Dead Scribe

This is the primary catalyst for what started the whole conversation at the tournament so your experience is matching mine. The second catalyst comes from our more casual crowd who don't like playing because they feel they have to put a lot of energy into making sure their opponents aren't bringing too strong a list since they don't have tournament lists themselves, and don't want to get blown off the table and don't want to buy new armies after having spent a lot on their current force, which happens to also not be very competitive but were under the illusion that 2000 points would be viable against 2000 points. We had a guy try that over the summer but he gave up a few months into it because people kept bringing tournament lists to his narrative nights and he got tired of arguing with people.

Over the weekend I played in a 32 player tournament ($100 buy in, $2500 first prize) and it was a lot of fun. However the topic on everyone's mind that was discussed the entire time was the balance in the game, and how a lot of people thought it was very very bad. Looking around, it was true that the armies present were mainly the same four or five core builds (I am currently running slaanesh, triple keepers and I can pull about 1500 free points from summoning per game roughly (sometimes less, sometimes more, but it usually averages around 1500) A lot of the players playing are new to wargaming and GW in general, and I myself never played previous fantasy to really have any comparison. A lot of people were complaining that it was hard to recruit people lately because the balance is seen as bad and they go play other games (sometimes ninth age pops up, sometimes kings of war, but mostly its things like star wars legion or malifaux that seem to be where everyone is going to these days though I also note 40k has a huge following despite everyone complaining about its balance) And there's the rub: 40k is hugely popular despite everyone complaining about its balance. So do you think the designers will ever put a serious effort into balancing out the game, or is this pretty much typical and you should just keep adapting with new armies that have strong rules?

Hmmm. And players are using this rule even though its not an actual rule? Weird. I'd be careful with stuff like that and err on the side of what GW provides us. I can see people modeling for advantage or bringing huge buildings to the table if that rule was an actual rule.

What does this mean exactly? I only know that ITC is the unofficial official rules of 40k, I don't know it in depth.

Yes but isn't that what the designers are creating for us in the first place? Its a dice game after all.

To be fair, AOS didn't know what AOS was being sold as for a few years. As time has gone on and the lines gotten a lot more solid, people either love it, or are unhitching their wagon and moving on to other things. It certainly has been a polarizing time regardless.

Everyone is different and has different targets and goals and motivations and requirements for their entertainment. I don't think people are confused or just not getting it if they don't relate to the game in the same way that another does.

I don't think much is pointed correctly but I think thats part of the fun. Finding the things not pointed correctly and then finding the things underpointed more specifically.

Not really because the two games are two different games. We still template our tables off of tournament setups.

It takes a little bit of time to fine tune and hyper optimize the lists to find out that answer. I think we have another month or so to go before we know where he is perfectly optimized.

My friend, I have no ability to balance the game. There are no other game systems that have the same volume of players in tournaments that AOS or 40k do. AOS will always play second-fiddle to 40k, even if 40k was following the design ethos from a few years back simply because in north america the tanks and guns are vastly more popular. So as a tournament player, my choices are to play AOS competitively, or not to play games competitively because I am not interested in the 40k genre. The more balanced fantasy style games out there have next to no tournament community anywhere near me and even at Adepticon have low numbers compared to AOS. As such I choose to take it on the chin and ride the meta because not playing is not a current option for me and to stay on top you have to make sure your army list is the most powerful list you can construct.

I'm not arguing against the game being balanced, I just realize that GW will never balance the game and so if thats the rules, that the game will never be balanced, you play by the rules and stay on top of the imbalance, thats all. People constantly say 40k and AOS is not a good competitive game but then they are ignoring that 40k and AOS events are full at capacity and grow every year and that there are now tournaments for 40k that have $10,000 or more first place prizes. There is a tournament for 40k that has a $10k first prize in Atlanta in December. If it was not a good competitive game that should be driving people away in droves, it certainly isn't working lol. Its only growing as a competitive game. If a good competitive game that was supposed to attract players was a balanced game, then I'd expect to see the kings of wars and 9th ages dominating the tournament scene. Reality is - thats not even close to the reality. Its not a deep game by any stretch of the imagination but I don't think its supposed to be a deep game. Its a probability and statistics game where you maximize your dice probabilities with pretty models.

I don't paint my armies no, I pay to have someone paint my armies.

What I'm reading a lot is people complaining that the game is not balanced and that their armies are getting flattened by the armies that are strong. That problem will be present in tournament play, pick up play, narrative play, or even open play.

I can understand that. The alternative is getting attached to my armies, then when they get nerfed and I am at a disadvantage, I can no longer be viable or competitive, and I don't enjoy myself.

It seems a few of you should probably look into playing a different game, so that you can enjoy your time more.

Its actually not that expensive. I chase the meta, but I don't pour a ton of money into chasing the meta. When I sell my current army I try to do so before it is fully nerfed, thus getting a pretty high sell value out of it. That money does not fully cover buying the new army unless the new army is second-hand, but it covers a good portion of it. The key is not getting attached to anything. You don't play armies you like the look of, you play armies you know are statistically powerful. When it comes time to sell them, you sell them. You don't hang on to them.

Well that makes sense considering a lot of those 3rd party models look pretty good and are a fraction of the cost. The guys around here tell me thats why no one ever bought new warhammer models, they would just get them on ebay or buy stand ins that looked pretty good but were 1/4 of the price. Especially if they are playing competitively and have to buy new armies regularly.

Very little of GW's terrain kits block line of sight fully. You'd need to construct your own terrain in a lot of cases to do that, and your ability to successfully implement that will depend on your group. In my group, scratch built terrain to block line of sight is the same as modeling for advantage and would not be allowed. If its not a GW kit, its frowned upon.

The gotchas do exist yes but I have found that people don't mind the gotchas being on warscrolls as much as they mind feeling that they have to read a 200 page rulebook and not memorizing it and having those gotchas hit them in the game.

You should never put him on the 40mm because it lets more attacks hit him.

I still think AOS should remain the bastion of simple rules, shallow depth, but is fun because its all about dice management and maximizing your odds. Thats really where it appeals most and I think from a business standpoint you will get the most people involved. Otherwise the more complex and deeper the game, the more gotchas exist and the game turns into a rules mastery exercise where you win games simply because you know the rules better than the other person, which I have found to be a killer of enthusiasm. There are other games on the market that are deeper. If you want a deeper game, there is Kings of War and 9th Age for fantasy, or Bolt Action and what have you for shooty shooty modern or sci fi people. I think that there is a reason why 40k and AOS have so many players, and its because things are intentionally kept shallow.

I don't think that the aos community really wants or is ready for complex rules like those that let you flee from charges like in whfb.

Time will tell. They'd also have to totally revamp the warscroll because chaos knights right now are very very weak.

Lets just say with the culling of older kits that I expect a newer, more cartoon-friendly version of chaos warriors that are bigger and beefier. Hopefully without the god-awful grin lol. Chaos knights I don't see sticking around. Almost anything on a standard horse seems to be gotten rid of. I'd expect chaos knights to be removed entirely and the varanguard are their replacement.