A Modest Proposal / Balance / Allegiance Abilities / Sub-Factions

[JPjr]

First of all apologies if this has been done to death, it seems so banally obvious that I kind of assume it has been brought up and then subsequently shot down dozens of times, but I couldn't see it mentioned in recent relevant threads, so here you go in today's TED Talk I ask...

Why Don't We Charge Points to Unlock Sub-Factions Abilities?

TLDR-DBY*: Charge different points for different factions and you have a crude but effective lever to tip the scales on both external and internal balance.

 

I'm going to kick off this painfully long milquetoast discourse with a few points, that I believe generally hold up.

Firstly, outside of their game breaking moments, I think most people like the addition of different Stormhosts, Legions, Domains, Temples, Tribes, Cities, Cults, Sky-Ports, whatever you want to call it to each** faction. It gives you more opportunities to customise your armies, try out different play styles and on a narrative level it expands upon a factions lore leaning into the idea that we're not just dealing with monolithic races anymore but actual societies with different values, aims and indeed ecological niches to fill.

Secondly the rules that these sub-factions unlock can, and should, have a noticeable effect on how an army operates and its unit composition. Furthermore these additional rules can dramatically change a particular unit's, perceived or actual, value. 

Thirdly, not all of these sub-factions are created equal. I think this is self-evident.

Taking those 3 basic assumptions as read it seems obvious, to me, that we should charge points for them. It's clear that, for example, a unit of Ossiarch Bonereaper Mortek Guard are worth more if you take the Petrifex Elite Legion than say if you took them as Null Myriad, if you start assigning different points values (or a modifier) to each unit for each sub-faction though you're making life much more complicated but if you just had a blanket cost for each sub-faction you can at least put your finger on the scales to have some effect and introduce another 'lever of balance' that you can use to rein in or empower sub-factions, and hopefully make it so that people don't feel like they only have one real option. 

This could help with internal balance. After all there must be a tipping point where, for example using OBR, running the Crematorian legion becomes just as a 'viable' an option as Petrifex because you have an extra number of points to play with.  Likewise with external balance, as long as there's marked differences between the assigned values you should at some point blunder into a situation where you begin to mitigate the curb stomping power of any of the auto-include factions.

If for example picking Hagg Narr is the most painfully obvious option for Daughters of Khaine players, then you've not only wasted all the effort that went in to creating the other temples but rather than empowering players with more options you're penalising them for not just doing the obvious thing and reducing the diversity of what makes it to the table. Add points and there must be a point where choosing Hagg Narr is something that players have to actively think about and consider, are the advantages worth the extra 2 or 3 units that my opponent might be able to bring to the table?

In fact I'd stop it up a notch, with the uneven introduction of faction specific Endless Spells and Terrain, I'd start charging for the lot. Whilst it's free then terrain becomes effectively an auto-include but its effect isn't always evenly distributed across a factions different groups. For example if you're running a pure Troggoth, Squig or Spider based Gloomspite army for instance you certainly don't get nearly as much out of a Loonshrine as you do if your army contains masses of Grot foot sloggers.

Either allocate a theoretical 500 extra points for abilities, terrain and endless spells to battles*** or just decrease points values across the board to accommodate. If terrain cost around 100 or so, and sub factions ranged from say 150-400**** points that would give us a crude but effective way of creating a semblance of 'balance' and is also easier to modify by changing the values at the same time models points are reviewed  than by changing actual rules.

That way you're not really eating into points allocated for models, GW don's sell less and in fact in the case of those that choose to run say a theoretically weaker faction but offset that with more units you sell more. This, in theory, could see more different builds make the table and help further differentiate between sub-factions, allowing more weaker, larger armies vs more elite smaller forces etc etc.

Obviously it would need a bit of work to get it right but as they, hopefully, continue to expand on the idea of sub-factions it seems like an obvious option to at least explore. Plus think of all the extra opportunities that given sub-factions points values would provide for more interminable arguments over ridiculous minutiae, and really at the end of the day isn't that what the hobby is all about?

