A Thread For Complaints About Foot Heroes Being Too Weak

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

Since it seems to be a popular topic, here's a separate thread for it.

Infantry heroes are often pretty weak in AoS. Can this be changed? Should it be changed?

This episode of Warhammer Weekly gets into the topic and has some explanations of why things might be as they are:

[PraetorDragoon]

So there is this interesting disconnect regarding foot heroes. On one hand, players and designers don't want Herohammer. They want to have AoS be around units, and not heroes, which is a fair design constraint. On the other foot, foot heroes tend to have the most personality. They show up the most prominent in lore, and are often the most interesting to write/read about. (or just pick up to paint) They also are the choice where most customisation (rules, lore, your dudes) tend to happen. 

So we end up with a type of unit that people want to be cool and good, but not good to overshadow regular units. I don't think this can be resolved under current or previewed rules.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

9 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

So there is this interesting disconnect regarding foot heroes. On one hand, players and designers don't want Herohammer. They want to have AoS be around units, and not heroes, which is a fair design constraint. On the other foot, foot heroes tend to have the most personality. They show up the most prominent in lore, and are often the most interesting to write/read about. (or just pick up to paint) They also are the choice where most customisation (rules, lore, your dudes) tend to happen. 

So we end up with a type of unit that people want to be cool and good, but not good to overshadow regular units. I don't think this can be resolved under current or previewed rules.

I would definitely agree that there is a bit of a problem in so far that one very specific type of hero, namely infantry brawlers, are almost across the board too weak to be worth using. And as you say, those are some of the most iconic archetypes in warhammer.

The Chaos Lord frequently crops up as a negative example in these discussions, because he basically just brings his combat profile to the table and nothing else. And then that combat profile is not very impressive. But this is also a unit that a lot of people love for its "your dudes" potential.

I think it's important to acknowledge that infantry brawlers have a lot working against them from first principles, though: Good combat units need to deal damage and have a way to deliver that damage, and by virtue of being on foot, infantry brawlers are usually slow. This means that in most games they won't have an impact until turn 2 or 3, at which point a lot of the action will already be over. So even if they got their damage output buffed substantially, chances are most pure melee damage infantry heroes would still not feel very good to use.

[Vasshpit]

Could something as simple as a health increase work?

As an example could a foot Megaboss sit comfortably at 10 health and not be op?

[PraetorDragoon]

8 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

Could something as simple as a health increase work?

As an example could a foot Megaboss sit comfortably at 10 health and not be op?

I doubt it will matter much. Small brawler heroes simply lack damage and means to apply this damage to enemies. Dying fast is the least of their problems. 

The AOS rules simply aren't setup to make small brawler heroes shine. 

[JackStreicher]

They should be better. However since GW „looked at every single Warscroll and revaluated its power“ or in short, minus the marketing talk:

Did Jack S**t and just continued the same way as before: It‘ll sadly stay that way and that makes me said. It’s so frustrating.

@PraetorDragoon not true. Gotrek slaps for example. It has nothing to do with the game‘s setup, they just refuse to grant small models significant output although there‘d be more enough explanations fir it in this FANTASY setting (magical items, Blessing of living gods, Mutations, MAGIC).

it‘s lazy design.

 

Edited April 23 by JackStreicher

[CommissarRotke]

the new Guarded Hero rule at least looks like help in preventing too much hero sniping?

[Satyrical Sophist]

3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

They should be better. However since GW „looked at every single Warscroll and revaluated its power“ or in short, minus the marketing talk:

Did Jack S**t and just continued the same way as before: It‘ll sadly stay that way and that makes me said. It’s so frustrating.

@PraetorDragoon not true. Gotrek slaps for example. It has nothing to do with the game‘s setup, they just refuse to grant small models significant output although there‘d be more enough explanations fir it in this FANTASY setting (magical items, Blessing of living gods, Mutations, MAGIC).

it‘s lazy design.

