ping email or whatsapp of someone wanting a chat etc... Plus digital reference only works well if you've got a fast and big enough screen to reference easy so it does set a barrier. It's not a massive barrier like it was 20 years ago, but its still a barrier to entry. 

[SwampHeart]

On 2/1/2020 at 4:32 AM, Saxon said:

i think its reasonable to expect more balance given the cost of the models.

Honest question here - why do you think its reasonable to expect this? I love competitive play, I travel to events, run locals, the whole nine. However GW has never advertised the game as particularly well balanced, they don't make any real claims as to it being overly suitable for tight games. They obviously encourage tournament play by running their own events, putting in matched play, etc., but they've never really stood up and said 'this is our design intent'. 

I ask the question because I think this is the crux of a lot of folks' relationship with GW. Their how and why lacks alignment with GW's how and why which means that the end result is always going to be far less than perfect. 

[Bayul]

  

1 hour ago, Overread said:

Plus digital reference only works well if you've got a fast and big enough screen to reference easy so it does set a barrier. It's not a massive barrier like it was 20 years ago, but its still a barrier to entry. 

I have to disagree, Overread. No one needs an app or a tablet.

GW can create simple PDFs with the point costs for each faction that you or your Warhammer store can print out. You implied that a printer isn't considered a barrier, because you already print out your FAQ and Errata. People like me don't even have a BT for their army and we need to use the warscroll builder anyway. If GW detaches itself from releasing books for this purpose, they could react more flexibly to the meta.

FFG already did that with X-Wing TMG 2.0 and it works perfectly fine.

edit: A X-Wing PDF looks like this: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/b3/7a/b37a0aa1-1d25-4f08-b052-6f6e5ab07f46/onlinepoints_republic_wave6.pdf

Edited February 3, 2020 by Bayul

[Kirjava13]

3 hours ago, Overread said:

<snip>

Look, if you want to be a Luddite, fair play, I don't want to take anyone's printouts or books away. There just needs to be better integration of material digitally, because when you charge for stuff like warscroll cards and then massively edit them without offering replacements, that narks your customers. Just as you don't want to have to look at a screen, I don't want to need loads of extraneous bits of paper, especially when I've already shelled out for a beautiful hardcover book. If rules are going to become more mutable- and that's a good thing- then the format for delivering them needs to be more flexible too. I love the warscroll cards, they're one of my favourite things about a new release, but it irritates me when they then become obsolete because of changes. Far better to have it on a tablet or a phone in that sense, though this comes a distant second to actually having an accurate physical thing in my hand.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Kirjava13
Additions

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Honest question here - why do you think its reasonable to expect this? I love competitive play, I travel to events, run locals, the whole nine. However GW has never advertised the game as particularly well balanced, they don't make any real claims as to it being overly suitable for tight games. They obviously encourage tournament play by running their own events, putting in matched play, etc., but they've never really stood up and said 'this is our design intent'. 

I ask the question because I think this is the crux of a lot of folks' relationship with GW. Their how and why lacks alignment with GW's how and why which means that the end result is always going to be far less than perfect. 

Models without a decent game are just overpriced plastic. GW has been around for a long time, long enough to have a fair idea of what works and what doesn't with regards to rules. 

No one expects perfect balance but they've got to be very careful not to Petrifix Elite every new release. 2 gaming centres I'm aware of already have people who just refuse to play against those certain lists. 3 KoS lists too. Changehost will be next. GW needs to be careful with its power creep hence the expectation of 'some' level of balance. 

I dont think its reasonable to expect every game to be a tight game in a constantly evolving game but people giving up on playing certain buildsis concerning and not something I've ever seen before. 

 

[Aelfric]

On the subject of Battalions, I would like to see the introdution of a generic Battaliion available to all armies, something like;-

1 Hero that must be your General

3 Battleline units

No special rules

Points cost; 120

I think something along these lines would help to mitigate the the disparancy of current Battalions among the existing Battletomes.  Some armies have a wide choice with good flexible Battalions and some have maybe one or two that are often very restrictive, and many inbetween.  Yes, the armies with the better Battalions could also use it, but the chances are they probably already  have something better (and possibly cheaper).

 

 

[OkayestDM]

4 minutes ago, Aelfric said:

On the subject of Battalions, I would like to see the introdution of a generic Battaliion available to all armies, something like;-

1 Hero that must be your General

3 Battleline units

No special rules

Points cost; 120

I think something along these lines would help to mitigate the the disparancy of current Battalions among the existing Battletomes.  Some armies have a wide choice with good flexible Battalions and some have maybe one or two that are often very restrictive, and many inbetween.  Yes, the armies with the better Battalions could also use it, but the chances are they probably already  have something better (and possibly cheaper).

 

 

That's . . . a REALLY good idea. Staggeringly simple, but all the better for it!

[Aelfric]

7 minutes ago, OkayestDM said:

That's . . . a REALLY good idea. Staggeringly simple, but all the better for it!

Thanks! It was the Cities of Sigmar Battletome that got me thinking.  My other two armies, Gloomspite and Warclans, both have a fairly decent range of Battlions, wheareas Cities is pretty deficient and restrictive.  It seemed to me a way to mitigate the discrepency and give everyone the opportunity to gain Battalion bonuses without much disruption to the current system.

[OkayestDM]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if GW released something that adds a whole bunch of Battalions to CoS at some point.

That said, this would be a solid fix for now, and honestly a great option to have going forward.

Might change the battleline requirement to 2-3 though, as that would scale better with smaller point games.

[Overread]

If the battalion offers no special rules what's the purpose of taking it? You get a command point with a battalion, but at 120points you'd get 2 if you just didn't take the battalion and left those 120 points empty. Bonuses are one of the core reasons you take a battalion and whilst generic might work, there's also a risk that a generic ability could stack really well with some armies over others. 

[whispersofblood]

18 minutes ago, Overread said:

If the battalion offers no special rules what's the purpose of taking it? You get a command point with a battalion, but at 120points you'd get 2 if you just didn't take the battalion and left those 120 points empty. Bonuses are one of the core reasons you take a battalion and whilst generic might work, there's also a risk that a generic ability could stack really well with some armies over others. 

CP are capped at 1. Also drops and a second artefact.

[Aelfric]

40 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

CP are capped at 1. Also drops and a second artefact.

Exactly this.  Having no special rule or ability means that it cannot interact with any one army to any great degree, but it also only includes mandatory units so it's not adversely affecting unit choice.  It offers everyone a simple way to gain 1 CP, 1 extra Artifact and fewer drops at a points cost.  Having choice is a good thing in general.  There are plenty of Battalions out there that are rarely chosen, but I'm sure the few who do are glad they're there.  This would be one more choice.

[Frowny]

Moreover, it would actually be better than many battalions which are often quite restrictive. I would take this in my sylvaneth army for example, since the artifacts and cps are so good, and since the only other ok ones force a lot more of a specific Battleline than I often have used for.