Discussing balance in AoS

[Phasteon]

21 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I get what you're saying, and you're 100% right that the SC player made a poor play due to not understanding the conflict and didn't seem to learn from it. But on the other hand, maybe the discussion of balance could also be framed as "regardless of player skill, is it okay for a unit to have a 2+rr/4++ save, strike first, with a double pile in, -2 rend and 2 damage?" 

Some would argue yes, because you can avoid and screen the unit. They're slow and can't fly, and the rune is only one round.

Others would argue no, because while you can get around them, the fact that the only way to deal with the unit is by doing everything in your power to not engage the unit suggests there's an issue. 

If we take a ridiculous example of a model with 1000 attacks, 1/1/-6/100, a 1+ save and 2++ ward, costs 300 pts, but only 1" movement, no teleport, no fly, and no run and charge, we can look at this in a vacuum. I use this silly exaggeration as it very clearly shows the 'super powerful if left to have free reign but weak when dealt with correctly' in an inarguable form, and so there's no extras (like calling out a specific model that may have other rules I'm not aware of, or any feelings attached to it). In the case of this model, either the opponent will know how to deal with it and screen or zone the model into uselessness, killing tiny amounts of points in the game, or the opponent won't know how to deal with it and will lose a lot as soon as the model gets a charge off. Ignoring the terrible design, would you consider it balanced? It will beat anything in a fight, but nearly any opponent (sorry SoB) will be able to stop it charging so it'd be a waste of 300 pts against a good opponent. 

I think it's this sort of rocket tag that invokes discussions of balance. It's not that some units can't be played around, it's if they're not played around or a mistake is made, you take heavy losses and possibly lose the game if the mistake was big enough. On top of that, many armies don't have the capability to provide this threat in return, and so the opponent needs to be less defensive. In the case of SC vs FS, I can't imagine fully buffed Hearthgaurd have anything to fear from a SC unit and so for them the tactic is keeping within buffs and picking the best target.  

I‘m playing Vostarg, so wasnt even fighting first ☝🏻😄. 

But yeah, there totally should be a unit like this in an army consisting of otherwise Heroes, bodyguard and cheap battleline. 

This army NEED an „overpowered“ close combat unit to function. Imagine HGB would not have a 4++ - what other threat would Fyreslayers have? 

You totally got it right. 

When facing the most menacing close combat unit in the game you dont charge it but use every tool you have to avoid it and get the rest. 

Without 300+ points of Hero support and a 150 points battalion that unit doesnt even do that much. 

Its just about the willingness of accepting that the own close combat unit is probably doomed if facing the fully buffed HGB and many players cant handle it with their ego. 

[Phasteon]

2 hours ago, Phasteon said:

I‘m playing Vostarg, so wasnt even fighting first ☝🏻😄. 

But yeah, there totally should be a unit like this in an army consisting of otherwise Heroes, bodyguard and cheap battleline. 

This army NEED an „overpowered“ close combat unit to function. Imagine HGB would not have a 4++ - what other threat would Fyreslayers have? 

You totally got it right. 

When facing the most menacing close combat unit in the game you dont charge it but use every tool you have to avoid it and get the rest. 

Without 300+ points of Hero support and a 150 points battalion that unit doesnt even do that much. 

Its just about the willingness of accepting that the own close combat unit is probably doomed if facing the fully buffed HGB and many players cant handle it with their ego. 

I‘d really like to elaborate on that and argue why I think Fyreslayers are a really good example for a balanced army (and why they are doing so well competitively) 

1. The army works very well thematically and gameplay wise. They are very hero dependend but as long as you are within your bubbles your army just hurts. 

Pro: One of the strongest close combat with some very good staying power

Con: Once Heroes die the army falls apart in 1-2 rounds of combat

Thats a very straight forward playstyle and wouldnt it be for Auric HG (Bodyguards) the army would probably underperform. 

But between the Heroes, Vulkites as cheap bodies (7p per wound) HGB and Aurics everything has its place in a competitive list. 

2. Thats why the army works so well. 

You basically have 2 close combat units, Heroes and a Bodyguard unit. Thats it. 

Its almost impossible to not build a strong army (even if you go full Magmadroths / Aurics it could work in a Lofnir list). 

 

Now another great example for a balanced army that does often not perform that well. Stormcast Eternals. 

