Discussing balance in AoS

[NinthMusketeer]

Entirely agreed, and said better than I would have.

[Greybeard86]

On 4/4/2021 at 11:12 AM, stratigo said:

And I can't tell you how many stories I have been hearing about people's starts in a warhammer game being, pretty much "Me and my brother (Friend, what have you) used to play, and he won 90 percent of games cause he took overpowered faction X, while I had underpowered faction Y". This isn't people trying to bend the rules into a pretzel to top the ITC (Or whatever circuit), it's siblings where one just bought a better army than the other.

This is a thing. It just tells you how imbalanced the game is, because it is most definitely happening in casual groups.

That shouldn't happen, and there still would be room for GW to bake it whatever ivory tower design they want.

[wayniac]

Couple of things here:

1) GW games have never been balanced, and usually are some of the most unbalanced games on the market.  Its always been hotly debated if it's intentional or just poor work but at this point I have to think it's intentional, especially for AOS, given that the AOS design team is newer and seem to have a more of a competitive bent than the 40k team who always seemed to act like the competitive aspect of the game was a degenerate outlier (the whole "forge the narrative" meme from 6th/7th edition).  I cannot believe that the way some battletome's are crazy OP and some are middling is anything short of intentional with how intelligent and "in touch" with the tournament crowd the AOS team seems to be; someone like Ben Johnson doesn't seem like he would write something and not know just how OP it will be.

2) People just don't care enough, either because they don't see it as a problem, they don't encounter it, or whatever reason.  7th edition 40k plummeted to the point where they needed to almost totally redo it for 8th (and IMHO quickly went back down the same path but that's a topic for another place) but AOS has never seemed to have that, at least not to the point where people aren't eating up everything GW puts out irrespective of the quality, or lack thereof, of the rules.  So if it's not enough of a problem, there's no incentive to care about it or treat it as something important.

3) There has always seemed to be this random at best attempt to fix things that, more often than not, seems to indicate not understanding the problem in the first place.  You see this more in 40k where units really need a stat revamp but instead get some seemingly random point tweaks to make them played more (or, more likely, a nerf/points increase to the units that are played more) that totally misses why they aren't used at all.  I am not sure if AOS suffers from the same but I'd imagine it does, which goes back to the whole "is this intentional or not" discussion in my first point because it has to be clear that a unit is bad for other reasons than its points, yet points are what tends to be focused on.

4) There seems to be the idea that a meta is "healthy" if you see half a dozen different factions in them when all of those factions ignore 2/3 of their books to focus on a tiny minority of options that are deemed "competitive" and get pushed as the only way to play unless you want to get your teeth kicked in.  This to me shows there is not a healthy meta or health balance because in an idea situation each faction should have multiple "builds" (and I hate using that word in regards to wargames) not a single one that shows up everywhere to give that faction a fighting chance.  When you have a few outliers at the top and everything else at the bottom it shows that the outliers are clearly the issue, if the rest are "balanced" being low tier.    It's not at all unexpected that a 100% optimized ("cheese") list designed for LVO or SCGT or whatever is considered the "grand championship" of tournaments will crush a non-optimized list, but there seems to be too much of a gulf between things again where picking what you like will just result in you losing most of your games because you were unfortunate enough to like Army X and not Army Y or Units A, B, and C in Army Y and not units K, L, and M which are the "competitive" options.

5) As other people have said, you can't view tournaments in isolation despite that being the best way given how much of an outlier competitive play tends to be with its design compared to anything else, even if using the same Matched Play rules.  There are plenty of areas where everything is, in effect, a mini-tournament due to how competitive people are and anything less than your uber-cheese lists will be destroyed, and there are areas where people see the cheese lists and it trickles down to the casual gamers as well.  In addition, all it takes is one person to start bringing a super competitive list to a casual game night and things can become an escalating series of killing off everything non-competitive as people see someone playing a casual list be absolutely crushed to the point of having no fun at all by the uber cheese list and soon everyone is scrambling to avoid that by going more competitive.  That absolutely happens, and not only that but it skews new people's perspectives because they are told, specifically by GW, that you can and should pick models you like and a faction which appeals to you only to be told that:

a) The faction you like is weak because of whatever reason GW deemed it should be and sucks to be you if you really like that faction
b) The faction you like is good but the units you like are bad and sucks to be you if the units that are good don't appeal to you

If either one of those happen there's a good chance a new player is going to feel "duped" if they buy into the game and lose 90% of their games without even feeling like they have a chance just because they liked a certain faction and/or units and everyone else around them is playing comp lists that will steamroll anything non-comp.