 

Postscript: Honestly I've mainly written so much here because it seems so obvious and simple that I've had to go to great lengths to make it seem like some really game changing epiphany or hope that in writing this the painfully obvious flaws rear their heads, but nothing yet. Still I'm sure there are many objections so please shoot this down in flames. Also if you've made it this far it may not surprise you to find out that I am currently enjoying a period of, let's call it, employment free time, who knows if you're really unlucky I might start publishing my ****** short stories...

 

 

* Too Long Didn't Read - Don't Blame You

** Well nearly all of them. Like all things it's a little unevenly applied at the moment but it's generally the case and almost certainly will be a feature going forward.

*** This is for 2000 points games, either scale accordingly or do something even more radical like remove sub-factions from smaller games, keep them even more streamlined.

*** And not every faction would need to have max powered options either.

[zilberfrid]

I was just thinking, yesterday, that it's hard to balance subfactions, because other than a rewrite, what can you do? Similar with the terrain, it gives extra options, but there is no cost allocated to it.

I would say that it's wise to vary the points depending on the points off the game you're doing, so designing them in 20 points increments is best. Removing subfactions from smaller games isn't a solution, much of the flavour is in them.

[Melcavuk]

Its definately a thing, the risk here would be that Subfactions are optional for some Battletomes and the army can be fully functional and cool without it, in others you MUST select one and in this case would end up down on points compared to the army who gets the option not to (Cities and Slaanesh are the two that come to mind here but I'm sure there are others). This is further compounded by the fact that some subfactions are "locked" to relics and command traits, others can choose, and some have options for command traits at all outside of their subfaction (see the two factions mentioned above). Making a set battalion unlock the sub faction would fit the role of charging for the subfactions but again first you'd need to add in rules for a subfactionless city and host prior to doing so otherwise you're nerfing the factions who have no choice but to be a subfaction.

 

For factional terrain we're now at the point where we have active terrain (Ossiarchs can actively shoot enemies) rather than passive (you need to run into a wyldwood to get hurt), I'm heavily against active terrain roles within the game when it cannot be targetted or blocked by most armies and has a massive range, in this way it has toed its way into becoming a damage immune static unit, rather than a terrain feature.

[MitGas]

That is pretty ingenious, great thinking. It would complicate list-building a tiny bit with having to "buy" another thing in your army outside of battalions, endless spells and the like but it would make balancing things a hell of a lot easier and could lead to people not just spamming the 1 or 2 clearly best options. 

[JPjr]

@Melcavuk oh yeah, looks it's a crude and blunt instrument and if you just inserted it right away would be janky as hell with a few odd anomalies.

BUT I think/hope/assume that these kind of sub-factions whether in battletomes or in White Dwarf or wherever are here to stay, and personally I think that's great and hope we not only see more of them but they build on them more, so not just giving factions various abilities and artefacts or whatever but also allowing for unique army compositions (sub-faction x allows you to include x number of units from a totally different faction etc etc which we're seeing with some of the more recent tomes and WD supplements).

It opens up loads of interesting ideas and options, is a really simple way of breathing new, competitive, life into factions and creating specific thematic options for those of us that love that kind of thing. But with that in mind and the obvious power gaps, and hence viability/visibility, of different sub-factions it seems to make sense, to me, that going forward they start pricing that in somehow and thinking about it when they design faction wide abilities.

Of course I see the problem we have with so many battletomes out there that unless they rolled it out at once you have a kind of reverse power creep situation where for a couple of years new books that have factored that in are paying a price others aren't but much cleverer minds than mine can solve that one.

[Melcavuk]

11 minutes ago, JPjr said:

@Melcavuk oh yeah, looks it's a crude and blunt instrument and if you just inserted it right away would be janky as hell with a few odd anomalies.

BUT I think/hope/assume that these kind of sub-factions whether in battletomes or in White Dwarf or wherever are here to stay, and personally I think that's great and hope we not only see more of them but they build on them more, so not just giving factions various abilities and artefacts or whatever but also allowing for unique army compositions (sub-faction x allows you to include x number of units from a totally different faction etc etc which we're seeing with some of the more recent tomes and WD supplements).

