Battlefury

That might well be, and it is good to hear that the players are apparently on the same level in your community. I would like that too, but unfortunately it isn't like this over here. Almost 2/3 armies are from Tier a or straight up Tier S here. That's why I claim, that there is a problem within the design of mid tier armies. I's suggest if all armies where somewhere from Tier S to Tier B, it would be much better. But the armies stretch from S Tier to E Tier.

I agree with you completely on this. @PhasteonI meant this in detail. I am literally sitting on a 7000 point Khorne collection, that is worth about 1000€ now. Can't play, because it frustrates me to a degree, that it will ruin a whole day if I do. Shouldn't be like that. Of course I see, that it depends on the local meta. My local meta gives BoK no chance. I had a talk with the top player after one tournament, that I organised. He told me, that BoK must be a good army. I asked him, if he wants to play it on the nxt tournament. I would give him what is needed and he buids the list how he wants to. 100% free decision on what he wants to play. He smiled at me, then laughed and sait: No. Another player went to me and saied: "I feel very sorry for you, for GW f*cking up your army so hard." And, as I told before, another of my top players did play the army, wnet 8 out of 10 and saied, that the army is worse, than he thought. Before, he was one of them telling me, that the army is good and I just have to play different. It is also a problem over here. Same stuff goes on on a daily basis. I am 190% sure, that it shouldn't happen. People shall be free to play what they like and have a good chance to win versus other armies, if caertain list compositions are played.

@Overread100% agree. Couldn't bring that to this wording, thank you for this! That's exactly, what I ( and I guess almost all of us ) mean. I want my 1000€ army be viable, no matter whom I play against.

Did we get any significant change / upgrade or whatever in Broken Realsm yet? Or will we get something? Does anyone know?

At one event I organised, one of my top players wanted to play BoK, since he suspected the same. He told, that it isn't due to the army for sure, so he created a list on his own and I gave him all the models to play, that he wanted. He went to place 8 of 10 and told, that the amr yindeed is bad. How would I explain this then?

Thank you We are 42 people, about 25 of them playing actively in local tournaments. I live in Germany, state of Saxonia in a big city of 500.000 citizen. The Armies, that are played in genral ( not taking tournaments into account ) are absically all, except Beasts of Chaos and Sons of Behemat. So the diversity is really strong here, when it comes to just casual gaming. Most players will have a good variaty of models in their collection. Wich further information do you need?

@NinthMusketeerI didn't get it completely what you do there. But when it helps, I want to try it too. Could you tell me what you do there in detail?

And please, don't get me wrong. I like the hobby and therefore I want it to be as best as it can.

@whispersofbloodI see what you mean, and you brought an important point by figuring out, that only the very best factions have that possibility. And you made the same point, that we do, just in a different wording. The circumstance, that cathegories can evolve is due to the design of an army, and therefore for the Power Level. It is of course normal, that some armies will perform better than others do. In a perfect world, each amy would be on the same tier. But that's most likely not to happen. What we would like to see is the armies being spread from Tier S to Tier B maybe. And not from Tier S to Tier E. That's basically it. We know for a fact, that AoS isn't balanced like this and never was. But there where time, where it was better. And to call that out, we discuss here. You mentioned right, that some units will be productive in certain ways and special tasks, that's true. But what makes the difference is the comparison sometimes. Because then we see, that some units do kind of the same, but the point cost difference doesn't justify that at all. I absolutely agree, and this is where the entire balance issues come from. Some factions just have tools, that others never had and won't have. Wich can be fine, if it doesn't take overhand...but it has taken overhand a lot recently. It is true, and I agree. The issue I see is, that the book then determines, what people should like and what they should buy. And here we go with a thing, that GW does very "good": Controlling the meta by the books and therefore adjusting the sales. I saw it with Khorne very clear. In the first book we had certain effective units. These days, a Thirster, Skullcrushers, cannons and a little more where not benefitial to use, therefore they kept in the shelves. Guess what happened in the new book... . All of those went better in the rules, prices where adjusted in some case. The cannon had a possibility to be buffed from the Wrathmongers, what gave s viable shooting for a good point cost...for 2 weeks...until the buff was errated away. The combination of poor rules writing, external balance ( meaning in comparison t other armies ), the will to make money at all cost in the first place and the lack of admit mistakes makes this game not balanced. To be honest, it will never be balanced. But sometimes people have o get off steam and see, if they are alone with that opinion. The only solution would be 3 options: 1. Wait for your army to get a good book. Wich can take forever. 2. Buy another army. Yeah, if one is willing to spend like 500€ again. 3. Write your own books & rules. I think, that option 3 ist the best here. And maybe...but that's just an illusion I guess...GW will see, that they can not play with their customers.