Edited April 6, 2021 by wayniac

[Saxon]

On 4/7/2021 at 12:39 AM, wayniac said:

4) There seems to be the idea that a meta is "healthy" if you see half a dozen different factions in them when all of those factions ignore 2/3 of their books to focus on a tiny minority of options that are deemed "competitive" and get pushed as the only way to play unless you want to get your teeth kicked in.  This to me shows there is not a healthy meta or health balance because in an idea situation each faction should have multiple "builds" (and I hate using that word in regards to wargames) not a single one that shows up everywhere to give that faction a fighting chance.  When you have a few outliers at the top and everything else at the bottom it shows that the outliers are clearly the issue, if the rest are "balanced" being low tier.    It's not at all unexpected that a 100% optimized ("cheese") list designed for LVO or SCGT or whatever is considered the "grand championship" of tournaments will crush a non-optimized list, but there seems to be too much of a gulf between things again where picking what you like will just result in you losing most of your games because you were unfortunate enough to like Army X and not Army Y or Units A, B, and C in Army Y and not units K, L, and M which are the "competitive" options.

I think this is an important point. I have seen a lot of arguments that Cities of Sigmar are quite high tier based off tournament performance. I think the reality is far from that unless you use very limited, focused builds. Tournaments focus on extremely niche and bland builds like spamming phoenix guard and is a terrible representation of the army. A lot of builds using like 80% of the model range would result in extremely weak armies in comparison. 

In my local group, one of our players builds very optimized lists. The rest of us build what we like and i have a large range of models for each of my three armies. I never beat him. I never get close. His response is that i need to build an army around a list instead of building a list around an army. I find this kind of approach tiresome. No i'm not going to buy 3 VLoZD just to make a 'f*ck you' list. AOS has a problem where by battleline is a chore rather than a useful tool.  

[whispersofblood]

7 hours ago, Saxon said:

I think this is an important point. I have seen a lot of arguments that Cities of Sigmar are quite high tier based off tournament performance. I think the reality is far from that unless you use very limited, focused builds. Tournaments focus on extremely niche and bland builds like spamming phoenix guard and is a terrible representation of the army. A lot of builds using like 80% of the model range would result in extremely weak armies in comparison. 

In my local group, one of our players builds very optimized lists. The rest of us build what we like and i have a large range of models for each of my three armies. I never beat him. I never get close. His response is that i need to build an army around a list instead of building a list around an army. I find this kind of approach tiresome. No i'm not going to buy 3 VLoZD just to make a 'f*ck you' list. AOS has a problem where by battleline is a chore rather than a useful tool.  

Despite mankind's best efforts to the contrary the pareto principal still holds sway over reality and nature. It's true of the mass of stars, goals scored in the PL, and production of employees.

If your list building and enjoyment of the game does not come from outputs or production, more units become viable. But the principal holds as soon as outcomes are the objective. It's seemingly inescapable and describes a law of nature, you may as well be saying you want your models to float over the table.

[zilberfrid]

7 hours ago, Saxon said:

I think this is an important point. I have seen a lot of arguments that Cities of Sigmar are quite high tier based off tournament performance. I think the reality is far from that unless you use very limited, focused builds. Tournaments focus on extremely niche and bland builds like spamming phoenix guard and is a terrible representation of the army. A lot of builds using like 80% of the model range would result in extremely weak armies in comparison. 

In my local group, one of our players builds very optimized lists. The rest of us build what we like and i have a large range of models for each of my three armies. I never beat him. I never get close. His response is that i need to build an army around a list instead of building a list around an army. I find this kind of approach tiresome. No i'm not going to buy 3 VLoZD just to make a 'f*ck you' list. AOS has a problem where by battleline is a chore rather than a useful tool.  

I actually liked the Regiment of the Free Peoples with a few Great Companies in them. Easy way to make a 2k points list and you had a good spread of models to choose from. You could have every unit a different loadout (archers, crossbowmen, handgunners and the four different Guards) if you really wanted. Freeguild didn't really get more powerful with the release of Cities, and actually lost quite a few options.

Kharadron also have a few choices of batallions with good variety, while those of Cities are utterly boring.