 

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it is lazy design. They have shown what, 3 heroes, none of which are combat heroes? I am I missing something here? The slaughter priest is a priest, the weird nob is a wizard and the Skaven is a sniper. We have seen relatively few war scrolls just in general, but of those it looks like there have been some significant changes. I really like the design change of the vindictors, that anti charging rule is very cool, and separates them out from other choices. Kroxigor now look like they match their big imposing models. 

I was gonna quote myself from the other thread, but it’s easier just to retype.

There are issues with having small foot heroes be massive blenders. They have an absolutely tiny footprint and are easy to miss on the battle field. Yes, you can have absolute blender units like Gotrek and Eltharion, but those are fairly specific units and are very distinctive. You don’t risk mistaking them for anything else. Chaos Lords get mentioned a lot, but frankly they do not stand out on the battlefield. I think you’ll get a lot more bad feelings from people not realising that that chaos armour wearing caped looking guy fights as hard as a unit, whereas the other one is a buffing piece. I once played a game with maggotkin where I accidentally including a lord of plagues with a unit of blight kings and only realised that the unit champ and the hero had switched at the end of the game. I think it must have happened turn 2.

Do I think they could do more for differentiating heroes? Sure, I’m just waiting to see if they do, rather than getting annoyed preemptively that they might not.

Personally I think there is more room for using the universal special rules and custom special rules to represent the power of the combat heroes. Give doomseekers anti monster buffs, give a hero the ability to stop pile ins if he kills an enemy. 
 

Just cranking the numbers up feels like a much more lazy way. 
 

[Gailon]

I thought the heroic action fight at the opening helped a bit. 
 

making foot heroes more powerful is really difficult from a balance perspective. If they can just flatten a unit that is way too much. Why take units? Especially with army construction limitations gone. 
 

fight at the opening gave some real interesting utility to these heroes. They could fight in the hero phase for a real by relatively minor resource (heroic action). And there were several times it was critical In my games. Mostly against the Tyrant.  
 

it also felt flavorful. The heroes weren’t suddenly doing tons of damage but being in a combat with them was dangerous. 

[JackStreicher]

5 hours ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

Yes, you can have absolute blender units like Gotrek and Eltharion, but those are fairly specific units and are very distinctive. You don’t risk mistaking them for anything else.

That’s not an argument though. Heroes usually look quite different with bigger bases. It’s not an issue in AoS or TOW. (and in tow they‘re standing inside a big block, looking even more alike). It’s never been an issue, ever. So this sounds like a Strawman argument to me.

They‘ve simply decided that foot heroes shouldn’t deal damage, period. There’s no issue with a hero dealing 15+ dmg imo, especially when that’s his job.

I have a harder time with buff heroes, because their buffs are highly nonsensical even in a magical setting: „oh look he is waving his cape! + 1 to wound, + 1 to hit“ - the actual fork? It’s not even a spell, just utter nonsense.

While a forking vampire, stronger than a stormcast, moving as fast as one can blink should be able to dismantle a dozen ordinary humans especially when wearing magical artefacts. But he can’t (currently) and a skaven hero is just as powerful. (Imo the sniper is too accurate for a skaven btw)

Edited April 24 by JackStreicher

[Beliman]

I don't think that damage is the issue here. To me, it's what they represent. And I'm not talking about their power-level.

Just look at Chaos Lords, pretty sure that everyone knows what they are. To me:

• One of the strongest characters in the game (let's see how that can be made without being overpowered or turn to hero-hammer).
• Can take a hit, and still go on (defense!).
• Strong duelists (not the best, but probably at the top 5 generic characters, and can push back some named ones).
• Not specialized in buffing their army, more about intimidation and brute force than anything.
• Has some chaos-flavour (mainly chaos marks, but probably artifacts, traits, mutations, etc...).
• Slow on foot.
• Can turn in to spawn or Daemon Prince! (Eye of the Gods).
• ...probably more, but you get the point...

That list is what you have in your mind for each of your heroes. What are they, why you paint them with this scheme, the main reason to convert them and maybe even why you started their army. Their rules (warscroll and battle traits) should have all of this represented in some form. If there is a lot missing in their rules, this heroes becomes just tokens that you take because they have an ability that you want for your strategy. To me, that's shoudn't happen.

