AoS Power Creep

[Skreech Verminking]

4 hours ago, Saxon said:

Whilst not a big fan of how 40k plays (even the new edition), their secondary objectives seem pretty cool. In a game where the primary motive may seem impossible, you can give yourself a fighting chance by taking your secondary objectives and preventing your opponent from taking theirs. 

I think it also diversifies the list building as well as the tactics as you're not solely focused on one thing. Definitely feels more dynamic and variable which I think is a positive thing. 

Yeah the current 40k edition (although 8th edition was a nightmare) is amazing.

it’s also a lot of fun, since you can build your army into any direction you want to go.

should there be a third edition for aos, I would be extremely happy if something similar to those secondaries, we see in 40k will be added.

The current ones are well an interesting addition and do kinda make the game well a bit more interesting, but when they only have a purpose at an very unlikely  draw, it kinda gets forgotten.

 

[Popisdead]

19 hours ago, Saxon said:

I was sucked back in when cities of sigmar got a battletome but that tome seems like a half baked effort to shut people up like me who were vocally annoyed by some many WFB armies being neglected. One or two builds are playable but its not a particularly competitive tome unless you build deliberately offensive armies which isn't my play style. 

It's lauded as arguably one of the best books they've released with consistent performance across the board.  If it isn't YOUR playstyle, maybe take a step away.

19 hours ago, Saxon said:

I now play different game systems more frequently. 

Sounds good.  Find happiness and if you don't get this game, don't beat a dead horse.  

[JonnyTheKing]

Right now I am feeling the power creep probably more than ever, there is just a ton of unfun strats now that could be fixed with some core rule changes. Right now I think AoS could do with following the direction of 40K right now

[Saxon]

1 hour ago, Popisdead said:

It's lauded as arguably one of the best books they've released with consistent performance across the board.  If it isn't YOUR playstyle, maybe take a step away.

Sounds good.  Find happiness and if you don't get this game, don't beat a dead horse.  

Best books? According to everyone? OK.... It's as if rules have been quickly hashed together to mash the forgotten model ranges into a somewhat playable force.  It's an improvement on the tome-less rules but it's not one of the best.

Sadly i have armies collecting dust because cities of sigmar vs. something like Orruc Warclans, OBR or Lumineth is hilariously outclassed. The only joy i get out of three of my armies these days is when we put our low tier armies up against each other. 

 

[Gibs]

40k isn't that balanced it just so happens Space Marines covers such huge territory with a relatively generic set of units. Relatively, an argument can be made for sure but then you look at non imperium factions like Tyranids.....in 40K going first with all your guns is often the deciding factor.

 

[Ragest]

I don’t know about power creeps, but magic and shooting is a joke now.

So if you want to play melee, you have to charge, you can’t pass throught units unless you can fly and get some nice charge roll, you have to pile in the nearest model, just 3” and if you don’t kill all unit they can turn around and hit you.

Magic? Just throw some dices and count mortal output. Shooting? Just try to DR and go brrrrrrrr support heroes to te ground.

Frustrating, no counterplay, no issues failing, just count inches and enjoy. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Ragest

[Marcvs]

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

Best books? According to everyone? OK.... It's as if rules have been quickly hashed together to mash the forgotten model ranges into a somewhat playable force.  It's an improvement on the tome-less rules but it's not one of the best.

Sadly i have armies collecting dust because cities of sigmar vs. something like Orruc Warclans, OBR or Lumineth is hilariously outclassed. The only joy i get out of three of my armies these days is when we put our low tier armies up against each other.

I don't know about your local meta and your list / playstyle, but Cities of Sigmar certainly has some solid "mid-to-high tables" builds (generally focused ardound soulscream bridge + irondrakes and/or phoenix guards), though it is certainly a complex book to master.

It's not a huge dataset but here in France Cities did pretty well in the handful of tournaments which happened in between lockdowns (three events, 5 games, 2 dayers, competitive oriented), ending with a 73% win rate across 3 armies and 15 games -though they never did better than 4-1. Also in France, in a big TTS event with a pool phase + swiss tournament finals, Cities had a 61% win rate, with 6 armies and 20 games. A Cities player also ultimately won the event, going 3-0 in the pool phase and 4-0 in the finals phase.