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, zilberfrid said:

I actually liked the Regiment of the Free Peoples with a few Great Companies in them. Easy way to make a 2k points list and you had a good spread of models to choose from. You could have every unit a different loadout (archers, crossbowmen, handgunners and the four different Guards) if you really wanted. Freeguild didn't really get more powerful with the release of Cities, and actually lost quite a few options.

Kharadron also have a few choices of batallions with good variety, while those of Cities are utterly boring.

Well that's what I have. In my list I use most available units. I run guard, crossbowmen, handgunners, greatswords, a steam tank. It's a fun army but not even remotely competitive. 

[wayniac]

12 hours ago, Saxon said:

AOS has a problem where by battleline is a chore rather than a useful tool.  

This is largely a GW game problem.  40k suffers from the same in most cases.  But I agree completely, the idea of building around a list is usually an anathema to people who play an army for playing an army, not because it's whatever is the best.  I have legit talked to people who have said unequivocally that they don't care anything about the lore, or the models, or anything really other than "is this good".  They will play an army they have no attraction to, even dislike, if it gives a better chance of winning events.  They really don't even care about the game; they only play AOS/40k because it's popular, not because they like anything about it.  I cannot fathom that mindset.

I think the underlying issue has always been that, for whatever reason, it seems to be a binary choice in Warhammer where you can either have an army that fits the background or has a specific theme and does badly, or throw all that out the window and only play what's good.  There are a few outliers of course where you can do both, but they are generally rare.  And after 30ish years this problem still has not been realized by GW or, possibly worse, it has been realized and ignored while they speak out of both sides of their mouth and say it's important while making it less important.

[Phasteon]

37 minutes ago, wayniac said:

This is largely a GW game problem.  40k suffers from the same in most cases.  But I agree completely, the idea of building around a list is usually an anathema to people who play an army for playing an army, not because it's whatever is the best.  I have legit talked to people who have said unequivocally that they don't care anything about the lore, or the models, or anything really other than "is this good".  They will play an army they have no attraction to, even dislike, if it gives a better chance of winning events.  They really don't even care about the game; they only play AOS/40k because it's popular, not because they like anything about it.  I cannot fathom that mindset.

I think the underlying issue has always been that, for whatever reason, it seems to be a binary choice in Warhammer where you can either have an army that fits the background or has a specific theme and does badly, or throw all that out the window and only play what's good.  There are a few outliers of course where you can do both, but they are generally rare.  And after 30ish years this problem still has not been realized by GW or, possibly worse, it has been realized and ignored while they speak out of both sides of their mouth and say it's important while making it less important.

Really? There are people spending that much time and money just to be competitive at a game they don‘t like and nobody outside the hobby cares about? 

And even within the hobby most people dont care about tournaments (or tournament winners in particular). 

Strange folks. 

[EMMachine]

1 minute ago, Phasteon said:

Really? There are people spending that much time and money just to be competitive at a game they don‘t like and nobody outside the hobby cares about? 

And even within the hobby most people dont care about tournaments (or tournament winners in particular). 

Strange folks. 

Well basicly the guys who were spamming Abhorrant Archregent or Frostlords on Stonehorn, or in the old edtion Tzaangor Skyfires + those who spammed the best option of units where only one model is inside the box and the warscroll was changed later (Grundstok Thunderers, Stormfiends).

• Player 1: "Hey here is my list with 4 Abhorrant Archregents."
• Player 2: "Aren't those the equivalent of an Emperor, one of them ruling over multiple courts."
• Player 1: "I don't care, they are strong."

I think it is one thing if a lore legit build is far to strong or if it is a build nobody, who cares about the lore would even build.

But their is also the point that GW maybe should make more Warscroll Battalion variation . The Battalions are basicly a showcase how an Army (or part of it) can look like.

Their are good examples like Flesh-Eater Courts, where each unit is the option for multiple Battalions or the bad once where every unit has exactly 1 Battalion (Fyreslayers, Citites of Sigmar, ... ).

[Phasteon]

4 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

Well basicly the guys who were spamming Abhorrant Archregent or Frostlords on Stonehorn, or in the old edtion Tzaangor Skyfires + those who spammed the best option of units where only one model is inside the box and the warscroll was changed later (Grundstok Thunderers, Stormfiends).

• Player 1: "Hey here is my list with 4 Abhorrant Archregents."
• Player 2: "Aren't those the equivalent of an Emperor, one of them ruling over multiple courts."
• Player 1: "I don't care, they are strong."