Edited April 24 by Beliman

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 hours ago, Beliman said:

I don't think that damage is the issue here

I don't know, I think damage is very much one of the issues for melee brawlers. 4 3/3/1/2 is just kind of a bad stat line. The expected damage is almost exactly the same as a 100 points screen (10 dudes, champion, 2 4/4/-/1).

I honestly don't know how much of a problem it would be from a gameplay perspective to just double the damage output of infantry heroes whose main role is to fight. It feels like the game can handle it, honestly.

Edited April 24 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Flippy]

8 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't know, I think damage is very much one of the issues for melee brawlers. 4 3/3/1/2 is just kind of a bad stat line. The expected damage is almost exactly the same as a100 points screen (10 dudes, champion, 2 4/4/-/1).

I honestly don't know how much of a problem it would be from a gameplay perspective to just double the damage output of infantry heroes whose main role is to fight. It feels like the game can handle it, honestly.

The Megaboss is 8 3/3/1/2, fight on death and gets bigger as a reward for fighting and killing. I used him a lot in smaller games (1000 pts) and he always felt like a very competent melee brawler. He's very slow, though, and all his specific artefacts were better suited for the Maw-krusha version.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, Flippy said:

The Megaboss is 8 3/3/1/2, fight on death and gets bigger as a reward for fighting and killing. I used him a lot in smaller games (1000 pts) and he always felt like a very competent melee brawler. He's very slow, though, and all his specific artefacts were better suited for the Maw-krusha version.

The Megaboss is one of the units I would point to as an example of a good brawler hero. I think the fact that he's slow is a weakness inherent to the role of an infantry brawler, which is honestly fine. They have trouble getting in, but should be really scary when they do. This probably means that you will rarely see even good brawlers in competitive lists (because a damage dealer without a reliable delivery mechanism is just not that useful), but I don't think competitive viability should be the measure of success here. As @Beliman said, I think it's more about the characters matching the fiction, or perhaps about them having any role at all (even if the role is not that valuable).

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

2 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I honestly don't know how much of a problem it would be from a gameplay perspective to just double the damage output of infantry heroes whose main role is to fight. It feels like the game can handle it, honestly.

This sounds like a tasty solution to me. Even if it did involve a fairly steep increase in points. 

But I guess higher points across the board means less models on the table... and we're all aware that GW is in the business of selling more models, not less. 

[Beliman]

imho, The system is not the problem. We have USR with a lot of diferent effects. 

A brawler could have Anti-Infantry (2 hits), exactly doubling his impacts versus infantry units. Give him a 5 attacks on a  2+ hit and he will be really good brawler. Just... don't throw him in front of a cavalry charge or let him fight monsters. He loves to be in the middle of a mosh pit.

[Ragest]

Is impossible for heroes to compete with units, because units have more wound density, more attacks and eat buffs exponentially, so the rol of damage dealer is reserved for them, so you don't want to waste a hero slot for that, instead of a buffer hero to improve such damage dealer units.

[Chikout]

It's weird that we've had all this talk but noone has mentioned the ways in which AoS attempts to make heroes unique, namely heroic traits and artefacts. We know that command traits are being changed to heroic traits but we still don't know what they are or how you choose them. Is it still one per army? We also don't know how artefacts are chosen as the battalions are presumably gone. 

If you take your slaughter priest then give him a heroic traits that grants a 4+ ward and a weapon that adds 3 damage to his attacks, you've suddenly got a pretty decent blender. 

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

11 minutes ago, Chikout said:

It's weird that we've had all this talk but noone has mentioned the ways in which AoS attempts to make heroes unique, namely heroic traits and artefacts. We know that command traits are being changed to heroic traits but we still don't know what they are or how you choose them. Is it still one per army? We also don't know how artefacts are chosen as the battalions are presumably gone. 

