Metawatch article highlighting the total lack of balance

[123lac]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/22/metawatch-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-1-list-building-with-dan-street/

If AoS were a video game, no one would play it given the current imbalance. Can you imagine dota/league/sc2 having the following 'meta':

This is just embarrassing on behalf of GW's rules writers.

[Baron Klatz]

The only thing i'm surprised by is the Kharadron and Daughters switching places. Otherwise that's the usual Meta you see with the lists AoS Shorts put out with their multiple tournament coverage in the years since AoS2. Magic and DPS armies on top of the rest.

Edit: (though at the beginning of this year there was a good upset with Swiftwings coming in pretty high despite being a army left behind )

Thumbs up to the Kharadron guys out there who had the lowest win rates for the last two years finally getting to soar high again.

Edited October 22, 2020 by Baron Klatz

[Gecktron]

First of all, the sample size is tiny. 25 tournaments mean you cant really make any definitive statements with that. 

That aside 25 different allegiances (and 44 subfactions) present is a pretty good number for a tabletop game (especially when considering that there are only 28 or so factions in the game). 

That means most armies can reach top tables. 

 

You mentioned dota/etc... and comparisons to video games come up from time to time, but its important to remember that tabletop games are complety different beasts when it comes to balancing. 25 tournaments over a span of 4 or so months is nothing. You can run that many test tournaments in a week with video games. Video games have a much easier access to data and can quickly apply changes (unlike tabletop Games, where a single game takes hours and meta changes take much longer) and there are still regular balance updates! 

All things considered current GW is doing an all right job and im happy to see such a diverse line up. 

[Baron Klatz]

Yeah, here's a recent UK tourney listing with much different results.

---

693 players counting results from 26 tournaments

http://www.rankings.baddice.co.uk/armyranking/region=3&game=6&season=0

 

Edit: that you can have two similar mass tourney sizes and an army that ended up in 17th place for one and 1st in another speaks of remarkably decent balance to me for a game with such a crazy amount of factions that manage to keep their unique flavors.

 

Looking at other big tournament listings this year shows a few consistent things like Tzeentch and Seraphon in high spots but it's still a pretty good win rate for any army from Flesh-Eaters to Hedonites taking top spots compared to the small meta example GW gave for a taste.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Baron Klatz

[swarmofseals]

The sample size is far too small for the data to be particularly meaningful especially without data reflecting how frequently each faction was played. Like, does anyone think that DoK is bottom tier? It may not be at the tip top of the pile anymore but it's far from the bottom. If this particular sample of tournaments only had a handful of DoK players then it could easily seem to be a bad army based on this metric.

Also, top 5 finishes is a really strange metric. Even at a relatively low size of 32 players (for a 5 round event) "top 5" is generally going to cut off 1 of the 4-1 players arbitrarily. At 64 players top 5 probably captures 2 5-0s and 3 out of 10 4-1s. Depending on the size of these events the arbitrary cutoff of "top 5" could dramatically skew the data.

[Kadeton]

Even aside from the tiny sample size, I don't think the video game comparisons are anywhere near like-for-like.

DOTA/League uses team composition, which helps to disguise the dominance of characters in certain roles. Compare the stats on Lulu vs Anivia in the support slot, for instance, and show me how they're in any way "balanced".

In Starcraft we can at least compare factions, like in AoS. Except that there's only three. Leaving aside mirror-matches, that means there are only three opposing 1v1 matchups the dev team need to balance. For just the 21 AoS factions listed in the graphic, there are 210 matchups to balance - AoS is, measurably, at least seventy times more complex to balance than Starcraft.

Oh, and... Protoss still only have a tiny number of major tournament victories, so the chart actually looks similarly skewed to the AoS one, if you had Zerg in the Kharadron position and Protoss as Legion of Azgorh.

All things considered, AoS is remarkably well balanced. That doesn't mean it's perfectly balanced, and it never will be - but neither are any of the games you're comparing it to, even if those comparisons were valid and fair.

[Skreech Verminking]

11 hours ago, 123lac said:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/22/metawatch-warhammer-age-of-sigmar-1-list-building-with-dan-street/

If AoS were a video game, no one would play it given the current imbalance. Can you imagine dota/league/sc2 having the following 'meta':

This is just embarrassing on behalf of GW's rules writers.

Is it just me, or did they actually forgot to add, Beasts of chaos as a faction?🤔

[Greybeard86]

It seems to me that competitive players do seem to think that there are big imbalances. If you check late events (e.g. LVO), the composition of participating armies swings very hard with the meta. And the winning composition too, so comp players  seem to be getting it right. 

For me, besides army imbalances, the problem is internal balance issues. It gets really boring to paint / play / see armies spamming a few key units. Army composition for winning lists tends to be mind numbingly boring.

[Enoby]

37 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Is it just me, or did they actually forgot to add, Beasts of chaos as a faction?🤔

I don't think Beasts of Chaos won enough games to come on that list They only looked at top 5 and overall wins

[stratigo]

AoS is remarkably.... not balanced at all and I am not sure why people think it is. 

