Discussing balance in AoS

[wayniac]

It is not in any way, shape or form acceptable that A) playing X army versus Y army means you immediately lose, or B) That you should have to choose between playing units you like and losing or playing units you don't like if you want to win.  The latter especially since GW likes to peddle the narrative that you can, so it's disingenuous at best and straight up false advertising at worse.

[Battlefury]

9 minutes ago, wayniac said:

It is not in any way, shape or form acceptable that A) playing X army versus Y army means you immediately lose, or B) That you should have to choose between playing units you like and losing or playing units you don't like if you want to win.  The latter especially since GW likes to peddle the narrative that you can, so it's disingenuous at best and straight up false advertising at worse.

Exactly this, thank you for that important point!

Furthermore, all my 3 armies got patched into oblivion, although I really liked them myself. It was BoK, NH & BoC. All of them redundant by now. I was fooled by the store manager's advice, that each army is good.

[wayniac]

I should clarify I specifically mean the majority of games.  If you go to a tournament then sure not everything is going to work but that's part of tournaments (it's still a problem IMHO but a localized one).  When that's the case in normal, everyday casual games it's a monumental problem because those sorts of players are the ones most likely to get "hoodwinked" by being told they can play what catches their fancy, only to find out that they can't unless they enjoy getting their teeth kicked in game after game because they "chose poorly" by happening to like certain models and/or wanting to build an army around a certain theme.

That isn't right and should not be accepted by anyone.

[stratigo]

12 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

Exactly this, thank you for that important point!

Furthermore, all my 3 armies got patched into oblivion, although I really liked them myself. It was BoK, NH & BoC. All of them redundant by now. I was fooled by the store manager's advice, that each army is good.

XD the manager at Springfield? 

[Battlefury]

3 minutes ago, stratigo said:

XD the manager at Springfield? 

XD

 

12 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I should clarify I specifically mean the majority of games.  If you go to a tournament then sure not everything is going to work but that's part of tournaments (it's still a problem IMHO but a localized one).  When that's the case in normal, everyday casual games it's a monumental problem because those sorts of players are the ones most likely to get "hoodwinked" by being told they can play what catches their fancy, only to find out that they can't unless they enjoy getting their teeth kicked in game after game because they "chose poorly" by happening to like certain models and/or wanting to build an army around a certain theme.

That isn't right and should not be accepted by anyone.

I am with you there. It is not only due to the competetive environment. In my local community barely anyone does play AoS beside the tournaments anymore, since there is no difference at all in the games themselve.

[stratigo]

1 minute ago, Battlefury said:

XD

 

I am with you there. It is not only due to the competetive environment. In my local community barely anyone does play AoS beside the tournaments anymore, since there is no difference at all in the games themselve.

  You shoulda known better! Everything is great to him, guy really values the company. I mean, being fair, he has tried to make BoK a thing himself.

 

The AoS community here has always been ultra competitive I've noticed. And y'all migrated to Huzzah like two years ago, so I stopped getting regular AoS games in for ages. Albeit I dropped the game for a year anyways, and only got interested again cause animosity II. An aside, animiosity III is this summer too, and it's a lot of fun even under covid conditions, which hopefully will have cleared up enough by this summer that I can actually play people face to face and not struggle through TTS. 

[pnkdth]

31 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

1. Take strength / resistance values like in 40k ( because, why can a little skaven rat wound a heavy armoured Blood Thirster in melee with the same chance as Spirit of Durthu? ) Just an example here.
2. Redesign the Warscrolls & books from old armies ( more than 1 year old )
3. Calculate the point cost a new
4.  Actually test he rules in a representable way by releasing beta rules and gather data from those results ( communities are more than likely willing to help with that )

Looking at 40k have S & T doesn't actually help, we'll just see another meta. Having each warscroll balanced like in AoS means you won't have to radically change your entire army just because GW decide to arbitrarily nerf one option over another. Also, a skaven rat doesn't have the same chance to kill a BT as Durthu unless we're talking about being able to chip off wounds which happens all the time in 40k. Personally, I think the AoS way is a nice way to stay away from hero hammer and have large infantry blocks fill a purpose. I like to imagine it as the skaven turning the BT into a pincushion rather than personal skill and the combat playing out in real time as opposed to taking turns. So it wouldn't actually be a lone rat doing the killing but a combination of everything.

