scrubyandwells Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) Put this up on Twitter -- wanted to share here as well: Re: State of AoS: What are your 1-3 +'s, and 1-3 -'s? + GHB20's 4 missions with "Additional VP" condition (promotes list variety). + Internal parity of LRL Battletome — echoes of 2016 Sylvaneth, a prior gold standard. - Mono-win-condition missions — Places of Arcane Power (Leaders-only), Better Part of Valour (Battleline-only). - Too many factions with internal parity shortcomings. An underwhelming GHB20 in that regard re: point revisions. What are yours? Edited July 16, 2020 by scrubyandwells 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) -- The Introduction of too many too strong elements in the latest factions that dominate an entire phase (Hero Phase magic) (it‘s also unfun and ruins the Game for casuals, it started with OBR against which fun games are impossible) - - - Making People buy models just to eraze the rules to play those models a year later (mercenary companies) + Easy to get into playing AoS yet it remains hard to master Edited July 16, 2020 by JackStreicher Spelling 1 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marrlfox Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) ++++++++++ ++Model range. +Tactical movement and melee choices. +World lore. +GW does try to balance changes after books are released. -------------- -- new books shut older books out. (Casting against seraphon for ex.) - support heroes die too easily to be worth taking. - new books push on hero and shooting phases removes tactical screening. - ranges becoming too long devaluing positioning. 😅 Edited July 16, 2020 by Marrlfox Changed to fit OP's requested format 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrubyandwells Posted July 16, 2020 Author Share Posted July 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, xking said: --nighthaunt battletome is already outdated and bad. -- fyreslayers should have gotten a second wave model release by now, but haven't. -- sylvaneth should have gotten a second wave model release, but haven't and their most recent battletome made them worse. ----------------------------------stormcast battletome is pure garbage with warscrolls that should have been updated but weren't. Hi, appreciate the reply. Re: the framing of the original Q, I was hoping we could share positives as well, rather than only critiques/criticisms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craze Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) + Very big variety of viable/playable factions in semi-competitive environments + Constant output from GW + 99% of the new models are absolutely stunning! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Bad internal balancing of newer Battletomes (Petrifex, Eternal Conflagration etc) - I hate the activation wars, from my point of view this should never have been a widespread thing. - I do not understand why the whole GHB package (Book, additional point changes, Errata & FAQ) can not get released all on one day. Edited July 16, 2020 by Craze 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zilberfrid Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 (edited) - New battletomes break the rules to an extent that you virtually need their battletomes to play against them, while core rules and warscrolls shoukd be the norm. - Internal balance issues make some subfactions not balancable. - Drive to break the game in new ways make a clear distinction between battletomes that are balanced with existing ones, and battletomes that only took a cursory glance at the word "balance". - More emphasis on blocking/punishing an opponent's actions rather than doing something yourself in Lumineth and Ossiarch battletomes, which are the most recent totally new factions. - Removal of a matched play option after only a year. I hadn't even finished my Blood Knights. - Rampant removal of warscrolls. About four per month for the last year. - Unclear wording between wound roll, mortal wounds, wounds taken and wound characteristic, together with damage characteristic and damage inflicted. This is a mess, and English has enough words to be able to write that better. + I like the Underworld, Warcry, Meeting Engagements, AoS progression path, as well as Path to Glory. For factions that get that, that is (all but Cities, I think). + Kharadron. Going against the grain for not being god-driven, having good design and a different playstyle that isn't mostly hidden in their battletome. + New sets have a good amount of diversity in them. Edited July 16, 2020 by zilberfrid 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tropical Ghost General Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 + great looking models, that are getting better and better + AoS is a fun game when both players take well rounded/garbage lists, as it truly creates combats that last more than a single player turn + narrative side of gaming + the general player base and online content from various heroes of the hobby (honest wargamer, aos shorts, etc...) + the wide range of available armies to play ----------------- - rules for matched play have been a steadily increasing 'one up manship', which is fine except when older factions aren't updated, it creates a serious case of 'haves' & 'have nots' - unwillingness to change warscrolls, which are free to access. Most players would prefer updated warscrolls than outdated books - limited content (WD battalions, boxset battalions, anniversary models) being given matched play points and then removed from matched play not long after. For example it's not difficult to reprint the battalions in GHB20, but taking away something that is limited, that people have built armies around is just unnecessary - auto kill units. By this I mean that the power level of stuff to auto delete it's intended target is ridiculous and leads to un-interactive games where all you do is remove your models 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted July 16, 2020 Share Posted July 16, 2020 9 hours ago, zilberfrid said: - Unclear wording between wound roll, mortal wounds, wounds taken and wound characteristic, together with damage characteristic and damage inflicted. This is a mess, and English has enough words to be able to write that better. This was going to be my minus as well. It's a bit nitpicky, but the core of it is the design choice to preserve the wording of "to wound" from previous editions, when the actual mechanic is "to damage" because if your "to wound" roll is successful you don't do "wounds" you do "damage" (which then become wounds later on in the sequence). This unclear wording is the core of many players thinking they understand the attack sequence when in reality very few players really understand the attack sequence. Otherwise I'm a sea of pluses, as I love this game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 No new answers here? That’s odd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojojojo101 Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 +The models are great +The game is fun and has a great feeling o f both simplicity for newer players but nuance and depth as you get better without at any point (for me anyway) feeling like an overwhelming jump +Releases come thick and fast and it doesn't feel like any particular faction is being prioritised over any other. -A couple of books at the moment are just not up to standard and need a bit more fundamental change than point reductions can offer. Top of this list for me is Sylvaneth. It's just a really disappointing book imo. -(This is my biggest complaint by far) POINTS ARE FAR TOO LOW. Part of this is that GW doesn't seem to want to go further than points changes when adjusting power levels but I think almost across the board points are edging to low and armys are getting to big. Armys that should be elite are just putting to many models on the table for me. Stormcast is a good example of this. Liberators at 90 points just massively trigger ludo-narrative dissonance. Stormcast are supposed to be big scary elite army yet the battlefield is swamped with near useless goons. I don't think its just the older armies either. OBR (Mortek) and LRL (Stoneguard) I think both trigger the same dissonance for me [obvious caveat with LRL]. Okay. Rant over. Sorry :p 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angela Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 +The variety in playstyles available, particularly the variety available in some armies like Seraphon. +The models are beautiful. +The game is fun to play. +Painting is relaxing. +The number and variety of armies that exist in the game. -The lack of battleline choices in some armies. I wish all armies had 3-4 Battleline choices that were not dependent on your army build. -The number of books, warscrolls etc that are necessary to know all the rules. -The inconsistency in whether or not battletomes and warscrolls do or do not override the core rules. -Out of production terrain, some of which still has cool rules in Age of Sigmar (maybe, I can't figure out if the GHB 2020 has done away with that.) -The number of cool armies that exist. I would like to have many, but I've been cut off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.