I think it is one thing if a lore legit build is far to strong or if it is a build nobody, who cares about the lore would even build.

But their is also the point that GW maybe should make more Warscroll Battalion variation . The Battalions are basicly a showcase how an Army (or part of it) can look like.

Their are good examples like Flesh-Eater Courts, where each unit is the option for multiple Battalions or the bad once where every unit has exactly 1 Battalion (Fyreslayers, Citites of Sigmar, ... ).

Well, I‘m very conflicted because I really like to run strong, competitive lists but I hate armies that don‘t match the lore. 

So I always tend to really like the army I play but not be 100% happy about how it performs. 
 

There are always workarounds but its kind of exhausting sometimes. 

Especially when you then face someone who just takes those 4 archregents and his lackey, the general (because of trait or sth), and tryhards his way to victory. 

I really know that feel, I tend to dodge those games most of the time though. 

 

Regarding the topic: 

I think balance in general is fine, most games are really fun and close - also I play like 4-5 armies and always perform pretty well, so it can‘t just be because „I play the best army“ 

It‘s about how good you know the armies/rules in general and how you play into it. 

 

[NorthernNurgling]

This is just anecdotal but I think it's relevant.

90% of my games are against my brother. He plays Ironjawz/Warclans. I picked Lumineth. We did this purely for the Tolkienesque sight of an elven phalanx holding off a tide of angry orcs. We picked up a range of units we liked the look of, aiming to pick up the full range.

My Lumineth trash his army. I mean, devastatingly. By the time he chews through my shining company wall his Mawcrusha looks like a hedgehog that's been hit by a truck, his support heroes have been melted by LIGHT like Raiders of the Lost Ark and my veil lady has made the rest of them run off. 

My brother loves his green guys but our games are super boring, and when I tried to tweak my list it was obvious I was deliberately nerfing myself to give him a chance. 

I'm either going to pick up Gravelords or Stormcast now, so at least the balance in our games will be more even. I mean, in hindsight I know the matchup was a tough one, and I accidentally picked up a very strong list (I had Teclis but he had no shooting for example), but as new players trying to get into AOS it was a bit of a letdown. At this point it's just the quality of the models and the fun of painting them that is keeping us in the hobby. 

[wayniac]

 

47 minutes ago, NorthernNurgling said:

I'm either going to pick up Gravelords or Stormcast now, so at least the balance in our games will be more even. I mean, in hindsight I know the matchup was a tough one, and I accidentally picked up a very strong list (I had Teclis but he had no shooting for example), but as new players trying to get into AOS it was a bit of a letdown. At this point it's just the quality of the models and the fun of painting them that is keeping us in the hobby. 

Sadly I think this is more common than people think.  People don't want to lose because they like X and X happens to be weak or someone else likes Y and Y is OP.  The fact that is such a common occurrence shows there are major issues, and it's worse because GW seems to pretend that these things don't happen.

Edited April 9, 2021 by wayniac

[Phasteon]

13 minutes ago, wayniac said:

 

Sadly I think this is more common than people think.  People don't want to lose because they like X and X happens to be weak or someone else likes Y and Y is OP.  The fact that is such a common occurrence shows there are major issues, and it's worse because GW seems to pretend that these things don't happen.

Is it really that bad though? 

My worst games were Tomb Kings back in 8th Ed Fantasy. 
The army felt so weak and slow, to a point where I almost always lost if the dice weren‘t completely in my favor. 

Then again, I just played what I liked and just owned what I liked at that time. 

I never changed the list, I never tried something different, I never used Characters like Settra or Arkhan to try some different builds. 

I had 4 Chariots, so I also never utilized this units full potential. 

No catapults, not enough archers. 

Always the same 40 Skeletons, 40 Tomb Guard with King and some support stuff like a Sphinx and a squad of 3 Snakes. 

Also I was a poor young student, so just buying into a „competitive“ list was no option at that time. 

I bet if I tried different styles of list I would have had more fun and also more success. 

I think too many people in the hobby buy into an army they like but end up pretty much fielding the same models over and over again, often without a real gameplan. 

eg: 

3 Chariots without support = expensive chaff

9 Chariots with Heroes and buffs = something the enemy needs to deal with. 

If hes able to or not is a different story, but if you dont commit into something you are not playing into your armies potential strengths. 