This army literally got everything. 

Close combat, Ranged combat, Casters, Priests, Shenanigans (teleport, reserves, very fast movement) you name it. 

On top of that you got the biggest Hero Roster to choose from. 

Its basically Battletome: Synergies. 

And thats why the army often does not perform that well. 

You have so many choices and so many tools that you will always need to leave some home. 

While Fyreslayers have one of the strongest melees in the game and all tools to get them where they need to be Stormcast Eternals have everything but neither the strongest melee, nor shooting or magic. 

They excel in versatility and „tailoring“ potential. 

But due to how synergies in AoS work and how mandatory they are to win a game you cant build a SCE army that does more than one thing really well.

You have to build around 1-2 strenghts and put everything into it and you will still be outmatched if you face someone that does just one of those things, because he will probably do it better. 

I could have just said „Jack of all trades, master of none“ but that just sums it up in a phrase without ppl realizing that thats actually good balance. 

You can do many things = you will lose against specialists

You can do just one thing = you will lose against counter 

There is no army that does nothing well. 

Even Sylvaneth can ****** slow armies with backdooring Tree Revenants or shooty armies without fly with their wyldwoods. 

Sylvaneth might not have the best tools that are needed to win against the #1 list at the moment, but there are match ups where those rules just murder the enemies plan. 

And I admit, I AM afraid of what would happen if GW would listen to those people and their points why balance is flawed and would actually make it that every army beats every other army 50% of the time. 

Basicall AOS 0.5 again, where all units had the same profiles, the same rules and where pure dice luck decided who wins. And who has the bigger mustache of course. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Phasteon

[relic456]

Just to throw my perspective in to the mix. I'm a competitivly minded person who started AoS in 2.0 and chose Nighthaunt as my army due to some favorable early tournament results. I also clearly overvalued an army that has all fly and ignore rend, but that's my fault. I bought a 1k point army but haven't bought any other WH product since [Edit: It's been so long I forgot that I had bought up to 1500 points and Malign Sorcery], and it's entirely due to the games lack of balance. Even in kind terms, NH is not a competitive army, and it stings to look at my models and realize they were a waste of time and money. I'm not sure how to make the problem better, but knowing that NH had an extremely low chance of 4-1'ing a tournament (5-0'ing being borderline impossible) stopped any investment I could make in the game going forward.

Thankfully, TTS exists now and I can play with my friends and others using any model or list I choose without monetary investment. This makes the game significantly more enjoyable because even if I take a risk on a unique list, I have nothing to lose. I have a hard time imagining going back to tabletop even post COVID because of all of the advantages of TTS. However, is that what GW wants for its players? Im no economics expert but I would think they would prefer to have my money instead.

Why do I bring these points up? To underscore the emotional side of the balance discussion and how it might impact new players. It's an awful experience to slowly realize that the army you chose cannot hang competitively. It calls in to question the time and money you were previously willing to invest in this hobby. And player skill is irrelevant in this point, I have no illusions about becoming the greatest player in the world, but if the top minds in the game can't make Nighthaunt work (or BoC, or Sylvaneth), then what hope do I have? Why should I invest my time in to this army?

I truly believe the goal should be that each army has at least one competitively viable list. I would take an IDK situation over the NH situation any day.

Further, and potentially an aside, I take issue with the fact that so many armies have "trap" choices. Models that would never see competitive play without significant changes. Though I guess that's by design, since some entire armies don't see competitive play. It would be interesting to compare the % of an army with trap models and the win rate of that army's lists. 

A little ramble-y but hopefully you get the gist.

Edited April 28, 2021 by relic456

[Skreech Verminking]

21 minutes ago, relic456 said:

that so many armies have "trap" choices. Models that would never see competitive play without significant changes.

The Doomwheel is clearly not a trap 🪤 

Although it can be for the enemy,

yes-tes😈

Edited April 28, 2021 by Skreech Verminking

[Ratboy genius]

25 minutes ago, Skreech Verminking said:

The Doomwheel is clearly not a trap 🪤 

Although it can be for the enemy,

yes-tes😈

Doomwheel, no, doomflayer, yes

[Phasteon]

1 hour ago, relic456 said:

Just to throw my perspective in to the mix. I'm a competitivly minded person who started AoS in 2.0 and chose Nighthaunt as my army due to some favorable early tournament results. I also clearly overvalued an army that has all fly and ignore rend, but that's my fault. I bought a 1k point army but haven't bought any other WH product since, and it's entirely due to the games lack of balance. Even in kind terms, NH is not a competitive army, and it stings to look at my models and realize they were a waste of time and money. I'm not sure how to make the problem better, but knowing that NH had an extremely low chance of 4-1'ing a tournament (5-0'ing being borderline impossible) stopped any investment I could make in the game going forward.