It opens up loads of interesting ideas and options, is a really simple way of breathing new, competitive, life into factions and creating specific thematic options for those of us that love that kind of thing. But with that in mind and the obvious power gaps, and hence viability/visibility, of different sub-factions it seems to make sense, to me, that going forward they start pricing that in somehow and thinking about it when they design faction wide abilities.

Of course I see the problem we have with so many battletomes out there that unless they rolled it out at once you have a kind of reverse power creep situation where for a couple of years new books that have factored that in are paying a price others aren't but much cleverer minds than mine can solve that one.

Dont get me wrong I like the idea in theory, its only tripping point is the fact that there has been an inconsistent application of what exactly a subfaction functions as which is more a GW consistency thing than a slight on your concept. If every faction had allegiance and OPTIONAL sub allegiance then this would be a beauty of implementation on how to alter them for balance, it is the fact that for some the allegiance and suballegiance and intertwined that we struggle.

[Fairbanks]

There are about 150 lists currently up for the event at LVO. The highest played army is OBR at 19 players.

All 19 are playing Petrifex Elite.

I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that’s an indicator of brokenness.

[whispersofblood]

Is there satisfactory evidence to suggest that sub-factions are intended to be equivilent or roughly balanced against each other. Rather than simply being different personalities for which the Faction can represent itself on the table top?

For example while Petrefix elite is apparently inarguably the strongest subfaction statisticlly, it does emphasis a specific philosphy which also happens to synergize strongly with mirrored objective based scenerios. But, the same can be said about sub-factions that provide extreme mobility, or large increases in hitting power like Ironsunz or Invaders respectively. 

The weakest sub-factions are always the ones that represent a philosphy that has limited roots in the mechanics of the game so something like Ionrach for IDK, or The Kraith where the ability is so niche as to be non-existent. 

And, if start pointing subfactions what do you do with factions like Everchosen, which don't really provide very much of anything without Archaon? 

Perhaps sub-factions are simply another form of 3 ways to play? As the competitive element evolves I'm surprised that people are expecting to see any real divesity at the cutting edge. While more would be better, what we have is actually pretty healthy, given the very small mechanical window of victory available.   

[whispersofblood]

8 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

There are about 150 lists currently up for the event at LVO. The highest played army is OBR at 19 players.

All 19 are playing Petrifex Elite.

I’m not an expert, but I’m pretty sure that’s an indicator of brokenness.

I would 100% push back against this. If you are at LVO to compete a choice doesn't need to be so much better than another that it could be considered "broken" it only needs to be better given the total world of forseeable negatives. That could be anywhere from 1% to infinitly better. 
 

Look at Ard Boyz vs Brutes in IJ faction specifically. The difference in totally effeciency is like less than 1%, but that still means Ard Boyz are better, part of that has to do with the economics of tabletop wargames, because Ard Boyz are strategicaly significantly better than Brutes in Big Waagh. But the price on Brutes is fair, and the price on Ard Boyz is probably fair given that we only round to the tens. We are left in a situation that the only way to internally equalize the two would be to rewrite Here we go, and how Waagh points are generated for units. But, then I'm fairly certain BS based Big Waagh would be pretty meh over all. Its very delicate. 

I think part of the issue with PE is how rend is distributed across armies, and not neccesarily their own rules. For instance for KO the difference between Petrefex Elite and any other OBR faction is small. For DoK a Petrifex Elite match up is almost a certain loss if you don't build with the match up specifcially in mind. 