 

Another example: 

Such a day and night difference! 

OBR Mortek Guard. 

Just a block of 20 vs 40 with Harvester. 

One game they just got wiped by Archaon in one round of combat, the other game they completely annihilated him without any notable losses and controlled the center of the board, winning me the game. 

Maybe next time he brings Be‘lakor and blocks them for a round or has something that can destroy them in one round of combat again - but I commited into a huge deathstar that is winning me games at the moment. 

Long story short: 

Imo a game is not only balanced if you can put on the table whatever you like and win by rolling better. 

A game is balanced if you can make armies work with the right concept, gameplan and dice rolls. 

And thats imo definately the case. 

If you are going for „fun lists“ you basically throw away the most important part of the game. Regarding rules. 

And thats ok. 

But calling GW out for bad rules / game design because your favorite list cant beat list A or even army B in general, because you have no way to deal with their special trick isn‘t the right way either. Also not very objective because if A list could deal with all other lists and armies it would be pretty imbalanced, wouldnt it? 

[pnkdth]

1 hour ago, Phasteon said:

But calling GW out for bad rules / game design because your favorite list cant beat list A or even army B in general, because you have no way to deal with their special trick isn‘t the right way either. Also not very objective because if A list could deal with all other lists and armies it would be pretty imbalanced, wouldnt it? 

This is also where your local meta plays a huge part. I'm hoping we'll be able to get more insight in what works and what doesn't in particular tournaments as we get more detailed data (from the platform which was presented in a recent TheHonestWargamer YT video). We generally have an idea what works but is always nice to have empirical data.

It also needs to be said that is incredibly hard to balance WHFB/AoS/40k because there are tons of armies out there. With that comes a lot of different ways of doing the same thing and it virtually impossible to make all of the work the same. Add in the shift into new editions and the sequential release schedule and you got a large number of armies in addition changing conditions.  

Aim for your rule of cool, sometimes your army will be on top, sometimes at the bottom. The rule of cool, however, endures. That said, sometimes it is ok to be salty about change.

-

As for balance, the main thing I want to see is more advantages/options for the player who's on the receiving end of a double turn. I don't mind the random factor but against many of the top armies it is a game decided on a dice by roll T2. Though a significant reason for this is just how brutal the shooting/magic phase have gotten. If they can't come up with a way to improve this drop the priority roll entirely or make it an optional extra. Few things are so disheartening than to move up the board, lose the priority roll, and have nothing left because of losing a roll-off. This is only true against some armies though.

Another option is to make terrain more relevant and useful against shooting/magic attacks which would make shooting less brutal and allow for more consideration over who takes priority. This change would not be too drastic and if it is combined with more strategic battleplans and objectives lessen the reliance on killy units.

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by pnkdth

[SU-152]

IMHO, the game is quite unbalanced+ double turn (awful mechanic).

Units are too fast, and too killy. At the end of turn 2 almost no models left. No time for strategy.

[Kadeton]

5 minutes ago, SU-152 said:

Units are too fast, and too killy. At the end of turn 2 almost no models left. No time for strategy.

I kind of agree with this, but at the same time I suspect there's quite a narrow "sweet spot". If units are too slow or take too long to kill, the game becomes a dull slog.

Keeping the game moving at a good pace (e.g. melee being quick and decisive, units having the speed to jump on tactical opportunities) is a good thing. But power creep is always going to be pushing us out of the sweet spot and having to be reined back in.

[kaaras]

A thought perhaps and maybe this is just me: I am time poor, so I don't spend a lot of time reading on forums, watching battle reports or combing through all the battle tomes and rule books to find out about the new hotness. I don't get the chance to pull my army apart to the molecular level to min/max everything. I have trouble remembering all the rules. In all, I know I am not a good player of this game. And yet I still gripe about lack of balance as much as any until quite recently. Why? Because I have come to terms with this fact: that I am not a good player. I try, sure, but to be competent at this game is an investment in time and effort, and like any endeavour, requires an equal time commitment to improve. As such, I have had a break from the game for a while and feel, even if I get ROFL stomped, that will be ok, because I know the people I game with ARE able to commit more to this than I do, and have done, over a number of years. 