 

That said, as a KO player, this bums me out. Cause I know this will lead to a nerf that could put the army back into the dumpster. GW is rarely... uh... restrained in their balance decisions 

[Icegoat]

Aos will always be unbalanced due to the way unit stats work point adjustments never do anything. Warscrolls are all that matter

. As a maggot kin player I've been unmeta for three years nearly. Its tragic and no way for a game to thrive. 

Gw wont care they will just be rubbing their hands together after that article as countless meta chasers Hoover up ironclads and kroaks.

The 'meta' inbalance is created purely to drive sales. Its intentional and will never stop or change.

[Scurvydog]

23 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Army composition for winning lists tends to be mind numbingly boring.

This is true and entire GWs fault with how they write rules. The winning comps is often a result of multiple "layers" of rules, first the allegiance rules, then often a sub faction of some kind, then the available battalions at times and finally the warscrolls for each unit. In many top comps all the first layers almost completely dictates the warscrolls part, leaving no room to breathe.

Things become very specific very quickly, even Seraphon with a big book and many units, end up feeling very small, as types of units have no synergy and subfactions and battalions favor very specific builds. There is no reason at all to combine skinks and saurus, their heroes also only benefit the same keywords, they might as well not even be in the same battletome. The best Khorne battalion is 3-8 Bloodthirsters, come on GW really, and then the sub faction layer makes that even worse with demons fight twice, making the blades of khorne into demons of khorne and random chaff dudes. 

Books that avoid this are usually more fun and also not really present much on the meta list... StD, Gitz, Sylvaneth and BoC for example all gives a lot of options and does not limit too much in unit choices based on any sub factions or must pick battalions. Their lack of wombo combos also means they can't compete with meta lists, which is an entirely different way of playing warhammer. The top meta lists work more like MTG deck building and play than wargaming at times.

[Beastmaster]

It astonishes me how quickly this changes. Last year Ossiarchs were lamented as being invincible, while everyone was sure GW hated Kharadron personally. Were there really so many major rules changes in the meantime? 

[Greybeard86]

15 minutes ago, Scurvydog said:

Things become very specific very quickly, even Seraphon with a big book and many units, end up feeling very small, as types of units have no synergy and subfactions and battalions favor very specific builds.

Well, IMHO as an old player, I can see a new strategy towards having smaller armies in terms of the range of miniatures. It may very well be a "sales driven" scheme:

• It costs more money to start a new army than to build on an existing one (required units vs adding a new sculpt).
• Armies with small ranges lead to people collecting more armies: fewer opportunities to add a few extra models now and then, so the collection is complete "soon". If you play, buying 2-3 models won't allow you to use the "new minis" from another army effectively (most allies suck), so you end up buying the bulk of a new army.

In the old times, most armies had several possible compositions that looked quite different (although, of course, metas were still a thing). Now you must go to a new army for that, you can't build on a "core" and simply change the rest a tad.

Quote

Their lack of wombo combos also means they can't compete with meta lists, which is an entirely different way of playing warhammer.

Yes, it is something that has taken over 40k, leading to an explosion of "ad hoc" rules called "stratagems", aka "combo wombos".

Quote

The top meta lists work more like MTG deck building and play than wargaming at times.

GW would love to turn the warhammer titles into MTG; seasonal minis are a dream come true for them.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Greybeard86

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know anything specific about that LoN list that got first place? I was under the impression that LoN was generally considered among the weaker allegiances at the moment. I find it interesting they show up at all on this list and even with one first place finish.

Back on topic:

I think a big question is what type of play you want the game to be balanced for. Do you want a game where every faction has multiple tournament viable list types that all have a chance to go 5-0 or get first place? Or do you want a game where every faction has access to lists that sit on a 7 to 8 out of 10 on the optimization scale and will win about 50% of matches against similarly optimized lists?

For what it's worth, I don't know a single game that is both played competitively and is about list building/deck building/similar mechanics that achieves the first goal. But I think the second goal is achievable and actually pretty well realized in AoS. I see AoS as a casual play first game, with competitive (tournament) play coming as a secondary priority.  The balancing makes sense from that perspective.

[Skreech Verminking]

38 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I don't think Beasts of Chaos won enough games to come on that list They only looked at top 5 and overall wins

So they were afraid to show those armies (sylvaneth and Boc) because they haven’t won a single game.

wasn’t there this one guy who made it with his 15-20 cockatrice beastlist  to the top 5 at that one tournament

[stratigo]

35 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

It astonishes me how quickly this changes. Last year Ossiarchs were lamented as being invincible, while everyone was sure GW hated Kharadron personally. Were there really so many major rules changes in the meantime? 

GW hated how KO were being played a year ago, which was often blobs of arkanauts or riggers. GW's vision of KO is boats, and often lists would have maybe one boat. So they nerfed the army into the dumpster. The new book boosted the boats again, and a lot of their FAQ changes have been about boosting boats.

 

Course the very best KO list is back to mostly one boat, which I am sure the rules writers are grumpy about.