Thankfully, TTS exists now and I can play with my friends and others using any model or list I choose without monetary investment. This makes the game significantly more enjoyable because even if I take a risk on a unique list, I have nothing to lose. I have a hard time imagining going back to tabletop even post COVID because of all of the advantages of TTS. However, is that what GW wants for its players? Im no economics expert but I would think they would prefer to have my money instead.

Why do I bring these points up? To underscore the emotional side of the balance discussion and how it might impact new players. It's an awful experience to slowly realize that the army you chose cannot hang competitively. It calls in to question the time and money you were previously willing to invest in this hobby. And player skill is irrelevant in this point, I have no illusions about becoming the greatest player in the world, but if the top minds in the game can't make Nighthaunt work (or BoC, or Sylvaneth), then what hope do I have? Why should I invest my time in to this army?

I truly believe the goal should be that each army has at least one competitively viable list. I would take an IDK situation over the NH situation any day.

Further, and potentially an aside, I take issue with the fact that so many armies have "trap" choices. Models that would never see competitive play without significant changes. Though I guess that's by design, since some entire armies don't see competitive play. It would be interesting to compare the % of an army with trap models and the win rate of that army's lists. 

A little ramble-y but hopefully you get the gist.

Just out of curiosity, what NH stuff did you buy for your 1k points, how many games did you play and against which armies did you play?

[relic456]

23 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Just out of curiosity, what NH stuff did you buy for your 1k points, how many games did you play and against which armies did you play?

I forgot that we actually did build up to 1500 points lists so here's both. Keep in mind there have been points changes since then, and that the trait and artefact combinations weren't set in stone:

1000 NH (from a Notepad document)
Guardian of Souls w/ Nightmare Lantern
-General
-Trait: Ruler of the Spirit Hosts
-Artefact: Midnight Tome
-Spell: Soul Cage

Reikenor the Grimhailer
-Spell: Lifestealer

Chainrasp Horde x 20
Grimghast Reapers x 20
Bladegheist Revenants x 10

Chronomatic Cogs

1500 NH (from Warscroll Builder)
Guardian of Souls with Nightmare Lantern (140)
- Lore of the Underworlds: Shademist
- Infernal Lantern (Artefact): Wychlight Lantern
Knight of Shrouds (120)
Reikenor the Grimhailer (180)
- Lore of the Underworlds: Lifestealer
Spirit Torment (120)
Dreadblade Harrow (90)
- General
- Command Trait: Ruler of the Spirit Hosts
- Artefact: Aetherquartz Brooch
10 x Chainrasp Horde (80)
10 x Chainrasp Horde (80)
20 x Grimghast Reapers (280)
5 x Bladegheist Revenants (90)
5 x Bladegheist Revenants (90)
Shroudguard (110)
Chronomantic Cogs (80)
Extra Command Point (50)

I've played a ton of games so I don't think I could give a fair guess, but it's over 20. I've played against most armies at this point, Khorne is probably the one I played the most since that's what my brother plays. But also Sylvaneth, Stormcast Eternals, Beasts of Chaos, Idoneth, and Daughters of Khaine. I haven't played my NH in quite a while, I think the last time I did was when the new FEC tome came out.

To potentially pre-empt some criticism, by no means would I consider either of these to be good NH lists, especially with recent points changes and additions. Those lists were built based off the wisdom at the time and contained what I and others considered to be the strongest units in the army. I think that the specific lists I played are irrelevant, because the point is that nobody was or has made big moves with NH. Lists ranging from Grimghast spam, LoG Myrmourn and Chainrasp blocks, and now Emerald Host/Hexwraith/Olynder have tried and failed to succeed at the competitive level with any sort of consistency.