@whispersofbloodI appreciate your will to help, very kind of you. I see what you mean and be asured, that I do the same while list building as you do. What @azdimymentioned is pretty much the same for me. The point of BoK is, that we need to bring all of your buffs in the perfect order, on the perfect place at the perfect time to the perfect unit. And that's impossible due to the rules written. The buff ranges are so very small, it isn't fun. Other armies do way better, because the rules are designed better. Actuall strategies can be pulled reliable ( of course depending on dice rolls ). That's not athing BoK can do. Thats just being an example and I am grateful you went into that with me. I hope you can see the problem I have with the army, and with other armies too. And that leads to my assumption, that the game suffers of a big balance discrepancy between the armies. I also see, why I would take several units from other books to fullfill my army with them. But what, if I really like the BoK as it is? I would suggest I should be allowed to play this then, and be successful with it as it stands for itself.

The last games I played was in 2019, don't have those lists anymore. The last one I tried in casual with S2D was in 2020. It would be a thing for the BoK discussion, but I can give you the most units, that I used, when I got the worst win rate: 1 Blood Secrator 2 Slaughterpriests 1 Stoker 1 Skull Grinder 3x10 Chaos Warriors as Battle Line 3x5 Skull Reapers 2x5 Skull Crushers 6x10 Reavers ( sometimes ) This is by no means the exact list, but it had those units in it. We should agree, that we will not shift the discussion into a direction, where we discuss lists for a specified army, since it will miss the point. I would say, that just due to the warscrolls most units in BoK are bollocks, except: Skarbrand Khorgorath ( can't be bought in the GW store ) Stoker ( can't be bought in the GW store ) Blood Secrator ( can't be bought in the GW store ) Flesh Hounds Skull Grinder Slaughterpriests The rest is just a bunch of sitting ducks, even if they got buffed. Thing is with this army, that most of the buffs are just wasted due to the pure lack of individual tools, that a unit can use. Same goes for other armies. That's initially why we say, that AoS is not balanced in a great way and it easily could do better. Notice When I first bought my army at AoS release, I went for the rules of cool and wanted only non demon units, since I like the appeal of those. I had to drop my preference when the first book came out. Why? Because forums, rules and experience told me very fast, that mortals are total lacklusters, and are really only good as support. So I am actually one of them, who had to learn the hard way, that rules of cool doesn't work. That was after I spent about 400€ into the army, trying everything I could to make it work. Important I was told in the BoK discussion, that lists with Archaon are the best we can get. Guess what happened to Archaon turn 2. Spoiler: Sniped straight into oblivion by Stormcast Raptors ( those with the longstrike stuff ). Rest of the army was no match for those Evocators. And Stormcasts aren't even that tough in the current meta.

Agree with you absolutely. At my local area people play the following armies: Lumineth Realm Lords Hedonites of Slaanesh Disciples of Tzeentch Flesh Eater Courts Stormcast Eternals Sylvaneth Ossiarch Bonereapers Nurgle Maggotkin Legions of Nagash Orruk Warclans Ogor Mawtribes Cities of Sigmar Fyreslayer Armies, that where played, but fell out the local meta: Nighthaunt Beats of Chaos Blades of Khorne Duardin Goblins Slaves to Darkness Top 5 placements at tournaments until Summer 2020: Disciples of Tzeentch Hedonites of Slaanesh Ossiarch Bonereapers Cities of Sigmar Stormcast Eternals Lumineth didn't quite qualify in a tournament, since we can not do any events atm. But being casually played 1vs1 we all clearly see, that they will be place 1. People in the community agree with that statement.