[jeremym]

29 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know anything specific about that LoN list that got first place? I was under the impression that LoN was generally considered among the weaker allegiances at the moment. I find it interesting they show up at all on this list and even with one first place finish.

 

Too many unknown factors, what other armies were played at the tournament. what match ups they got, what scenarios, etc. LoN is definitely a weaker army in comparison to current meta heroes. but they're far from being unplayable. A good player can win the attrition war 

[Nick Larking]

GW has always been horrible when it comes to balancing and updating armies.
7-8th edition  demons of chaos got into 1-3rd place in ~90% of all large(30+ player) tournaments.
Back then armies got updates once a year if lucky and no point/rule changes were done at all untill the next books. GW has improved with it for the past 2-3years but i still wouldnt say they are good at it. Atleast now there are generally some point changes which eliviate some issues but overall GW still has alot of improvements to do for competive play and balance.

That said balancing and maintaining a dozen armies isnt easy and would require GW to be more invested in watching and making changes to the comp scene regulary. Maybe it will happen someday.

[Greybeard86]

24 minutes ago, jeremym said:

they're far from being unplayable. A good player can win the attrition war 

But they will rarely bother

Whenever I see discussions about the meta and imbalances there are often comments about how "it is mostly about the player" or "armies aren't unplayable"; but the truth is that those who play to win do switch to "meta" lists and armies, and that those "dominate" competitive events.

IMO armies should be balanced because while it won't utterly dictate settings in casual play, it will make it more enjoyable for everyone involved. Then, internal balance is more fun because it leads you feel different compositions and get more use out of the sculpts in your collection.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

52 minutes ago, jeremym said:

Too many unknown factors, what other armies were played at the tournament. what match ups they got, what scenarios, etc. LoN is definitely a weaker army in comparison to current meta heroes. but they're far from being unplayable. A good player can win the attrition war 

Sure, that's why I am interested in the lists. But still: You see LoN in this break down, but you don't see Beasts of Chaos or Nighthaunt that people usually mention in the same breath as LoN when it comes to weak armies. If it was one top 5 finish I'd say it's a fluke, but three with a first place is at least remarkable.

 

31 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Whenever I see discussions about the meta and imbalances there are often comments about how "it is mostly about the player" or "armies aren't unplayable"

I think frequently people say this kind of thing when looking at games from a casual or semi-competitive perspective (and frankly, not to hurt people's feelings). It's rare in any game that the rules of a faction will be so bungled that they can't even paricipate in basic play. However, in most games there are options that stand out as objectively better than others. The fact that certain armies float to the top in tournaments consistently should be enough evidence to conclude that those armies just have better tools overall, independently of player skill.

[Marcvs]

1 hour ago, jeremym said:

Too many unknown factors, what other armies were played at the tournament. what match ups they got, what scenarios, etc. LoN is definitely a weaker army in comparison to current meta heroes. but they're far from being unplayable. A good player can win the attrition war 

So the three podiums of LoN come from two 28 players and one 22 players tournament, so not exactly huge to start with. Then, two of these were in Norway so there's also the chance that it was the same player playing LoN

This is the dataset if you're curious.

You will notice that there's quite a few very small events (> 20 players). So in general, apart from confirming the very evident (and well known) strong allegiances (seraphon , KO, tzeentch, idk...) one should not draw any strong conclusion from this.

For instance, the one "podium" for DoK that you can see in the graph comes from a 16-players event where that DoK list ended up with a 2-3...

[Greybeard86]

Oftentimes people think you need ginormous data sizes to make precise and unbiased inference, but you do not. From power calculations we know that the necessary sample size is related to the strength of the effect. In other words, if some armies are "very" dominant, we should be able to see it with "few" events.

When I headed back to the fantasy side of the hobby I took a look at tournament lists and results. This is what I found:

• Meta armies heavily dominate top placements, and the meta has changed a lot in the last few years.
• Meta armies are very "spammy", with lists that often have a few heroes and a lot of some poorly internally balanced unit.
  • I find this particularly problematic in AoS because it is not rare to see blocks of 20-40 models per unit, which IMHO leads to "boring looking" armies.

 

 

[Maddpainting]

2 hours ago, Enoby said:

I don't think Beasts of Chaos won enough games to come on that list They only looked at top 5 and overall wins

Many events are not recorded too. I have seen BoC win 3 events i the past month with 12-24 mans, so no major GT's but most the time they are not recorded.

And most importantly BoC can play out of 5 books, many will play HoS or BoK sadly, even though its most BoC units. As a BoC player, i win more than I lose and have done 3-2 and 2-3 in major GT's AFTER nerfs to Disks and while DoK/FeC were top and even while DoT was pre nerf.  Not everyone likes playing 130 models in 10mans that never do anything but die and you only have 2 small hammer units.

[SleeperAgent]

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Is it just me, or did they actually forgot to add, Beasts of chaos as a faction?🤔

Nighthaunt isn't on there either. FeelsSpookyBadMan