Cities also won a recent event on TTS (48 players, 3 games).  This was a special event, which banned some strong factions (but, for instance, KO was still available), but still it was competitive oriented https://tabletop.to/hammertime-the-fat-middle/ladder

[Saxon]

4 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

I don't know about your local meta and your list / playstyle, but Cities of Sigmar certainly has some solid "mid-to-high tables" builds (generally focused ardound soulscream bridge + irondrakes and/or phoenix guards), though it is certainly a complex book to master.

It's not a huge dataset but here in France Cities did pretty well in the handful of tournaments which happened in between lockdowns (three events, 5 games, 2 dayers, competitive oriented), ending with a 73% win rate across 3 armies and 15 games -though they never did better than 4-1. Also in France, in a big TTS event with a pool phase + swiss tournament finals, Cities had a 61% win rate, with 6 armies and 20 games. A Cities player also ultimately won the event, going 3-0 in the pool phase and 4-0 in the finals phase.

Cities also won a recent event on TTS (48 players, 3 games).  This was a special event, which banned some strong factions (but, for instance, KO was still available), but still it was competitive oriented https://tabletop.to/hammertime-the-fat-middle/ladder

I would love to know how armies without phoenix guard and irondrakes do.... or armies that dont incorporate stormcast heroes.

[Marcvs]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I would love to know how armies without phoenix guard and irondrakes do.... or armies that dont incorporate stormcast heroes.

here (page 29) https://www.aosff.fr/sites/aosff/files/2020-10/Listes Coupe SE 3.pdf

and here (page 9) https://www.aosff.fr/sites/aosff/files/2020-10/ListesSUD-OUEST.pdf

you can find two Cities list that went 4-1. Both have no phoenix guard, the second has a bit of irondrakes but not the classic big block,  and the first 2 knights azyros. This goes to show the flexibility of the book -though it must be said that both were piloted by excellent generals.

[Saxon]

4 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

here (page 29) https://www.aosff.fr/sites/aosff/files/2020-10/Listes Coupe SE 3.pdf

and here (page 9) https://www.aosff.fr/sites/aosff/files/2020-10/ListesSUD-OUEST.pdf

you can find two Cities list that went 4-1. Both have no phoenix guard, the second has a bit of irondrakes but not the classic big block,  and the first 2 knights azyros. This goes to show the flexibility of the book -though it must be said that both were piloted by excellent generals.

Interesting to see the heavy use of darkshards and outriders/pistolliers! Thanks. 

Some of the other lists on those pages you linked are disgusting and the reason why I play casually. 50 blightkings 😬

[Marcvs]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Some of the other lists on those pages you linked are disgusting and the reason why I play casually. 50 blightkings 😬

well, these are all very competitive tournaments -qualifiers for the French equivalent of the "Masters", so yeah, the filth is to be expected ^^"

[Saxon]

Just now, Marcvs said:

well, these are all very competitive tournaments -qualifiers for the French equivalent of the "Masters", so yeah, the filth is to be expected ^^"

Honestly I cant even deal with 15 blightkings 😁

[Marcvs]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

Honestly I cant even deal with 15 blightkings 😁

I played (and lost) against the 50 blightkings list in the TTS League I just mentioned, so I couldn't deal with them either but anyway, the important thing is always to know what you are getting into: I don't play "top meta" allegiances/builds but I still like to play in competitive events, so I expect some losses and am happy if I just manage to win slightly more than I lose.

[stratigo]

9 hours ago, Gibs said:

40k isn't that balanced it just so happens Space Marines covers such huge territory with a relatively generic set of units. Relatively, an argument can be made for sure but then you look at non imperium factions like Tyranids.....in 40K going first with all your guns is often the deciding factor.

 

 

It is no longer the deciding factor. Once everyone knows who is going first, and terrain rules allow for actually hiding units, no one gets shot off the board in turn 1 unless they are bad or they are really lacking in terrain. If you don't hide your models with ample terrain knowing you are going second and a significant chunk is shot dead, that is 100 percent on you as a player. It doesn't even take that much terrain, the obscuring rules are quite generous.

