Battlefury

Ok folks...let's get to matched play. We can not use our battalions there, but the tribes afaik. What can we do effectively? Talking about participating in an event.

The dictated meta for this edition ( from the very beginning in the twitch stream release ) seemed to be: Heroes & Monders = Meta. Makes sense to me, since they want people to change their armies and therefore buy models = money $$$. Just gonna see how often they will shift the meta this year, I'd suggest 1 time this year and then 3 times per year. So far for the declaration of the obvious. Something productive: Try to play the game via a single house rule and see, what happens: Activate single units in an alternating manner within the battle rounds. Means: Player A starts and chooses a unit to activate and do, what the warscroll & core rules let them do. Then Player B does the same. Repeat, until all units have been activated. After this, do not roll for initiative. The player, who finished the previous turn first ( due to his available activations ) will begin the next turn. Otherwise all core rules apply. Cheers/// Sidenote: I definetly picked the wrong faction for this edition ( potentially a new book changes that...but I doubt it )* *Cries in Blood for the Blood God

These are the army books ( including Khorne mentioned as "Havoc Warrior Disciples" ) Have fun https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15XasmVSfFCASeLysRlyjXdx6qA3WKLlf

I have 8 Khorgoraths to use in my army 😅 For anyone, who wants to use his army properly until we get a potential update, I highly recommend try this: https://onepagerules.com/portfolio/age-of-fantasy/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZhbciIW3Tr4JARHF0VRV081NyTOfgc0I/view

That's actually a cool & funny answer at the same time, ty

How does the army perform in 3.0? Still garbage?

Bringing my non MSU units of 5 or more models into cover will be...difficult.

Just read the rules today and I really think they are often very missleading. 1. Apparently a shooting unit can shoot an enemy, if 1 single model is in range and can see the enemy, right? 2. Those generic abilities to wait and shoot and that retreat one ( forgot the name ) can be use together, as long as you got enough command points, can't you? 3. It seems, that a terrain piece, that has a diameter of 1", but is 19" high is concidered very large terrain, since they didn't clarify wich dimension is meant by measuring the longest available side.

These point changes are bollocks. To be honest, I think our army will be in a bad spot in 3.0. Why? Beacuase it always has been, and look at some of the changes, that already happened.

GW's decision to not bring out new battle tomes to even out the game experience, might lead into further frustration for the old AND the new books. The 3rd edition changes just might blow off all of the books. And better this way, than just to effect SOME books, since that will caus massive frustration within the community and just incite players against each other. But I then remeber it is GW, and I think that this scenario might acutally happen. Ever wondered, what Warhammer Plus will be? I am pretty sure that a subscription via monthly paying will grant those people several advantage and it will increase the FOMO aspect further more. Just speculation, but subscribers could have access to limited miniature productions for "only fans". Just saying...if you don't agree that's ok...but remember we're talking about GW here.

I have hopres, that AoS 3 will fix some issues, as being a power creep approach to use several battalion & unit combinations, wich are concidered more or less broken. The usage of generic battalions for matched play might fix that. And that's really where my interest and hope settles. On the other hand I do not trust the designers anymore. Looking at the battletomes of my armies ( BoK, BoC, NH ) I really don't think they will improve it. Also I see the next issue coming, wich will be new battletomes.... . And therefore possibly again very different power levels of the books. To summarize, I think it is too early to release a new edition. Things should be belanced now and then bring on new rules.

I guess you're right. I am the only one playing the army in my city, therefore some of the players just smile at me, when I say, that I won't play on tournaments since I will not have a chance. That's very frustrating, and in fact it is discouraging to play at all. That's where my point comes from, that I concider AoS to be very unbalanced, since I experience the extreme in an extreme environment, which is tournaments. That's, what shouldn't be in any game.

Completely agree. The entire balance issue is, that the outcome of a game is massively controllabe and predictable via the choice of faction. I would like to define, what balance means for me, so all of you see my point. A game I concider balanced, is a system, that provides a variation of outcomes. Meaning, no matter what I play against, then win rate is DYNAMIC. As long as it stays dynamic in any way, where no clear faction choice leads into more or less LINEAR results, I concider the game to be ok. I see what you mean. In fact I think, the combination of data is the correct way. In a casual scene it is kind of okeyish, when players agree on what they use. Otherwise the probem really is, that the choice of faction determines a big percentage of game outcomes in the casual games, since some army choices provide players with a "always viable" combination of units, no matter what they will use. Other armies do clearly have several trap rules, that prevent them from having the same game experience, and therefore will have a bad game experience. Competetive data only really show the extremes of this trend. That's why we use those data, since they are documented. Casusal games do often not get public documentation. Yeah I know, this froum has some of them, but the agreement to meet before the game, will in fact influence those data massively, and therefore not show the whole picture.