Edited April 28, 2021 by relic456

[Dingding123]

GW should absolutely take a stand against subfactions that trump 50%+ of all other factions.  Way more work goes into putting together the pieces to play the game than in TCGs like MTG.  In MTG, if a silly combo deck beats your homebrew you can just sell cards and buy the combo deck yourself and there you are; in AoS that's a laughable notion and to keep up with the Joneses the solution is to throw more money and time at the hobby than most players may otherwise ever care to do all at once.  So the only avid players are the ones who have soullessly invested in the latest warscroll.  That's a terrible business model.

If you're introducing Lumineth to the game then that's great; just don't let Sentinels be able to consistently nuke heroes from virtually three feet away.  Not only are warscrolls like that uninteractive - they're downright uninspired.  It's not hard to show a bit of leniency on their range, Sunmetal Weapons or Power of Hysh spell.  Or just raise their points value.  These aren't exactly tough design decisions that need a well-versed game designer.

To say that game balance isn't THE issue with faction popularity is a disgrace to the game itself, pretending that AoS is very much so a painting enthusiast's hobby and nothing else, which could not be further from the truth.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Dingding123

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Finally sat down and typed out my "proof" (quotations intentional to acknowledge there can be no definitive proof re:this area but I think I have made a reasonable case that it meets each criteria in some way) that the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar meets the definition of a Wicked Problem.  What is a Wicked Problem?  from wickedproblems.com "A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems."  As the original definition has 10 parts, not just the four above, though I thought it best to put it in a separate blog post and I am providing the link below:

Balance as a Wicked Problem - Zoom League - Socially Distant Gaming - The Grand Alliance Community

The key reason I wanted to see if Balance in Age of Sigmar fits the Wicked Problem definition is because I believe that definition is because:

1) it highlights why there is so little agreement when it comes to discussing Balance in AoS given that there is no single definition of Balance that all stakeholders can agree on

2) it highlights that AoS is NOT static and thus any equilibrium it might achieve will be temporary at best and disrupted by the next tome or points change

3) this isn't a reason to just throw our hands up and walk away (either from these games or these discussions) but to recognize that progress requires (a) shared definitions, (b) accepting that solutions are not true or false but better or worse, and (c) there are too many stakeholders with too many diverging wants and needs for anyone one person or group of people to speak for the majority.

I also think the Wicked Problem framework highlights why there isn't even agreement when it comes to the closest thing we might have to "facts" in this debate which are actual game results.  Reading this thread it is clear that there is no consensus on the value of this data set nonetheless how to interpret the data.  This is common issue with Wicked Problems as the data is often incomplete (and I think there is a strong case that given the massively multivariate nature of AoS and the regular release schedule we never actual accrue enough data for any given point in time to have a large enough sample size for a strong confidence interval regarding the data) and what data we do have can be interpreted in many ways (th old lies, damn lines, and statistics issue).  This is the issue of incomplete or contradictory knowledge.

Clearly the ~500 responses to this thread alone (and balance comes up in other threads regularly) highlights the number of people and opinions involve in this issue.  The passion behind these opinions is certainly increased by the economic costs associated with playing the game (at least live, TTS of course offers one lower cost alternative).  And reading through each of the responses in this thread and others highlights how interconnected issues of Balance in AoS are with other game play issues (e.g. NPE, basic game mechanics such as Terrain, list construction rules, the double turn, etc.). 

[Skreech Verminking]

13 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

The Doomwheel is clearly not a trap 🪤 

Although it can be for the enemy,

yes-tes😈

Well if we ever get a new model for this unit (hoping one that looks exactly like the bike idea in total war warhammer 2) I’ll honestly probably  would just field 6-9 of these guys, no matter what the rules are.

although only when I’m playing a fun list at home.

I still prefer using doomwheels on events

[wayniac]

I have long suspected part of the issue might be that the people GW are looking to for advice/suggestions/data either cannot see the problem at all (which seems to be the case from the Warhammer Weekly video) or at worst are actively trying to keep the game imbalanced so they can feel like they can "solve" it by finding the busted combos.  There is a pervasive trend in some competitive games that people feel like they've "won" the game by discovering things that give them an advantage.  Naturally that's hearsay and almost a conspiracy theory so I don't totally believe it, but the fact things seem to never at all get better or, often even acknowledge the correct problems has given me pause more than a few times in the past when considering if a lot of this is willful neglect or not being able to see the forest through the trees.  Judging by how some competitive gamers want to treat games I would not be surprised if a lot of it was intentional to give the impression that finding these busted combos and using them to win is "mastering" the game and a good thing.