Absolutely. My Stormcast Army was significantly better, as I have won like half of the games. That army wasn't optimised at all though. The wins with SCE changed, when the new FEC & Slaanesh book dropped. From that on it became a hustle too. The best example would be some lists during the time: Murderhost with Blood Bound Heros to buff them ( first book, before the nerf hammer ), hab my best wins with that, like 7 out of 10. Tyrants of Blood with several Thursters, who could activate after each other, when the destroyed an enemy unit ( old book ). Also used Blood Bound support to buff them. With the new book it also works kind of, but that list is a gamble, no matter what. Win rate was 5 out of 10 in the old book. In the current meta 1 out of 10, due to massive shooting, magic and general movement / bravery / buff shenanigans. Gore Pilgrims almost pure Blood Bound with core units from S2D. Works, but not as good as other armies. Win rate almost not existing due to massive outcome of shooting, magic, buff stacking, etc. What all lists have in common: All Heroes are very easy to kill, core heroes like the Priests are a very easy target with their 5+ save. Due to the rule design it is not benefitial to take more than one secrator. He s not that easy of a target, but he is just one hero with 6W. A lot of trap rules, like Reavers buffs for attacks, cripple the army a lot. Most of the units are kind of useless due to the pure warscrolls and point cost ( Blood Warriors as a 10 men 200 point tarpit unit...that doesn't make any damage in reality for example ). Bravery of 5 to 6 all over the place is just stupid. Demons are a little better, but lack diversity and buff potential, since alsmost none on the non demon units can buff them. Almost not existing viable shooting or range units. Units are not moving fast at all, like just never, except Chaos Knights and Marauder Horsemen. The altar is a trap rule to re roll failed prayers within 6" of it...so the very important priests are more likely to stay there, just to erase the potential of them to shoot themselves away due to failed prayers. Army has no unique allegiance ability, beside the Blood Tithe sheet, wich is totally bollocks for most of the stuff. Rules for that table are ridiculous, as it is emtied when you even use one of the gained points. Summoning is okeyish I would say, but due to the fact, that it also empties when even 1 point is used, so the players basically has to decide for summoning OR abilities.

Because I play since the very release of AoS, I am reading a lot in forums to get movement, placing screening, etc correct. Also, I read a lot through the rules several times, and I am discussing with other people of the community about rule tweaks, that I might have missed. I play via the rules as written in the actual BoK book. Practicing for me meant to take on 2 games a week at minimum versus different players. Often I played versus the same players to find a way to defeat them. Other players also tested several lists of my army to give me tips, but tbh there was nothing new they could tell me, as what I play seems to be the optimum, that can be made out of the army. We play via the rules for matched play. That means, players in a non torunament would bring an army, that they concider to be as good as possible, to see what it can make. Taking Allies is absolutely welcome, and I used S2D to upgrade the army. It is 7000 points of models, that have, or can have access to the the keyword "Khorne". Basically, I have it all, including the Khorne Models that nobody can buy in the shop ( Khorgorath, Secrator & stuff ).

Ok, I see we have a vast difference in the measurement in what is balanced in this discussion. I would like to post a thesis and discuss ONE point of view from this. "I am playing BoK and I can never ever win any game versus any of the armies, no matter what tier they are in. I have played A LOT of different lists, since I own 7000 points of the army. I also played competetive lists, that where suggested in this forums, with no success at all. Therefore I think the game is not balanced enough, to keep my army at a viable point, and I want the game to be fixed to that degree." What would you say?

The game is certainly so popular, because GW maintains the market leading position and therefore a lot of people are playing the game. Adding to this more people who get into it, because their friends play it. A lot of people are also what are called "Fanboys", who defend GW no matter what they do. WHFB was changed to AoS, because it reached a ridiculous level of balance AND the company had to let some of the design license ( Bretonnia, and so on ) go, because they didn't have the rights on it. GW making more money is also due to the price creep, where they subtile increase the prices of several nre products. Anyway I think that a company making money on a product is clearly not a measurement how good the product is.

I see your point and would agree on it partially. The games have never been that balanced. Since noone of us can change stuff anyway, would we maybe create our own books? With that I don't mean to entirely change them, just change, what needs to be changed. Of course I know, that there won't be a 100% balance, and thatÄs not necessary. But it could be better, maybe to bring the armies from basically 5 tier ( A to E ) to 3 tiers, maybe 2.

Why do you think that?

Might well be. But should it be? That's the question we shall agree on. And that's why I ask you to choose, before we discuss further.

Let us dive into a fictive scenario: 2 Friends decide to get into AoS. Both of them have enough money to buy a 2000 points army. Regardless on what they buy, should they have an equal chance to win when playing against each other? For me the answer is a clear: Yes. Is it like that at the moment: No.