The double turn is fine. It has been in the game since its inception. Back in fantasy, a slower army might be able to put some speed humps in the way, but a fast army could still get turn two charges off and wipe units out it short order, magic could destroy units without too much drama (purple sun or cacophonic choir were quite effective, or a light wizard conclave eliminating Nagash in one round...) so these things are not new. Alpha strike is also a thing. One of the few things that could be done to mitigate it, IMO, is to make the combat simultaneous, so everyone fights at once, charging units still go first and some sort of penalty (-1 to hit or something) to the unit being charged. Might make it less painful but really, I am sure (see point above) that out there are plenty of videos and posts on how to best manage when you get and lose the double turn.

[Sinfullyvannila]

I think the problem with shooting seems to be more about powerful shooting combined with movement shenenigans, and just that some armies have no way to deal with that. The game, without any shooting, would just be melee death stars vs melee deathstars.

Also there is value to internal imbalance, in that it allows you to handicap yourself against people beginning to collect an army or just starting out the game fresh.

[AnarchMage]

Ah, game balance. Like utopia, it’s something everyone wants but is always out of reach. Oh, and no one can agree on what it is. I do have some thoughts.

As has been mentioned, part of the issue is that any game with diverse pieces is going to be hard to balance. Even games with perfectly symmetrical balance (i.e. chess) are difficult to balance based on things like first turn advantage. And AoS is very, very diverse with lots of moving pieces that make it tricky to zero in on. It doesn’t help that we don’t have a lot of “well, it’s just _________, but does X instead of Y.” Most units are rather distinct from one another in function. When your “rank and file” battle line troops range from grots to gargants, it shows both diversity and, honestly, how difficult balance for this game is bound to be.

I think generally balance is...ok. There are certainly areas where it could be improved (magic and shooting have been mentioned a lot) but it’s also not as bad as it could be. As has also been mentioned, a lot of what you encounter is going to color your opinion. I haven’t gone up against Seraphon, for example, so I have no personal opinion on them. I’m sure that will change once they grind me under their scaly, scaly heels a few times. I am curious what the long rumored AoS 3 will bring to the table in terms of tweaks for balance

[Charleston]

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

I kind of agree with this, but at the same time I suspect there's quite a narrow "sweet spot". If units are too slow or take too long to kill, the game becomes a dull slog.

Keeping the game moving at a good pace (e.g. melee being quick and decisive, units having the speed to jump on tactical opportunities) is a good thing. But power creep is always going to be pushing us out of the sweet spot and having to be reined back in.

Yeah, AoS suffers as much of this "Too Fast, Too Furious" effect as late 40k 8th Edition did. Both games had a similar start that was a total reset, reducing the rules to a minimum, Then both were bloated by adding more stuff to diversify "your dudes".
I recall days of late AoS 1.0 in which you mostly didn´t have to check up warscrolls as many minatures followed a pattern in design.

Spoiler

 

Heavy Armor unit? I bet it has a 4+ save! It´s a hero? So +1 and it will be 3+. Knowing factions meant simple things like "SCE have 2 lifes" and the information for this could be piggybacked by the models design. With 2.0 I stumbled on so many "Wait, your army can do WHAT?" situations that I stopped wondering. Each new tome broke thoose comfy design patterns. Newer rules broke limits set before. A small list of patterns broken or wattered up:

• 6+ Armor for "barbaric" hordes like Moonclan, Skaven and Chaos Cultists
• 5+ for Light Armored units like Aelves and some humans
• 4+ for heavy armoured units.
• 4+ hitting on average models. +1/-1 depending whether it was an elite warrior or a mob peasant
• More elite units received more life
• Each faction had specific rules that were common between warscrolls. Shields are a nice example:
  • StD Shields provided a 5+ against MW's
  • Undead Shields provided +1 save as long as the opponent didn´t used rend

 

GW stopped with such patterns. Factions can no longer be compared with the same scale. CoS for example contains several 3+ armor units that are no heroes, Seraphon even had (have?) a 1+ save. We have several units with a 1+ to hit/wound value. And while GW tries to push and improve several warscrolls with redesigns, thoose pushes came often by the price of breaking thoose patterns that were like a second ruleset of the game. This second layer helped the overall game structure and explains why many rules read like a mess. Take for example the "Effect on Value" rules like MW's on a 6+ to hit. Many factions had a reccuring effect on many warscrolls that was tied to the same condition. Sunmetal Weapons for example. The rule is easy to memorize and is tied to all of your units with that kind of weapon. But then weird singular exceptions happen, like Swordmasters that have 2 differnt kinds of attacks but no sunmetal rule despite having sunmetal weapons in the name. GW is breaking rules their designers created themself, maybe due to a missing understanding for their value. There was a design space with clear borders and it is a common issue that limited design spaces can get crowded with time passing. But simply expanding design space by violating the old patterns feels lazy and disruptive. Models that have to be protected from beeing killed like Morathi, Ghazkhul or Gotrek are a simple confession that the game design is so out of controll they can´t match the rules in a way that make their centerpieces hold longer than a turn without writing it hard into the rules.