Edited April 29, 2021 by wayniac

[Joseph Mackay]

So much discussion about ‘competitive’ or ‘tournaments’ let’s not forget the fact gw openly admits that AoS (and 40K for that matter) are NOT competitive games, are not designed for that type of environment and are not really appropriate for tournaments. However, they acknowledge that a lot of people play that way so throw you a bone with the ‘tournament guidelines’ stuff in the GHB

tournaments and competitive environments skew the ‘balance’ of the game as basically everyone only takes the armies considered the most ‘op’ and more often than not run ‘netlists’. GW supposedly use a ‘paper siscors rock’ method to balance armies, but in the tournaments/competitive nobody is running ‘paper’ so ‘rock’ is over performing and ‘siscors’ suck

[wayniac]

24 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

So much discussion about ‘competitive’ or ‘tournaments’ let’s not forget the fact gw openly admits that AoS (and 40K for that matter) are NOT competitive games, are not designed for that type of environment and are not really appropriate for tournaments. However, they acknowledge that a lot of people play that way so throw you a bone with the ‘tournament guidelines’ stuff in the GHB

tournaments and competitive environments skew the ‘balance’ of the game as basically everyone only takes the armies considered the most ‘op’ and more often than not run ‘netlists’. GW supposedly use a ‘paper siscors rock’ method to balance armies, but in the tournaments/competitive nobody is running ‘paper’ so ‘rock’ is over performing and ‘siscors’ suck

Amen.  But since people try to turn ("twist") the game into a tournament game, it does skew everything else and has a trickle down effect.  And since it seems like those are the people who have GW's ear, it seems more and more like they are wanting to keep things broken so they can have their busted "competitive" combos.

Edited April 29, 2021 by wayniac

[Marcvs]

28 minutes ago, Joseph Mackay said:

So much discussion about ‘competitive’ or ‘tournaments’ let’s not forget the fact gw openly admits that AoS (and 40K for that matter) are NOT competitive games, are not designed for that type of environment and are not really appropriate for tournaments. However, they acknowledge that a lot of people play that way so throw you a bone with the ‘tournament guidelines’ stuff in the GHB

more and more difficult to argue this, for AoS but even more so for 40k, when they publish "Metawatch" articles which explicitly refer to tournaments and competitive playing

[wayniac]

6 minutes ago, Marcvs said:

more and more difficult to argue this, for AoS but even more so for 40k, when they publish "Metawatch" articles which explicitly refer to tournaments and competitive playing

Support does not mean designed for.  The game has been turned into a competitive game, sure (mainly by people who then pressured the company to accept it), but it has never been designed with that as the goal, it's more a side effect because so many people can't seem to play a game if it doesn't have competitive/tournament play baked in.

Edited April 29, 2021 by wayniac

[relic456]

@wayniac @Joseph Mackay

I'm curious, do you think the game would be better or worse than it is now without the pressure on GW to make their game more competitive?

I ask because I personally believe as the game's balance improves, the game becomes more enjoyable for ALL players, even those who couldn't give a Skaven's butt about tournaments and meta. Lots of anecdotes and stories of new players accidentally falling in love with armies on two sides of the competitive spectrum and having a bad time. Heck, even my lived experience has resulted in significantly less money paid to GW than could have been if the game had better balance.

[wayniac]

7 minutes ago, relic456 said:

@wayniac @Joseph Mackay

I'm curious, do you think the game would be better or worse than it is now without the pressure on GW to make their game more competitive?

I ask because I personally believe as the game's balance improves, the game becomes more enjoyable for ALL players, even those who couldn't give a Skaven's butt about tournaments and meta. Lots of anecdotes and stories of new players accidentally falling in love with armies on two sides of the competitive spectrum and having a bad time. Heck, even my lived experience has resulted in significantly less money paid to GW than could have been if the game had better balance.

Yes for the most part, but I think the tournament crowd has pushed the idea of balance, which is a good thing.  However it also encourages/defends skew lists, spam and 90% of a book being considered garbage to the point where new players get told to avoid armies completely, ignore all of what they want or throw away 75% of their list and replace it instead of being told how to make the most of what they have.