If you take your slaughter priest then give him a heroic traits that grants a 4+ ward and a weapon that adds 3 damage to his attacks, you've suddenly got a pretty decent blender. 

 

Yeah, this is interesting and we will have to see how the news of 4th ed develop. It kind of feels to me like there has to be some way to get extra toys (artefacts, traits, spell lores).

In 3rd, foot heroes are kind of underwhelming on their own, as a rule, but if you kit them out they can be pretty scary. I think the big problem is that your return on investment for traits and artefacts is generally bigger if you put them on a better base unit. Why would I put my +1 rend and damage artefact on a foot slogger who can't get anywhere if I could put it on a 14" flying move guy on a monster mount?

[MitGas]

I'll be the unpopular one and say that while I don't want herohammer, I'd like to see that the power-level of a hero is not entirely dependent on said hero being a centerpiece. In AoS the strong heroes are usually large and on big bases, I adore the few exceptions like Gotrek or the Ironjawz warboss that are really tough despite being on smaller bases. I understand that we won't get Khorne champions that kill whole units back and it might be way better this way but I feel like most single heroes are there for their buffs, not because they themselves are a threat! 

Edit: Oh and I'd really like some sort of customization. Make it a point sink, a very unwise one, but it's cool to cool to build your very own powerful character to me.

Edited April 24 by MitGas

[MotherGoose]

I'll be a parrot again and say that whilst I want certain characters to be more impactful (vampire lord always pops up for me) I don't think it's possible with our rules.

A vampire lord could be completely different to a skaven warlord in the old world due to the statistics they possess. When you're rolling 2d6 and there's nothing to change your hit and wound profile or even any change depending what you're fighting, everything becomes sort of the same.

For instance, a vampire lord could be higher WS and S/T compared to a goblin lord, meaning that yes they would cost more, but they would also slap lesser 'mortals' in melee. They'd be harder to wound than your usual troops and would be harder to hit with higher WS. When it all boils down to 3+ 3+ you can't have too much difference. Doesn't matter if my 3000 year old vampire that's mastered all forms of combat and weapon is fighting a snail or kragnos himself, he hits and wounds on 3s. Elves used to be super high initiative and weapon skill to combat the low toughness, orcs used to be high strength and toughness to combat the low initiative etc. AoS simply isn't the game for this lore/racial standout sort of rules. It's harder to balance (I assume?), and I can't see it changing so drastically when they want it easy to learn and quick to play.

The game is awesome fun and the models are amazing, once I accepted that my vampire lords were just the generic foot lord reskinned as a vampire and that heroes are more for buffing, with the god and centrepiece models being the true powerhouses and lure of AoS, I was much happier playing. I used to wish and wish and wish for the racial/lore style differences to return and every single time a new book came out was disappointed again, its best to forget it and play the game for what it is.

I've been jumping back to the old world here and there especially whilst waiting for AoS 4.0 and its been great fun and scratches the itch of a more thematic 'battle' and lore based profiles perfectly for me. The two games are so different to one another it's great to play both - for those that haven't tried it and want powerful foot heroes I'd recommend it for sure.

What I really think AoS misses on is point based artefacts/traits/powers. You could easily have a generic vampire lord be what they are currently, then give us the option to add up to 100 points of something. An extra cast, bonus to cast, extra attacks on the charge, more wounds - something at least to make them more fun rather than just the +1 attack ability that just feels like we are playing a card game and placing a +1 attack card down on our turn.

Edited April 24 by MotherGoose

[JackOfBlades]

35 minutes ago, MotherGoose said:

I'll be a parrot again and say that whilst I want certain characters to be more impactful (vampire lord always pops up for me) I don't think it's possible with our rules.

A vampire lord could be completely different to a skaven warlord in the old world due to the statistics they possess. When you're rolling 2d6 and there's nothing to change your hit and wound profile or even any change depending what you're fighting, everything becomes sort of the same.