[JPjr]

32 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Is there satisfactory evidence to suggest that sub-factions are intended to be equivilent or roughly balanced against each other. Rather than simply being different personalities for which the Faction can represent itself on the table top?

well I'd suggest that as presently they all cost the same, that is nothing, then whether they are intended to be equivalent or roughly balanced against each other is moot.

we also know that, as objectively speaking as we can in this game, at present certain sub-factions are, at least, perceived to be much more powerful (whether that's measured by damage output, resilience, speed etc) to the point where you end up having to justify to others why on earth you'd even consider running something as wonderfully over the top and crazy as a legion of skeletons, who are burning on the inside, that explode when killed and who are filled with nagging existential dread at the shitness of their existence.

so if factions come in different power levels why should they cost the same? yes it's going to be janky comparing across different factions but the same can be said for all points at the end of the day, there will also be an element or arbitrariness to it.

41 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

The weakest sub-factions are always the ones that represent a philosphy that has limited roots in the mechanics of the game so something like Ionrach for IDK, or The Kraith where the ability is so niche as to be non-existent. 

Hence if you opt for a "weaker" faction because you appreciate the background or lore behind that group then at present you are effectively being punished on the tabletop. Considering how important the overarching narrative and actual narrative games are to the development of the hobby and I would say, judging by most their interviews or comments, to most the people at GW who design the games you'd think they'd want to see more people incentivised to explore all the possibilities they offer up rather than just, for example, 99% of people unthinkingly opting for Petrifex.

Don't get me wrong as I said above if you just dropped it in now then it would cause a right load of unintended oddness, but if we're going to keep these sub-factions in the game, and I hope they both do and further develop the idea, then as they develop it would, to me at least, make sense to start factoring that in when they start designing the next iteration.

50 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Perhaps sub-factions are simply another form of 3 ways to play? As the competitive element evolves I'm surprised that people are expecting to see any real divesity at the cutting edge. While more would be better, what we have is actually pretty healthy, given the very small mechanical window of victory available.   

I kind of get that, and despite doom & gloom I think we're generally in an ok place, there's a 100 person tournament here in Belgium in a couple of weeks and barring poor old Nighthaunt literally every other faction is pretty well represented (OBR:PE far away in the lead taking up 11% though). But I think it would be good to at least give players a reason to pause and think through their choices rather than just plumping for the most powerful, because in a proper tournament why wouldn't you.

 

[Forrix]

In general I like that idea quite a bit. The biggest problem with the sub-faction format is why would you not take one? Generally, at least one of the subfactions has bonuses good enough it just feels like your shooting yourself in the foot if you don't take one. It renders the command trait tables pointless and, depending on the battalions, the artifact tables mostly pointless. Granted, we've seen shifts in game design in the Cities and STD books away from the traditional model and the KO book does allow you to sometimes take a command trait from the main tables in a subfaction but this could be another way.

I remember first hearing about Petrifix Elite on Stormcast and going "hmmm...how are they going to balance that against the other sub-factions and especially no sub-faction". The answer of course being that they didn't even try.

[Fairbanks]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

Is there satisfactory evidence to suggest that sub-factions are intended to be equivilent or roughly balanced against each other. Rather than simply being different personalities for which the Faction can represent itself on the table top?

Yes, but actually no.

Sub-Factions weren't designed by the GW Teams to be balanced against one another. They were designed to be flavorful versions of each army.

Matched Play on the other hand, which is the only format where points matter, was designed by the GW Teams so that two individually built armies can be balanced against one another. From GHB 2017 (Sorry, it's the only reference in front of me on my phone at work):

Quote

While narrative play games allow you to assemble your army based on a theme or story, and open play games enable you to include any models you like, matched play games give you the option to fight battles with forces that are intentionally balanced against one another.

Matched Play doesn't currently balance sub-factions. I believe OP is suggesting we should use points to balance them against one another. I am pointing out that in a competitive environment, all of the players of one faction didn't even try out one of the other sub-factions. I believe that competitive players are doing the math and trying to take the best option to win. Thus when I see all of the players who have picked one faction and have picked only one sub-faction, I'm inclined to believe there is something with the format that isn't balanced (aka it's broken).