Good advice, will try that. Unfortunately I am the local TO The problem really is, that I can only play casualy, since I will not have a chance versus other armies, if it comes to a competition.

So am I one of those Sorry I maybe got the intention wrong, didn't want to offend you.

If you can pay for that, wich a lot of people can#t and don't want. Also, some armies won't get the power. We never know what GW designes and why. Ther is no certain foresight of an army being powerful.

My community is in the spot, where competetive players claim they are casual, but the lists they bring, are absolutely nasty. I understand, that people don't want to talk about it. But the clubbing of everyone, who went up and told, what he / she is experiencing, is not the way to go. Most of the players here just brand those as idiots, who should shut the **** up and get good. Tried that list, with no sucess. As far as I remember, that lists got stomped by MW output a la couleur. Skarbrand is mostly done in turn 2, since my local meta is completely dominated by shooting and magic. Why my list didn't look like this is, that I just have no motivation anymore in experimenting with all those lists from the past. It began in AoS 1.0, when the bok got nerfed ( Murderhost ), wich was pretty much a very good possibility for competetive play. Now I am to play casual, but even that doesn't work. Getting stomped over and over again. As I told, my meta is dominated by shooting and magic and those armies, that just are very better in melee ( DoT, HoS, Ser, KO, OBR, CoS, SCE ) But thank you for your tip and will to help He bought Nighthaunt with the AoS 2.0 release, because he likes the models ( can absolutely agree, they're just so good ). Mentioned today, that he will not play them anymore, too frustrating. Gonna talk to him today, maybe I can find a way to keep him from leaving the game ( as most of our veteran players did before ). Good point. Could you maybe give me an example for those Anti Meta amries / lists? Maybe via PM. I would like to see and adapt, since my local meta is in desperate need of changes, otherwise I see the community breaking apart. Maybe I can even use those to bring back players, who abandoned AoS for the inconcistent rule design.

Today there was a situation at our local community chat. A player, who is a long term player for like 5 years now, complained about balance issues he is seeing. He brought out some data from honest wargamer, to show what he is meaning ( Seraphon win rate for example ). What happened is, that people came with comments like: "Gonna take another beer and stay silent." "We don't need to discusss, that there are better armies, but throwing numbers in the room...?" "So you mean, that players who wanna win should play Seraphon, because the rest is kind of not that successfull?" "That you need to talk about overpowered armies, I know no combo, army or unit that is op." People even don't want to listen to people, that see a problem in the current situation. Personally, I have enough of people just countering, that there is no problem, because they didn't see it yet. By the way, most of the pople countering his point are playing DoT, IDK, Seraphon, HoS.

Don't worry, they will not perform good, just because the game edition brings changes By the way I play BoK, welcome to the pleasure dome.

I am happy to see, that you're looking forward to this secondary objective mechanic, and I can totally understand, why you do so. Personally, it raises more concern for me, than it raises optimism. It really depends on how thos secondaries are being released. If every army can have the same, then it is fine. But if Battle Tomes come out, where those objectives are written, then it is already screwed. Because, what will happen is, armies having secondaries, and others don't. I would not suggest, that GW would be so stupid to do this, but I was often disappointed. Also, we do have secondaries in the game already. In teh actual GHB there are some to use. But to be honest, they have very little impact to a game.

I see your point. Maybe it could compare several stats ( would be do define, wich that would be ) and translate it into a rating from 0 to 10 maybe, where 10 is the absolute best existing at this moment.

@pnkdthGood questions, I'd like to talk about my opinion a little bit. I think that it ws a mistake to bring all those Soup possibilities. Allies was the first, that gave people significant potential to create broken combos. Mercenaries came in later, but seemed to not make a vast difference. The Sub factions themselves within the Battle Tomes are ok. But to be honest, most of those factions are not interesting to play. I see that most books have that one sub factions in combination with one Battalion and use certain units for that. So I'd suspect it is restricting choice more, than it would give opportunities. Personally, I'd suggest another idea for the creation of sub factions. It could be possible, that different keywords just get different buffs / possibilities in each faction. But each single unit ( or at least the majority ) would have to be within each sub faction. That would change the role / usage of the units in some ways, could change the point cost too. Could be interesting IMO. Otherwise it is better to get rid off every sub faction. Therefore, this one single good faction should just become the army standart, maybe. But bringin more and more possibilities to soup armies, just for the sake of selling books and models, is the wrong way to go. It will be impossible to balance. The more grinds a watch has, the more of a difference a single change will do to all the others.

Could you link the source of your information? I would like to have a look at it too

Hopefully, we will get some content, we need it desperately.

AFAIK it is literally 2 guys writing the books. It is more like this, since the pure warscrolls / stats favor certain play styles and are often very different from army to army. Often I look into a book and see the scrolls and wonder, how they even calculated the point cost. Certainly they use a formula, that will calculate the point cost. But I would really like to see, wich factors are taken into account by this calculation.