[stratigo]

38 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I would love to know how armies without phoenix guard and irondrakes do.... or armies that dont incorporate stormcast heroes.

 

Irondrakes and pheonix guard are, IMHO, trap options for the top tables. Too slow, the bridge too unreliable now. Most top CoS armies I notice rely on very mobile shooting, very often the outrider/pistolier combo. Irondrakes having good shooting doesn't matter when they can't bring that shooting to bear. Shooting alone isn't good, it is always shooting plus mobility to actually get the shot into position that makes a unit or faction good. Getting an extra turn of shots out of a unit means that unit is going to outshoot another with stronger stats.

[Nasrod]

11 hours ago, Gibs said:

40k isn't that balanced it just so happens Space Marines covers such huge territory with a relatively generic set of units. Relatively, an argument can be made for sure but then you look at non imperium factions like Tyranids.....in 40K going first with all your guns is often the deciding factor.

 

This was true in 8th, but not in 9th. Going first has a slant toward victory due to objective scoring on upkeep. Winter FAQ this AM changes 2nd turn player's turn 5 to scoring obs at end of turn as well as a bunch of tweaks that look to move everything into a healthier place. 

Abhor and Bring it Down took major nerfs too which makes targeted fire for the sake of killing rather than controlling less appealing (Though Abhor is still an easy 8 to 10 points for some match ups I will admit).

Age of Sigmar has become 8th edition 40k, but with "Double turn and eviscerate your opponent at range" replaced with "Take first turn and eviscerate your opponent at range." 

I play Nids and win about 40-45% of the time with most of my losses against Relentlessly Expansionist+AllOBSec Necrons nonsense and 2 long time Marine players. But the key thing is, my book is nearly 4 years old; this would be like expecting Legions of Nagash tome to fare well against release Seraphon. 

Sigmar desperately needed an FAQ like the 40k one got. Their game had issues, for sure, but it was more stable. It is absurd that a 4 year old 40k battletome has more even match ups than my DoK army does atm. 

Atm you have KO, Seraphon, Lumineth, Tzeentch, and IDK players enjoying Sigmar while the rest of the armies hate OBR. And OBR hates everything because it still loses to the same tactics unless the catapults are rolling hot (aka your opponent is rolling like trash on his saves). OBR bullies all melee forces but can't contend with the weight of mortals that Sera/Lumi/Tzeentch put out, cannot deal with KO mobility (No one can to be fair), and can't interact well with IDK to meaningfully impact them prior to their alpha strike (Only the top dogs can and even they struggle).

Sigmar's a disaster right now and I am apalled that 40k is somehow more enjoyable to me atm.

[Skreech Verminking]

7 hours ago, Nasrod said:

40k battletome has more even match ups than my DoK army does atm. 

 

That may be true for 9th edition,

but not really for 8th edition.

I for example played/play a mono khorne army.

in 8th edition my chances of winning a game were at 2percent chance (or to put it bluntly  I won 1match out of  50).

which is probably the reason why I left 40k 2years ago.

my chances may still be pretty bad but at least I don’t get shot off the board turn 1. Thanks to the mew edition

also pretty fun to play, at least from a casual perspective.

I’m not much of a tournament player at that system like I was in aos before covid

[Doko]

11 hours ago, Nasrod said:

Atm you have KO, Seraphon, Lumineth, Tzeentch, and IDK players enjoying Sigmar

Agree with you, but it is better than before.

Before were only lon,or only fec,or again tzenth,or only obr or dok etc etc.

Yes those armys that you said are the actual broken armys that need huge nerfs in next faq,but it isnt so bad as was before

[Dingding123]

I'm under the impression AoS games play themselves out too quickly at the moment.  Optimal strategies seem entirely funneled at this point; there's no reason to have a unit in your list if it can't contribute to the one gimmick your list is trying to focus on.  Despite lists having 2k units it feels like they might as well be 250pt games despite taking 5x as long, since unit variety in more powerful lists is arguably at an all-time low.  AoS is unfortunately just doing very little right now to encourage anything else.