Edited January 21, 2020 by Fairbanks
clarifying whom is doing the "designing"

[Beastmaster]

2 hours ago, MitGas said:

That is pretty ingenious, great thinking. It would complicate list-building a tiny bit with having to "buy" another thing in your army outside of battalions, endless spells and the like but it would make balancing things a hell of a lot easier and could lead to people not just spamming the 1 or 2 clearly best options. 

List building was never easier, thanks to the Warscroll builder. I wouldn’t mind another Dropdown menu if it helps diversity. 😊

[PJetski]

I would prefer if GW wrote rules that make all subfactions viable choices for Matched Play in their own distinct ways.

Since they demonstrably don't want to do that - or perhaps they can't do that for a number of reasons - then I agree the short term solution is to make subfactions cost points. The opportunity costs of being locked into specific artefacts/traits is obviously not enough right now.

Some of the weaker subfactions can cost zero points.

[Laststand]

Elegant, simple, intuitive, forward thinking and adjustable. 

Very little chance at all GW will do it because they believe the vast majority of the players wouldn't think of min/maxing lists outside of a tiny handful of tournament players.  

Barely needs to be said that this isnt the case and that the vast majority of people will go for the obviously much more powerful option even if they dont completely maximise the list tournament style. 

[Kasper]

Great idea in theory, but pretty much impossible to implement in pratice. As mentioned in previous posts, subfactions arent equal across armies at all. Some armies are forced into a subfaction and other armies can opt out of a subfaction and is arguably better off due to not being forced into a terrible command trait and artefact. 

This means you cant just slap on a point tax and reduce points for models since the armies that arent forced into subfactions will suddenly be way better off. You would have to redo every army and how subfactions function. 

If you really want to tax popular choices, I think a tax on malign sorcery artefacts is just as needed.

 

 

[MitGas]

3 hours ago, Beastmaster said:

List building was never easier, thanks to the Warscroll builder. I wouldn’t mind another Dropdown menu if it helps diversity. 😊

Oh, I'm also all for JPjr's idea, it's one of the best suggestions I've come across for a game. That said - especially because I had a discussion about a few days ago with another player - some people don't want quick progress in these things as it would invalidate their battletome (which is something I disagree with on every possible level... battletomes are cool for the background and hobby aspects but warscrolls, points and the like do not need to be linked to printed stuff these days as every gamer has access to the net 24/7 usually and I'd rather see great balancing... I always think about Starcraft 2 here, much of its charm was/is how well they balanced it (and yet it still isn't perfectly balanced like Thanos' dagger).

[Elmir]

I wouldn't want a system  where doing subfactions costs points (especially for those players relying on them to manipulate battle line choices). Points really aren't the be all and end all solution to balance. 

I understand that GW likes their current book format for rules (as they are very much near the base of their income pyramid), but because they keep up the (imo) antiquated battletome/codex format, these imbalances remain in print for a loooong time... They seem to want to shift more towards a living rulebook system, but as long as they are unwilling to do complete overhauls of certain bent/broken items in the allegiance systems, the examples you've given will keep on existing. BUT, I have to say, the latest Slaanesh tweaks make me hopeful that in the future, tweaking or downright nerfing allegiance abilities is also on the table. 



Personally, I would like them to swap to an entirely warscroll based system for their rules (the whole lot: artifacts, spells, allegiance abilities, subfactions,...)

If one turns out to be a bit busted (like Slaanesh recently, or the the FEC savage strike, Petrifex,...), they can just bring out "update decks" for each grand alliance alongside GHB. Hell, you can even use to boost and change warscroll cards for the woefully weak elements in an army as well. This way, armies would not be left to linger for too long and your army would get more regular updates apart from some points adjustment. 

Petrifex a bit too good? Swap a single card over next year to tweak it. Hag-nar head and shoulders above the rest? Either change Hag-nar or buff up the others to make them more desirable in stead? One magic item is stacking a bit too well with a certain command trait? Change one of the two slightly to fix that problem. Want to revisit an old faction with just a single new subfaction (like Legion of Grief)? Just print out a new card to add to the deck of LoN players. 