I'd really like to see them adjusting points cost more frequently (and especially for order battletomes). BoK is such a bizarre example because despite being all about glorious close combat and powerful warriors they're all just a mess of mindless berserkers. You don't even get a feeling like they're a threat to anyone but themselves.

Better testing process to catch obvious nonsense, yep, no argument there. Though judging from both AoS and 40k I think what is really needed are more rigid design guidelines for what and how things will be done in each edition + a standardised process to update and/or adjust older battletomes and codex.

[Battlefury]

3 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

Looking at 40k have S & T doesn't actually help, we'll just see another meta. Having each warscroll balanced like in AoS means you won't have to radically change your entire army just because GW decide to arbitrarily nerf one option over another. Also, a skaven rat doesn't have the same chance to kill a BT as Durthu unless we're talking about being able to chip off wounds which happens all the time in 40k. Personally, I think the AoS way is a nice way to stay away from hero hammer and have large infantry blocks fill a purpose. I like to imagine it as the skaven turning the BT into a pincushion rather than personal skill and the combat playing out in real time as opposed to taking turns. So it wouldn't actually be a lone rat doing the killing but a combination of everything.

I'd really like to see them adjusting points cost more frequently (and especially for order battletomes). BoK is such a bizarre example because despite being all about glorious close combat and powerful warriors they're all just a mess of mindless berserkers. You don't even get a feeling like they're a threat to anyone but themselves.

Better testing process to catch obvious nonsense, yep, no argument there. Though judging from both AoS and 40k I think what is really needed are more rigid design guidelines for what and how things will be done in each edition + a standardised process to update and/or adjust older battletomes and codex.

The example with the Thirster was just an exaguration, but you're right.

I absoltely agree on the rest you told.

[stratigo]

9 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

Looking at 40k have S & T doesn't actually help, we'll just see another meta. Having each warscroll balanced like in AoS means you won't have to radically change your entire army just because GW decide to arbitrarily nerf one option over another. Also, a skaven rat doesn't have the same chance to kill a BT as Durthu unless we're talking about being able to chip off wounds which happens all the time in 40k. Personally, I think the AoS way is a nice way to stay away from hero hammer and have large infantry blocks fill a purpose. I like to imagine it as the skaven turning the BT into a pincushion rather than personal skill and the combat playing out in real time as opposed to taking turns. So it wouldn't actually be a lone rat doing the killing but a combination of everything.

I'd really like to see them adjusting points cost more frequently (and especially for order battletomes). BoK is such a bizarre example because despite being all about glorious close combat and powerful warriors they're all just a mess of mindless berserkers. You don't even get a feeling like they're a threat to anyone but themselves.

Better testing process to catch obvious nonsense, yep, no argument there. Though judging from both AoS and 40k I think what is really needed are more rigid design guidelines for what and how things will be done in each edition + a standardised process to update and/or adjust older battletomes and codex.

40k is dominated by elite melee infantry, not heroes, at the moment. And since stratagems are hero agnostic, heroes play less a role than they do in AoS where command abilities are hero linked.

 

Both games have some issues with big face kicker heroes.

[whispersofblood]

13 minutes ago, wayniac said:

I should clarify I specifically mean the majority of games.  If you go to a tournament then sure not everything is going to work but that's part of tournaments (it's still a problem IMHO but a localized one).  When that's the case in normal, everyday casual games it's a monumental problem because those sorts of players are the ones most likely to get "hoodwinked" by being told they can play what catches their fancy, only to find out that they can't unless they enjoy getting their teeth kicked in game after game because they "chose poorly" by happening to like certain models and/or wanting to build an army around a certain theme.

That isn't right and should not be accepted by anyone.

This is impossible. The very act of liking one thing automatically precludes the possibility of another thing being viable. When you repeat this across an army and a gaming group the affect is magnified not minimized.

Expectations are only kept in line through honest, and informed communication. Rules create effeciency a lack of rules reward inventiveness and creativity. Everything has an incentive structure. If you are playing in a closed meta lists should be tailored to the meta as it is for the most part open information. The only limits are effort, and money a lack of either *should* decrease an individual's expectations of winning matches because it's impossible for it not to. 

Lastly it doesn't matter how much worse choosing models by visual appearance is than by strategy so long as it is worse the outcome is a lopsided game. And since no one seems to measure the closeness of games by VPs we are left with people's feelings on how close games are. 