[yukishiro1]

It comes from two things: (1) many lists having a tiny number of units to begin with, and (2) those units being funneled down even further by the battalion system. GW managed to get battalions precisely wrong - instead of rewarding you for taking a variety of units, they encourage you to double down on an army made mostly out of only a few unit types. Even the factions with more unit options often artificially funnel themselves down - see Gitz, or even CoS, where certain units only interact with other units that are basically "sub-factions," giving you little reason to bring a more diverse, balanced force. 

 

 

[chord]

Having been playing AOS Since before the GHB, I have always felt the introduction of the GHB was what started the spiral into a lack of balance.  

Prior to the GHB you tended to see ppl build lists more around what was cool and fun vs what was the most powerful.  I mostly believe this was the case because there was no points system but the most ppl used the pool system which allowed for greater flexibility in army builds. 

Once points and artifacts , traits, etc got introduced the game quickly became more about List Building than what was a cool looking army.  And that's OK.  It just a change but one that GW has not handled well IMO.  They just have too many combinations out there and so many things are unused because a couple are so good.

From my perspective GW prefers the game to be about list building the strongest list (regardless of what they say with the 3 ways to play, its lip service) nowadays.  I'd love to see them keep the optional stuff and switch from a direct point system to more of a pool to increase greater army variety

[whispersofblood]

7 hours ago, chord said:

Having been playing AOS Since before the GHB, I have always felt the introduction of the GHB was what started the spiral into a lack of balance.  

Prior to the GHB you tended to see ppl build lists more around what was cool and fun vs what was the most powerful.  I mostly believe this was the case because there was no points system but the most ppl used the pool system which allowed for greater flexibility in army builds. 

Once points and artifacts , traits, etc got introduced the game quickly became more about List Building than what was a cool looking army.  And that's OK.  It just a change but one that GW has not handled well IMO.  They just have too many combinations out there and so many things are unused because a couple are so good.

From my perspective GW prefers the game to be about list building the strongest list (regardless of what they say with the 3 ways to play, its lip service) nowadays.  I'd love to see them keep the optional stuff and switch from a direct point system to more of a pool to increase greater army variety

As someone who was there for the transition. It was the accessible player pool who wanted the army building. With even some of the biggest events contributing to the GHB. 

The reality is you can't add anything to a game without creating a new skill for the best players to maximize. 

The only real difference between Pre-GHB and current AoS is the killing power is 2/3x higher. But, then one of the complaints before was the AoS was just a grind, and at the level of potency Pre-GHB the objective game would be unplayable. It would frequently take 2 or more battle rounds to kill even the most average unit, which would just have made the game a race to the objectives. 

[Marcvs]

On 1/10/2021 at 6:51 AM, Dingding123 said:

 since unit variety in more powerful lists is arguably at an all-time low.  AoS is unfortunately just doing very little right now to encourage anything else.

What do you mean by "unit variety"? If you mean that more powerful lists tend to spam the same unit, I have tried to address this point a few weeks back in another topic, here

It's purely anecdotal (after all, it's based on just two TTS tournaments) but it seems to me that "spam lists" are not all that fequent even at the higher competitive end. Which kind of lists are you thinking of when you say that unit variety is low?

[chord]

3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

As someone who was there for the transition. It was the accessible player pool who wanted the army building. With even some of the biggest events contributing to the GHB. 

 

Of course they wanted the pivot to army building, they were the ones who thought WHFB was great and they loved that army building aspect.  

I still think pool based armies will be a good compromise for all types of AOS players

[Maddpainting]

On 1/10/2021 at 12:51 AM, Dingding123 said:

I'm under the impression AoS games play themselves out too quickly at the moment.  Optimal strategies seem entirely funneled at this point; there's no reason to have a unit in your list if it can't contribute to the one gimmick your list is trying to focus on.  Despite lists having 2k units it feels like they might as well be 250pt games despite taking 5x as long, since unit variety in more powerful lists is arguably at an all-time low.  AoS is unfortunately just doing very little right now to encourage anything else.

My Beastmen currently don't play like this at all. So its not every army.