For instance, a vampire lord could be higher WS and S/T compared to a goblin lord, meaning that yes they would cost more, but they would also slap lesser 'mortals' in melee. They'd be harder to wound than your usual troops and would be harder to hit with higher WS. When it all boils down to 3+ 3+ you can't have too much difference. Doesn't matter if my 3000 year old vampire that's mastered all forms of combat and weapon is fighting a snail or kragnos himself, he hits and wounds on 3s. Elves used to be super high initiative and weapon skill to combat the low toughness, orcs used to be high strength and toughness to combat the low initiative etc. AoS simply isn't the game for this lore/racial standout sort of rules. It's harder to balance (I assume?), and I can't see it changing so drastically when they want it easy to learn and quick to play.

The game is awesome fun and the models are amazing, once I accepted that my vampire lords were just the generic foot lord reskinned as a vampire and that heroes are more for buffing, with the god and centrepiece models being the true powerhouses and lure of AoS, I was much happier playing. I used to wish and wish and wish for the racial/lore style differences to return and every single time a new book came out was disappointed again, its best to forget it and play the game for what it is.

I've been jumping back to the old world here and there especially whilst waiting for AoS 4.0 and its been great fun and scratches the itch of a more thematic 'battle' and lore based profiles perfectly for me. The two games are so different to one another it's great to play both - for those that haven't tried it and want powerful foot heroes I'd recommend it for sure.

What I really think AoS misses on is point based artefacts/traits/powers. You could easily have a generic vampire lord be what they are currently, then give us the option to add up to 100 points of something. An extra cast, bonus to cast, extra attacks on the charge, more wounds - something at least to make them more fun rather than just the +1 attack ability that just feels like we are playing a card game and placing a +1 attack card down on our turn.

I dont think the loss of I, WS, S and T matters so much, thats just one kind of system. If we still had those, then in AOS terms theyd just make the vampire lord and goblin chief have the same stats. GW can still give things different stats for wounds, saves, attacks, rend, damage and special rules like always strikes first (always, on a 4+, on the charge, ...) with their current system, if they wanted to. So that a goblin chief isnt the equivalent of a vampire lord, but a vampire lord is more equivalent to the things it's supposed to be similar to. It just needs to be done systematically.

Edited April 24 by JackOfBlades

[Beliman]

11 hours ago, JackOfBlades said:

I dont think the loss of I, WS, S and T matters so much, thats just one kind of system. If we still had those, then in AOS terms theyd just make the vampire lord and goblin chief have the same stats. GW can still give things different stats for wounds, saves, attacks, rend, damage and special rules like always strikes first (always, on a 4+, on the charge, ...) with their current system, if they wanted to. So that a goblin chief isnt the equivalent of a vampire lord, but a vampire lord is more equivalent to the things it's supposed to be similar to. It just needs to be done systematically.

I 100% agree.  There are a lot of diferent games without SvsT or WSvsWS, and still they have unique and lore-accurate characters.

12 hours ago, MotherGoose said:

What I really think AoS misses on is point based artefacts/traits/powers. You could easily have a generic vampire lord be what they are currently, then give us the option to add up to 100 points of something. An extra cast, bonus to cast, extra attacks on the charge, more wounds - something at least to make them more fun rather than just the +1 attack ability that just feels like we are playing a card game and placing a +1 attack card down on our turn

That's another thing that I really want to see. I'm not talking about TOW customization, but at least the option to buy (with points) upgrades for characters.

Edited April 25 by Beliman

[Big Kim Woof-Woof]

8 hours ago, Beliman said:

That's another thing that I really want to see. I'm not talking about TOW customization, but at least the option to buy (with points) upgrades for characters.

I remember the first time I got acquainted with the AoS set of rules, one of my immediate thoughts was "oh... so there's no way to get upgrades to heroes at all?" I still think that it's something that's lacking. Like you say, it doesn't have to be on the same level as The Old World.... but some gesture towards it would be nice. Something to make a 'choppy' hero actually choppy. 

[Double Misfire]

EDIT: Whoops, reply intended for the hobby secrets thread. Please don't spread it around! 🫢

Edited April 25 by Double Misfire