Want to sell even more stuff: create lovely binder maps that allow players to only take the warscroll cards that are currently used in their army. It would also declutter a wargaming table (an epiphany I had recently by playing on a lovely table with 2 fully painted armies... But it was still a mess of cards/books/dice/... all strewn around the table). 

Why do I not like only tweaking via points adjustments? Because it can ruin the entire feel of an army. I play Grey Knights in 40k... A supposedly elite force. The rules they gave them are so poor, that many of their units already dropped so massively in points, that they are actually losing that elite aspect of the army. I'm beginning to outnumber most typical marine armies and fielding "hordes" of low point power armoured Grey Knights is not what I had in mind when I started collecting the army (nor is how they are described in the lore...)

Edited January 21, 2020 by Elmir

[whispersofblood]

4 hours ago, JPjr said:

1. well I'd suggest that as presently they all cost the same, that is nothing, then whether they are intended to be equivalent or roughly balanced against each other is moot.

2. we also know that, as objectively speaking as we can in this game, at present certain sub-factions are, at least, perceived to be much more powerful (whether that's measured by damage output, resilience, speed etc) to the point where you end up having to justify to others why on earth you'd even consider running something as wonderfully over the top and crazy as a legion of skeletons, who are burning on the inside, that explode when killed and who are filled with nagging existential dread at the shitness of their existence.

so if factions come in different power levels why should they cost the same? yes it's going to be janky comparing across different factions but the same can be said for all points at the end of the day, there will also be an element or arbitrariness to it.

Hence if you opt for a "weaker" faction because you appreciate the background or lore behind that group then at present you are effectively being punished on the tabletop. Considering how important the overarching narrative and actual narrative games are to the development of the hobby and I would say, judging by most their interviews or comments, to most the people at GW who design the games you'd think they'd want to see more people incentivised to explore all the possibilities they offer up rather than just, for example, 99% of people unthinkingly opting for Petrifex.

1. Well the intent is very important to devising if a solution is even desirable. Some blood bowl teams are harder to play than others this is by design. If some Faction's ability to move up and down the power scale by the selection of a specific sub-faction is by design, adding points is moot because the intent will be retained.

My Kraith example was kind of a trap example. It's benefit is essentially nothing, but it is one of the only competitive 2 drop DoK builds available, and the only one that can take some of DoK's very powerful command traits. Meaning there are powerful abilities not listed on the page. It's only the obviousness of the other Temples that clouds this.

2. I understand the desire for equality. But if we are talking about measurable impact. The impact will be almost zero on competitive gaming. Adding a point cost is just another factor of evaluation, there will be a best option and that option will be spammed. Because it's not about what the subfaction specifically does it's about what the subfaction does in relation to the game in relation to what it's negatives are. Cost is just another kind of negative. How often are you convinced to spend nothing and get nothing? But actually as in the Kraith example you can actually get quite a lot if it's not the thing everyone else is paying for. 

Hopefully that makes sense, and you can see why I think looking at Sub-factions similarly to different BB teams, as opposed to a Warscroll battalion makes more sense. 

[Kugane]

I would assume that good sub factions would have a huge point cost in that case, kind of to discourage its use, but balance 2k battles if used at all?

I kind of like the reasoning behind it. I personally have also said it before, but if we want more diversity in Age of Sigmar games, the community needs to have more power to balance stuff when necessary. GW is a busy company and don't have time balancing stuff, but on the other hand balancing also isn't their strong suit.

I would love a system where people could take a kind of official exam with GW to access parts of their website to vote for point increase or decreases on every single unit and battalion in the game to either promote or demote the use of certain models and fix meta issues ahead of time.

I know many people hate it. Lots of people seem to like it when they can dominate other players with overpowered builds, but personally, I would like to see the passion aspect of the hobby return more, where people play with the models they like rather than Army X that is good until month Y.

[Dead Scribe]

Why Don't We Charge Points to Unlock Sub-Factions Abilities?

First - because then you make them situationally useful in that I may be wasting points and I don't want to have to waste points on something I may not get full optimal use out of.  