In the end there is still the fact that people like winning and like new powerfull rules because they feel good. And gw can easier sell a product that feels good. That's why they tend to use this shortcut by designing even gooder stuff.

But criticism should always also have a productive side to it: 8th Edition reset with the Index rules showed how gw can handle a full reset of a system. I belive that the Alligience/Suballigience System could be potentially removed from the Tomes and Factions on their own. Most suballigience rules are actually interchangable. Wanna have fun? Try playing Sylvaneth Anvilguard or Fyreslayer Celestial Vindicators. By providing shared pool of such abilities and maybe even artifacts that are shared between great alliances, GW could open up a quite complex and interesting new supplement product. 

 

[Beliman]

I agree 100% with @Charleston. But to play devil's advocate:

AoS 1.0 had a lot of things that could be abused too. The whole Extremis Chamber was a "pay to win" feeling with all that 3+saves on fast cavalry and mw without magic (dragons and paladins). Half of AoS armies didn't have enough rend to break them!!!!

But the ranged power-creep was there too: we had Kurnoth Hunters (aka, artillery with legs). But some months later, KOs came with  24 skyhook shoots with rend -2 (something crazy at that time) and the dreaded Skyfarer spam with pesky mortal wounds and one of the first shooting units that had 3+to hit with a high range weapon.

We always had some "out of the box" units, stats and abilities. btw, and I must say that prefer all the crazy stuff in todays AoS, but I miss the basic rules and statline for everyone too.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Beliman

[NinthMusketeer]

People forget that at launch 1st edition KO actually had some hideously overpowered options. But TBF to people, they were quite rapidly nerfed into oblivion. I do think there is a general lack of knowledge for some of the absolutely insane stuff 1st edition armies could pull; many players joined in second, many more did not encounter such things because there was less discussion around AoS at the same, less games were being played, etc. But rest assured even the likes of pre-nerf Slaanesh would have struggled against 1st edition Tzeentch, Kunnin Rukk, or Tomb Kings in their prime.

[Joseph Mackay]

5 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

People forget that at launch 1st edition KO actually had some hideously overpowered options. But TBF to people, they were quite rapidly nerfed into oblivion. I do think there is a general lack of knowledge for some of the absolutely insane stuff 1st edition armies could pull; many players joined in second, many more did not encounter such things because there was less discussion around AoS at the same, less games were being played, etc. But rest assured even the likes of pre-nerf Slaanesh would have struggled against 1st edition Tzeentch, Kunnin Rukk, or Tomb Kings in their prime.

I get quite annoyed honestly when people say KO were ‘nerfed’. From memory, the only thing that changed was the Thunderers weapons were restricted to how many came in the box so you couldn’t just sit there on the other side of the board and spam the mortars anymore because that’s not how the army was supposed to play

[stratigo]

13 hours ago, Beliman said:

I agree 100% with @Charleston. But to play devil's advocate:

AoS 1.0 had a lot of things that could be abused too. The whole Extremis Chamber was a "pay to win" feeling with all that 3+saves on fast cavalry and mw without magic (dragons and paladins). Half of AoS armies didn't have enough rend to break them!!!!

But the ranged power-creep was there too: we had Kurnoth Hunters (aka, artillery with legs). But some months later, KOs came with  24 skyhook shoots with rend -2 (something crazy at that time) and the dreaded Skyfarer spam with pesky mortal wounds and one of the first shooting units that had 3+to hit with a high range weapon.

We always had some "out of the box" units, stats and abilities. btw, and I must say that prefer all the crazy stuff in todays AoS, but I miss the basic rules and statline for everyone too.

the 24 skyhooks never made a huge impression on the meta. And, playing with them, they weren't as good as you'd think. There's a limit to what you could do with them.

 

It was thunderers that were the most OP thikng, that they nerfed almost immediately cause it was dumb and unintended.