[Battlefury]

3 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

If you are playing in a closed meta lists should be tailored to the meta as it is for the most part open information. The only limits are effort, and money a lack of either *should* decrease an individual's expectations of winning matches because it's impossible for it not to.

I would kindly disagree on this. It is outright not possible to adjust all lists to the meta. Some armies certainly can be adjusted, but not all of them. And this is where the problem comes from.

Edited April 13, 2021 by Battlefury

[stratigo]

4 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

This is impossible. The very act of liking one thing automatically precludes the possibility of another thing being viable. When you repeat this across an army and a gaming group the affect is magnified not minimized.

Expectations are only kept in line through honest, and informed communication. Rules create effeciency a lack of rules reward inventiveness and creativity. Everything has an incentive structure. If you are playing in a closed meta lists should be tailored to the meta as it is for the most part open information. The only limits are effort, and money a lack of either *should* decrease an individual's expectations of winning matches because it's impossible for it not to. 

Lastly it doesn't matter how much worse choosing models by visual appearance is than by strategy so long as it is worse the outcome is a lopsided game. And since no one seems to measure the closeness of games by VPs we are left with people's feelings on how close games are. 

GW would love for you to try and chase the endless circle of tailoring to a meta, cause that's a road that never ends, as tourney players can tell you. You successfully tailor to the meta and the meta shifts to tailor to you. You're dropping a lot of money regularly to keep up with the churn of the meta, and GW loves it.

[whispersofblood]

2 minutes ago, stratigo said:

GW would love for you to try and chase the endless circle of tailoring to a meta, cause that's a road that never ends, as tourney players can tell you. You successfully tailor to the meta and the meta shifts to tailor to you. You're dropping a lot of money regularly to keep up with the churn of the meta, and GW loves it.

I did say closed meta, we are talking a gaming group between 2-6 players. 

5 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

I would kindly disagree on this. It is outright not possible to adjust all lists to the meta. Some armies certainly can be adjusted, but not all of them. And this is where the problem comes from.

Both these comments assume that "doneness" is an objective, the game is always growing and changing, the expectation from the onset is that your collection should as well. At least if people are being honest about it.

Edited April 13, 2021 by whispersofblood

[Battlefury]

That's true, the collection should grow and I am more than willing to put money and work into it, when I would have a good chance to play & win ( meaning at least a believable chance to win ) versus any army, that I would face.

[pnkdth]

2 minutes ago, stratigo said:

40k is dominated by elite melee infantry, not heroes, at the moment. And since stratagems are hero agnostic, heroes play less a role than they do in AoS where command abilities are hero linked.

 

Both games have some issues with big face kicker heroes.

That's what I don't want that for AoS. I want larger blocks and elite units to have teeth and to be able to drag down bigger targets. Without them all you have against big scary characters are other big scary characters/monsters. I'm also not terribly happy about how insane some characters are in AoS nor how obviously better some are than others. God-level characters should never had gotten rules other than for narrative games but it is what it is.

[stratigo]

1 minute ago, pnkdth said:

That's what I don't want that for AoS. I want larger blocks and elite units to have teeth and to be able to drag down bigger targets. Without them all you have against big scary characters are other big scary characters/monsters. I'm also not terribly happy about how insane some characters are in AoS nor how obviously better some are than others. God-level characters should never had gotten rules other than for narrative games but it is what it is.

Eh? Big characters are not defining 40k either. Even mortarian, while certainly very strong, is only a part of a list, and you can't win with him alone and whatever else deathguard brings. Deathguard works off the back of its quality terminators right now, and mortarian is a strong supplement, but it is equally valid and strong to avoid him for just more terminators.

 

Now, there IS one winning 40k army combo that's all in on big dudes, and that's demons (which does, these days, include mortarian in it pretty regularly). This is a pretty big outlier, though it is quite strong. But the top two factions in the game don't tend to utilize a big centerpiece, but reliable hard hitting (but, note, not durable) melee infantry. And that's harlequins and Sisters, both use fast melee threats to challenge objectives and can back it up with strong shooting.  I can guarantee to you, these armies don't struggle to drag down a mortarian. Though harley lists had to change in the face of death guard.