Second - because the points being charged for these abilities wouldn't be balanced anyway.  GW would make some underpointed, some overpointed, and you'd be left in the exact same place you are now with the balance situation - effectively achieving nothing but adding more complexity and another layer of points that is not needed.

Third - because adding costs to the game and abilities is seen as a negative trait and will likely off put a lot of people who enjoy getting things for no cost.  Some of you may balk at that but I believe there is a reason why the game is designed how its designed and also making a ton of money.  

[Fairbanks]

28 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

First - because then you make them situationally useful in that I may be wasting points and I don't want to have to waste points on something I may not get full optimal use out of.  

Second - because the points being charged for these abilities wouldn't be balanced anyway.  GW would make some underpointed, some overpointed, and you'd be left in the exact same place you are now with the balance situation - effectively achieving nothing but adding more complexity and another layer of points that is not needed.

Third - because adding costs to the game and abilities is seen as a negative trait and will likely off put a lot of people who enjoy getting things for no cost.  Some of you may balk at that but I believe there is a reason why the game is designed how its designed and also making a ton of money.  

I think there’s a lot of good points here, including #2, which we have even before all the meta changes.

Counterpoint: Battalions. They are more restrictive than the sub-faction AAs, have just as many rules tied into them, and still cost points.

I’d also be interested if they move into other game design territory such as getting points to take weaker abilities.

[Inquisitorsz]

In a similar vein, I'd like to see cumulative point values - eg.... if you take 6 eels, the next 3 cost a bit more, and the next 3 after that cost more again.  
So you get diminishing returns for spamming "the best unit in the book", like a few armies do right now.  

The other big thing I think we need is to do wounds instead of models for objective control (or something similar) because the high prevalence of horde units/armies and summoning is annoying. Both on and off the table. 
I know some people like big battles with hundreds of models.... but I'm on quicker, smaller games side of the fence. Perhaps I should focus more on warcry/kill team etc instead of AoS... that's a fair point. But at the same time, having games push 2.5-3 hours does place artificial limits on larger tournaments because we can't all go and play AoS for 3 days straight. 
I'd also rather have 4 different armies of 50 models each instead of having to paint 200 clanrats.... Maybe that's just me. 

While I don't mind the current sub-faction set up, I think battalions need to be better. There's some that are just way too strong or way too cheap. And some that are complete garbage.... or others that are like a minimum of 1500+ pts and rarely get used in normal matched play.  

[zilberfrid]

22 minutes ago, Inquisitorsz said:

In a similar vein, I'd like to see cumulative point values - eg.... if you take 6 eels, the next 3 cost a bit more, and the next 3 after that cost more again.  
So you get diminishing returns for spamming "the best unit in the book", like a few armies do right now.  

The other big thing I think we need is to do wounds instead of models for objective control (or something similar) because the high prevalence of horde units/armies and summoning is annoying. Both on and off the table. 
I know some people like big battles with hundreds of models.... but I'm on quicker, smaller games side of the fence. Perhaps I should focus more on warcry/kill team etc instead of AoS... that's a fair point. But at the same time, having games push 2.5-3 hours does place artificial limits on larger tournaments because we can't all go and play AoS for 3 days straight. 
I'd also rather have 4 different armies of 50 models each instead of having to paint 200 clanrats.... Maybe that's just me. 

While I don't mind the current sub-faction set up, I think battalions need to be better. There's some that are just way too strong or way too cheap. And some that are complete garbage.... or others that are like a minimum of 1500+ pts and rarely get used in normal matched play.  

For batallions, Cities needs more, one for each subfaction (eg freeguild, disposessed etc) would give more options.

[Eevika]

One of the biggest issues in my opinion with sub allegiances being free is that fact that some armies get no access to such free rules. OBR has the chance to just get +1 save for free Gitz can get nothing for free as they have no sub allegiances. Puts some armies at a clear competitive disadvantage straight from the get go as they just have less bonus abilities. Dont even get me started on the fact that the gitz allegiance ability doesnt work if you roll a 1....