The Best Problem: Will AoS have too many armies?

[Dankboss]

1 hour ago, zilberfrid said:

Strikes first is merely a variation on priority in combat. I think Relentless Discipline is a larger diversion from the core rules. But that's just an opinion.

They're fundamentally the same as command points.

[Kasper]

I certainly think too many armies can be a very real issue for the hobby. The more armies, the longer there will be between updates/fixes. 

On the other hand I want the GW devs to go crazy and keep taking wild shots. Sometimes a new rule will be broken and sometimes it will be bad. Their limited playtesting can't catch it all and that's where FAQs based on feedback has to line things in. But I think their creativity is awesome, and needed to keep the gaming experience fresh. If all armies played the exact same, some of them would more or less feel like reskinned armies. As much as people hate always strike first and double pile-ins etc., it is a part of what makes a different experience when fighting different armies. Your army shouldn't tackle every army the exact same way imo.

[Icegoat]

I believe aos already has too many armies.

They could easily roll certain armies back together like they've done with orruks and ogors. 

Beasts of chaos should go back to slaves to darkness.

Wanderers back to sylvaneth or squat

Squat legions of nagash. 

Realistically they may squat cities of sigmar when a new human faction is released. How many extra elf and dwarf do we actually need??

I mean do flesh eater courts, fyreslayers and daughters need their own books there model lines are so small they would have been sub factions in old warhammer. 

I think next edition either all the soup times are got rid of and squatted and each faction is hyper focused or the factions are rolled back into more varied armies.at the moment there is a big divide.

 

 

[Overread]

Beasts of Chaos were never part of Slaves to Darkness. They were Beastmen and always their own thing. Unless you go way back to the first few generations of the game (well into 30 odd years ago). 
You might be thinking of the four chaos gods who were once part of Slaves to Darkness; then their own single battletime; now they are four on their own. Thing is you couldn't easily put all four into a single battletome as they'd easily trip over each other having too many options in the same positions, ending up a bit like Stormcast. 

 

 

As for wanderers I don't think they've got all that much left honestly; so much of their range is gone there isn't much to add back to Sylvaneth. 

 

Legions of Nagash I actually see as quite interesting. I can still see GW splitting out a vampire focused army like they did for nighthaunt and ossiarchs from the legion. I'd actually like it if Legions of Nagash basically became the "Death Grand Alliance" army concept. So instead of a Grand Alliance army that can take models from anywhere; restrict it, give them some unique similar warscrolls and have it formed like Legions of Nagash. 

[zilberfrid]

24 minutes ago, Icegoat said:

I believe aos already has too many armies.

They could easily roll certain armies back together like they've done with orruks and ogors. 

Beasts of chaos should go back to slaves to darkness.

Wanderers back to sylvaneth or squat

Squat legions of nagash. 

Realistically they may squat cities of sigmar when a new human faction is released. How many extra elf and dwarf do we actually need??

I mean do flesh eater courts, fyreslayers and daughters need their own books there model lines are so small they would have been sub factions in old warhammer. 

I think next edition either all the soup times are got rid of and squatted and each faction is hyper focused or the factions are rolled back into more varied armies.at the moment there is a big divide.

Wanderers are now part of Cities, I don't think they will be their own allegiance come GHB 2020. I think the same about the rest of Cities.

Wait. I just noticed I was starting a serious response to Icegoat.

Sorry about that.

[Alcina]

well example of the tournament I will participate next Sunday: 24 players, 17 differents armies, 2 armies with 3 lists and 3 with 2 lists, all completely different.

I am mixed on this: I am not really a competitive player, just enjoy 3/4 1 day tournaments a year, and don‘t play so much AOS as I am also in 40K and Kill Team and Bloodbowl.

so very cool go have the chance to play again new armies/new battletomes but

in the same I‘am struggling to understand the other lists (even if we have the chance to get all the lists participating 1 week in advance)

 

so good for the variety, but probably less game „quality“

 

 

[Skreech Verminking]

13 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

course there's still lots to expand in existing factions. Skaven can be split into multiple major factions (and get refreshed kits for all that super old stuff.

No, no no!

splitting the skaven faction up was the most horrible thing Gw ever did to the skaven.

they definitely shouldn't have all does faction that make the skaven so great be split again.

although some new kits would definitely be pretty amazing to have😁

[Myrdin]

If GW pushed further into digitizing their product: rules battletomes stat cards, etc etc and do what most other companies do I think the updates could be more frequent, as essentially all the paper stuff would be easy to amend and update in its digital form. Of course they could print stuff as well for people who like me enjoy the hardcover rulebooks and such, but going digiatl would do a lot of good for them.

Make the rules free to download, form a dedicated IT department that oversees regular updates and such and you could with ease get all the updates for every army done on what a weekly basis. 2-3 armies per month, all armies updated within a span of years.

But of course for that to work you need to lay the ground work, the IT department would have to be tighlty tied with the rules department, and the rules departmnet would have to be in constant contact with the gaming scene, tournament scene and the community in general to receive and process feedback, as well as tournament results, statistics for what the most played vs what is not, etc etc.

But that way sure I think it might work and, forming a solid base for future new armies to come. Now do I think we need more armies ? No not really. There is quite a lot out there and there is only so much variety you can do until the armies start becoming to samey. I hope this doesnt end up like League of Legends, where they churn up dozen new champions each year, with ever growing power creep, cordoning the people into few top options and leaving the massive roster of other heroes "sit on the shelf" in our wargaming way of speaking. 

So I think AoS can handle maybe few more armies, but they need to break the mold and be more unique to avoid being just a "re-skin" of an already existing product.  I fully support the idea that instead of more armies, at that certain point they would instead start replacing older miniatures with new ones. As someone who has quite the collection of Beastmen I would still be willing to buy more if the update was similar to what StD got. New dynamic poses for existing units, some new models to replace the ancient stuff (DO Shaggoth, Centigors and the old metal Beastlord for example). I believe that would be the best way to go forward for the for the forseeable future. Update the miniature lines, introduce some new ones, and work on Campaign and Scenario exclusive stuff that is also compatible with regular AoS battles. Endless spells were a good idea. Now lets do that with terrain, maybe some neutral NPC monsters that roam the board. You know stuff like that, which is optional but if the models are nice and the the rules are solid people will buy into it. Combined with re-releasing  updated model kits for existing armies to bring them up to the current standard, while all the rules are Digitally updated on regular base, while also offering a print on demand physical copy of the books seems like a decent plan for the future.

[DatHomieSilverSurfer]

So I personally enjoy how the game currently offers a multitude of different sized armies for everyones individual taste. I personally play mixed skaven because I enjoy having many options when building my lists, and would  dislike if they once again broke the skaven down into the individual clans. I have the models to play more focused Skaven builds if I wished, but having the full gamut of options helps me further differentiate my Skaven army from the next person (aside from the fact that we will all have a f-ton of clanrats!

 

however, for the newer players who seem to carry less attachment to their armies, constantly churning out low model option armies seems to be beneficial as it allows them a dynamic field from which to pick up new armies and streamlines their army build options.

 

I do think there will be a point where there are too many armies available as far as shelf space is concerned. Due to the time/money it takes to put together an army, it's much more difficult to just "trade in" your army for the next big hotness, especially when you've just finished painting/modeling/lore writing for your current army.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by DatHomieSilverSurfer