 

I have my reservations in how 40k is so obviously hardcore power creeping its codexes, but it's not untenable yet (I mean, neither harleys are sisters are new dexes), but the game is just more dynamic and better than AoS is right now, and I hope AoS 3.0 takes the objective system from 40k. 

 

20 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I did say closed meta, we are talking a gaming group between 2-6 players. 

Both these comments assume that "doneness" is an objective, the game is always growing and changing, the expectation from the onset is that your collection should as well. At least if people are being honest about it.

If one person in a 6 person group is tailoring to the meta, everyone has to or just accept they are always losing. And, like, this is extremely common in small groups that one player grabbed the OP army and stomps their buddies every time until they don't want to play any more, and it's a bit bad to go to these new players an go "yo, spend 300 dollars on units to be less or more good so you fit your meta better".

 

And my collection grows long as I feel I have a game worth playing, and that does mean having a chance to win. I stopped playing a full year, and ignored that shift to another shop I mentioned, cause my army simply had no legs and I could play other games. I started collecting again cause an event got me passionate and my army had gotten playable.

[wayniac]

17 minutes ago, stratigo said:

If one person in a 6 person group is tailoring to the meta, everyone has to or just accept they are always losing. And, like, this is extremely common in small groups that one player grabbed the OP army and stomps their buddies every time until they don't want to play any more, and it's a bit bad to go to these new players an go "yo, spend 300 dollars on units to be less or more good so you fit your meta better".

The real issue is it doesn't even have to be one person tailoring to the meta, it can be someone who really likes Lumineth or Seraphon or whatever the big meta armies are and other people like Nighthaunt, Sylvaneth, Beast of Chaos and whatever the bottom tiers are.  The people playing the weak armies are going to lose no matter what against the tough armies, through no fault of their own even before you factor in the meta.  That's just terrible all around and is a good way to get people to throw their hands up in frustration when they constantly lose because they like a "weak" army.

Edited April 13, 2021 by wayniac

[Battlefury]

8 minutes ago, wayniac said:

The real issue is it doesn't even have to be one person tailoring to the meta, it can be someone who really likes Lumineth or Seraphon or whatever the big meta armies are and other people like Nighthaunt, Sylvaneth, Beast of Chaos and whatever the bottom tiers are.  The people playing the weak armies are going to lose no matter what against the tough armies, through no fault of their own even before you factor in the meta.  That's just terrible all around and is a good way to get people to throw their hands up in frustration when they constantly lose because they like a "weak" army.

Agree. Imagine that new player gets that army he / she just likes and gets flak from others, because they suspect him / her to have taken this army for the power level in the first place. Of course that would be not on purpose for that one poor guy / girl. But that would also be a thing to concider via game design.

[AnarchMage]

27 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

Agree. Imagine that new player gets that army he / she just likes and gets flak from others, because they suspect him / her to have taken this army for the power level in the first place. Of course that would be not on purpose for that one poor guy / girl. But that would also be a thing to concider via game design.

This is me. I picked up Lumineth, specifically Vanari, because I love the pike and archer formation supported by cav, wizard heavy armies, and the look of the models. Then I find out everyone hates them, and specifically the units I enjoy most. Not great. So I stick to my Legions of Nagash unless someone is ok with me doing my LRL

[pnkdth]

22 minutes ago, stratigo said:

Eh? Big characters are not defining 40k either. Even mortarian, while certainly very strong, is only a part of a list, and you can't win with him alone and whatever else deathguard brings. Deathguard works off the back of its quality terminators right now, and mortarian is a strong supplement, but it is equally valid and strong to avoid him for just more terminators.

 

Now, there IS one winning 40k army combo that's all in on big dudes, and that's demons (which does, these days, include mortarian in it pretty regularly). This is a pretty big outlier, though it is quite strong. But the top two factions in the game don't tend to utilize a big centerpiece, but reliable hard hitting (but, note, not durable) melee infantry. And that's harlequins and Sisters, both use fast melee threats to challenge objectives and can back it up with strong shooting.  I can guarantee to you, these armies don't struggle to drag down a mortarian. Though harley lists had to change in the face of death guard.

 

I have my reservations in how 40k is so obviously hardcore power creeping its codexes, but it's not untenable yet (I mean, neither harleys are sisters are new dexes), but the game is just more dynamic and better than AoS is right now, and I hope AoS 3.0 takes the objective system from 40k. 