So it's sort of a double-edged sword.  I think if it was obvious the game was not competitive and people didn't try to force it into that mold, the game would be more enjoyable for everyone, but the fact people want it competitive means they also push for balance.

[Marcvs]

4 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Yes for the most part, but I think the tournament crowd has pushed the idea of balance, which is a good thing.  However it also encourages/defends skew lists, spam and 90% of a book being considered garbage to the point where new players get told to avoid armies completely, ignore all of what they want or throw away 75% of their list and replace it instead of being told how to make the most of what they have.

So it's sort of a double-edged sword.  I think if it was obvious the game was not competitive and people didn't try to force it into that mold, the game would be more enjoyable for everyone, but the fact people want it competitive means they also push for balance.

Agree on the problem of throwing away entire books / most units etc (especially because "competitive" often is interpreted as 5-0 book/list, whereas more or less ALL books can be piloted to a 3-2, which means winning most of your games). However, I always have a hard time in understanding what it means that the game is not "competitive": it is published with rules and points, there are two (or more) players and one side wins. I think sometimes this idea that the game is "non-competitive" end up giving a get-out-of-jail card for designers because basically you are supposed to build your own game in a dialogue with your opponent.

[relic456]

11 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I think if it was obvious the game was not competitive and people didn't try to force it into that mold, the game would be more enjoyable for everyone, but the fact people want it competitive means they also push for balance.

I'm curious to see what you think that would look like. By nature the game is competitive because it's one player versus another. Are there any games or systems that pit two players against each other that don't inspire competition? It just seems like the natural progression of things when every game of AoS has a winner and a loser. I think even the most casual of player thinks after a game "That went well/poorly, what can I do next time to do better?" That's the spark behind all of these balance conversations to me.

11 minutes ago, wayniac said:

However it also encourages/defends skew lists, spam and 90% of a book being considered garbage to the point where new players get told to avoid armies completely, ignore all of what they want or throw away 75% of their list and replace it instead of being told how to make the most of what they have.

Is that the tournament crowd's fault? Or is it a problem with the game's design 🤔 I argue the latter but understand why you'd think it's the former.

Edited April 29, 2021 by relic456

[wayniac]

26 minutes ago, relic456 said:

Is that the tournament crowd's fault? Or is it a problem with the game's design 🤔 I argue the latter but understand why you'd think it's the former.

Definitely both, with more on the latter since they could be more balanced and it would help everyone.  But I also think the former is to blame a lot by pushing this as the only way, how you can't possibly have fun if you aren't trying to do everything possible to win and giving advice like "Drop 75% of what you have, buy these units that the community has deemed good and spam it" with no regard for what the person they are giving advice to wants, not to mention the ignoring or outright demonizing of styles other than Matched Play.

I'd put a lot more blame on the designers but the community keeps perpetuating it as well.

Edited April 29, 2021 by wayniac

[relic456]

19 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Definitely both, with more on the latter since they could be more balanced and it would help everyone.  But I also think the former is to blame a lot by pushing this as the only way, how you can't possibly have fun if you aren't trying to do everything possible to win and giving advice like "Drop 75% of what you have, buy these units that the community has deemed good and spam it" with no regard for what the person they are giving advice to wants, not to mention the ignoring or outright demonizing of styles other than Matched Play.

You won't find any argument from me on those points. I approach my game play with that attitude but would never want to impress that on another, especially a newbie, without understanding what they want out of it. I think actively trying to dissuade that behavior is a good thing for the game.

[Skreech Verminking]

2 hours ago, relic456 said:

those who couldn't give a Skaven's butt about tournaments and meta.

You really don’t want to see one up close

[Galas]

I have to be honest.

The last times I played Age of Sigmar, the game itself was a miserable experience.

I mean, I had a blast because I was playing with my friends after more than a year of no playing tabletop related stuff for coronavirus, but the game itself? Nobody was barely paying any attention. (Archaon dying under the spears of 15 morterk guard and  9 of my 25 skullcrushers banishing to morale thanks to the morale lumineth lady were some of the most "xd" moments)

I was hard in AoS pre Coronavirus but the state is into right now is as bad as 1.0 AoS with no points. I don't care about tournament results, whatever. The game is so imbalanced, that is just no fun. We have moved to play MESBG. At least there you can play with your army before being completely obliterated. 