Yes, like I said I don't want AoS to be dominated by elite units or pave the way for hero hammer. Effectively becoming an arms race where eventually you're not a resilient unit unless you have a 2+, 4++, 5+++ and reduce damage + 3 strats on top of that. We've already seen units with coming in with transhuman always on too. That is why I think it is good a humble clanrat unit can pull down a BT under the right circumstances and prefer the way warscrolls are handled in AoS.

As for which system is better, I left 40k because I got fed up with the direction it is headed (rules bloat for the bloat god!). I think you are right in that AoS could do with some more interesting objective play as the auxiliary objectives feels kinda tacked on. Neither system is perfect though. I'm not fanboying for AoS, just happen to prefer it more right now. 

[stratigo]

7 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

Yes, like I said I don't want AoS to be dominated by elite units or pave the way for hero hammer. Effectively becoming an arms race where eventually you're not a resilient unit unless you have a 2+, 4++, 5+++ and reduce damage + 3 strats on top of that. We've already seen units with coming in with transhuman always on too. That is why I think it is good a humble clanrat unit can pull down a BT under the right circumstances and prefer the way warscrolls are handled in AoS.

As for which system is better, I left 40k because I got fed up with the direction it is headed (rules bloat for the bloat god!). I think you are right in that AoS could do with some more interesting objective play as the auxiliary objectives feels kinda tacked on. Neither system is perfect though. I'm not fanboying for AoS, just happen to prefer it more right now. 

Don't get me wrong, the rise of fascism has really drained the joy I used to take in the 40k setting and has led me to be increasingly interested in the narrative of AoS that, uh, dodges some of those thorny issues, but I like spectating on competition a lot too, and 40k just has a better apparatus for viewing, analyzing, and discussing its competitive aspects. And rules wise I think 40k is currently in a better place. But then again, AoS is in the end of an edition while 40k is in the start, and balance always goes real bad towards the end of an edition (Then again, Hedonites were a thing). There are things AoS can take from 40k to be a better game. And it is in the terrain rules and mission structure. Making terrain not random, but meaningful would be great for AoS. It would do a bit to reign in shooting, and make movement more interesting. The mission structure, in scoring both primary and chosen secondaries is literally the best GW has ever done for 40k, the missions are better, and don't have dumb win conditions like a few of the AoS ones do.

 

But there's an extra wrinkle to this in that I don't think the GW AoS writers are as interested in competition are the 40k writers are, and are more interested in being neat or quirky. 40k 9th is the most tournament friendly edition of 40k ever made, and its base rules and missions are tight in a way that AoS with its double turns and knifes to the heart just are not. They'll mess it all up in the army balance, but they are building off a solid core that AoS just lacks. 

[NinthMusketeer]

'Most tournament friendly edition' is a very low bar...

[Mutton]

On 4/13/2021 at 1:42 PM, pnkdth said:

Effectively becoming an arms race where eventually you're not a resilient unit unless you have a 2+, 4++, 5+++ and reduce damage + 3 strats on top of that.

We're already there. Plenty of units have ridiculous armor/ward saves with rerolling dice. Almost every game you can expect to be against some kind of -1 to hit, some armies easily getting to -2 or -3 to hit. It's why so many warscrolls deal mortal wounds now, they have to in order to get past all of these stacking fortress armies like Lum, IDK, Seraphon, etc.

We've had a crazy escalation of defensive power since the beginning of 2.0, and it needs to go. Give us a cap on debuffs and stop letting units get 2+ armor saves.

[NinthMusketeer]

Units have been doing MWs on hit rolls since the launch of AoS, and armies have been stacking hit penalties since the launch of AoS. What's gotten FAR more common is using doing MWs, whereas stacking hit penalties is as difficult as it ever was. -1 to hit is not crippling (and also does not affect the wound or save roll so dealing MWs on 6s to hit is not a counter) while -2 almost always has a strategic cost to compensate for it. -3 is possible in some cases but is also wildly impractical or extremely niche.

[NinthMusketeer]

2+ saves, on the other hand, are exceedingly rare outside of characters and almost always involve cover which is entirely battlefield-dependant. 2+ saves are not the problem. 4+ or 3+ with full rerolls are, because there are line units which can reliably do that and it effectively means armies without MW output are screwed since rend -2 is extremely rare, far more than outright MWs.

And the way 1+ saves work is bull.