I introduced 6-7 friends thanks to TTS to 40k and LOTR (I'm talking friends with no wargame previous experience). They all bought physical armies to play those games, are painting them, etc... but I could not with a clear mind recommend them AoS. We tried to play it. But the game is just so bad. And I'm gonna take a ton of hate, but tbh I don't care. I really liked this game and I have no problem playing it with my friends if they want, and if they fix it, I'll gladly play again by my own initiative. 

But anybody defending, right now, Age of Sigmar is in any way, shape or form, a "good" wargame, or even a servicable wargame, is deluding himself. Theres no fun in a game were even the weakest units in the game fighting each other delete themselves the moment they touch one another with help of one buff or power, and a mission design as boring as 40k competitive ones.

 

If you are curious, I play heavy foot ogres and mortal/bloodbound khorne.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Galas

[pnkdth]

18 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

1) it highlights why there is so little agreement when it comes to discussing Balance in AoS given that there is no single definition of Balance that all stakeholders can agree on

2) it highlights that AoS is NOT static and thus any equilibrium it might achieve will be temporary at best and disrupted by the next tome or points change

3) this isn't a reason to just throw our hands up and walk away (either from these games or these discussions) but to recognize that progress requires (a) shared definitions, (b) accepting that solutions are not true or false but better or worse, and (c) there are too many stakeholders with too many diverging wants and needs for anyone one person or group of people to speak for the majority.

I also think the Wicked Problem framework highlights why there isn't even agreement when it comes to the closest thing we might have to "facts" in this debate which are actual game results.  Reading this thread it is clear that there is no consensus on the value of this data set nonetheless how to interpret the data.  This is common issue with Wicked Problems as the data is often incomplete (and I think there is a strong case that given the massively multivariate nature of AoS and the regular release schedule we never actual accrue enough data for any given point in time to have a large enough sample size for a strong confidence interval regarding the data) and what data we do have can be interpreted in many ways (th old lies, damn lines, and statistics issue).  This is the issue of incomplete or contradictory knowledge.

 

1. There seem to be one thing everyone agrees on and that is improve/adjust the outliers at the top/bottom. 

2. Most of us is aware of this, I certainly do not expect this game to perfectly balanced. The major upset comes from when there are three different battletomes released after each other and even between them it looks like whoever made them had a internal disagreement on both design philosophy and direction.

3. Ultimately GW will do what they will. However, when see actual data that 1) the VAST majority of players are not super skilled tournament players 2) the performance of each player is dependent of a set of lists 3) only the absolute best of the best players can play with little regard to which army they play. Furthermore, with this data we can also see which of the lists which are having an impact on the game + most friendly games won't be between super skilled players so the army WILL matter.

True, we do not have all the data, and even when we get more of it there will always be people asking for more. What I don't get is when people act as if the tournament data we have is unclear or impenetrable when we can discern very clear trends. Will acting on the data we have make perfect decisions? Nope, but we can strive to make the experience for all players better. As with your 2nd point, it isn't about perfection but striving to revise the armies so people don't feel left out. Telling them to "just git gud" for example won't work since that seem to be unrealistic for all but the best players in the whole of AoS.

But yeah, I do not think it is worth the time to create a perfectly balanced AoS. We'd probably get bored and walk away before it would be finished. However, user data and player's experiences are useful for game designers, however flawed they may be.

Where it gets difficult is the direction of the game and for the most part I'd just like to see priority and objectives be more engaging for both players + more attention to "forgotten" armies.

5 minutes ago, Galas said:

But anybody defending, right now, Age of Sigmar is in any way, shape or form, a "good" wargame, or even a servicable wargame, is deluding himself.

You're free to your opinion. You'll probably find that the reason some might give you "hate" is because you call them delusional for enjoying what they enjoy. I'd call this game more than just serviceable though I agree power creep has picked up and some armies are clearly in a bad spot. 3rd edition is not far off either so we'll see what's what.

 

[Galas]

Probably deluding was too strong of a word. I apologize for using it, english is not my first lenguage.

 

For me AoS was like the Warcraft movie. A guilty pleasure. I love the warcraft movie, I'm a warcraft fanboy for life (even if in years past, blizzard has lost me). But the movie was, at best, a high 5, but not even a 6.

One can absolutely enjoy Age of Sigmar. I did. And theres nothing wrong with that. But the objetive quality of the game is very low. Specially as it is right now.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Galas