Looks like that, yes. BUT, not only looking at competetive games only, the big gap between the best and the worst armies is too big, to justify the "rule of cool" while buying and choosing an army in any way. That will curse the long time game experience for certain people drastically. What would you think? Would it be a good thing if the community just creates inofficial Army Books on their own, just like this one? http://www.mengelminiatures.com/2017/03/the-unofficial-tomb-kings-battletome.html

@stratigoYou post was on point, thank you for this! I have some of those plaers in my community, that will play those armies, because they are strong. It became a very weird mix, of what they do. One time they use the OP army to win, and they know, that they will be within Top 3. If they won though, some palyers say with all honesty, that they will take another army next time, so others will have a chance to place well. Then, after they "generously" gave the others a slight chance they go back to the OP army, because they wanna maintain their place in the Ranking, so they gotta win again. essentially that means, that several players are dependent on the grace of others, if they want to place good, just because they have that one or two armies. Also, sometimes, there are players who wanna buy into a new army. Sometimes I ask them why, and the andswer is: "Did you see what they can do to all those other armies? They will beat the sh*t out of them.". That's the approach, that not a single miniature hobby community wants to see. As a TO, my analysis is pretty monotone, since I can see the Top 3 of each event. I was right in 9 out of 10 predictions. Sometimes even players bet with each other, the bet itself is a meal sometimes. I organize tournaments since the first army books came out, that where not the Battle Tomes with the special abilities. The players played by their Grand Alliance rules and possibilities. I don't want to say, that it was absolutely balanced then, because it wasn't. But is better than it is now. Those days, when someone had a good combo it was still possible for others to tweak and win somehow. The mix of winners and Top 3 was very different then, at least in my local community.

I am sorry @AnarchMage, didn't mean to overread this. But this is a thing. We miss out on a lot of friendly players, who would berich our hobby communities, becasue of the balance niveau.

An example for this outside of LRL would be BoK vs Stormcatst. Both have priests, that can "cast" abilities. The Stormcast one does it successfully on a 3+. The BoK Slaughterpriest does that on a 4+ and if he rolls a 1, he damages himself... . That's already a little strange and not relatable IMO. He deals himself D3 MW then, and has 6W in total. Basically he will eradicate himself with his 100 points value from the boards in potentially 2 times trying to bring absolutely IMPORTANT buffs to his army. Cool design, isn't it? Also, I had a chat with my local GW store manager about growing the community. For about 3 years we only had 2 new players here. The manager told me, that a lot of people come in, buy something they like and don't show up again. I asked, what the last bought. It has been 2 friends, who wanted to play together. One bought FEC with the new Battletome ( pre errata ) , the other bought Nighthaunt. We can already see, why they didn't come back.

I'd like to take on the approach to see the balance point from the other side, as people in discussions should change the point of view to other aspects, to see what those might think. For me that means to lookat it from the narrative sight. In this case I could see, what people mean, when they say the game should not be 100% balanced, as they just wanna have a beer and bretzel experience by rolling some dice and have a talk beside the game. But for me it gets already different, if there is like a narrative campaign, wich should create a story to be told, or written. Because in this case we run into the same issue, as with the competetive sight. If those players would like to have this narrative story kind of diverse, they would absolutely need to have a bigger collection of armies. Because then they could agree on the usage of armies vs another, the usage of wich units and so on. But let's me more realistic here. Most players will have like 1 or 2 armies. And those armies would be built in either 2 ways: Rule of cool, or wich units are effective via the rules. As GW promotes the rule of cool aspect, let's suggest these armies are just built by this way. What is the result then? Same matchups will likely create the same results. Imagine a player, who likes to build a BoC army,, because they look so savage and nifty. The other one built a LRL army, because he liked the original High Elves appeal. Setting up the table could mean a slight difference, but we know, what will happen. BoC will vastly be kicked into the bucket. Maybe those players have more than this army. One of them plays BoK, because those mighty looking berzerkers look so cool. The other one has a Nighthaunt army, because who doesn't like that design of models? Within this matchup it will certainly be a little different than before. There might actually be some more or less diverse outcomes. But what will be absolutely certain is, that LRL ( just an example here, could also be Seraphon, Slaanesh or Tzeentch ) will dominate all of those amries. So the narratiive story would be very very one sided. There was a point, where someone told, that people would need to agree on the units used. But IMO that would completely dump the rule of cool aspect. Players could also go together to the shop and kind of agree on wich armies to buy. but that would need an experienced player, who can help them with that choice, and this player will more likely be a competetive players, who knows the tweaks of armies and the power level of them. Even then, the rule of cool is not present, because technically there is no free choice for the narrative to happen. That's what I am talking about. In the present situation, it doesn't matter if one plays narrative, or competetive anymore. The outcome is kind of the same. If people would now argue, that not every army has those insane power level units, I would like to ask: Really? And even if it is like that, would an agreement change that? Because, what this agreement on usage specified units would make is: Unit choice over rule of cool = Rules over Personal Preference = Chance over Choice And this is the exact issue we have in AoS. What could be done to avoid this? Make some restrictions within the OFFICIAL rules, that would restrict the usage of unit types. I am not saying, that this might fix the issue, but it will give a frame for people to decide on what to buy beforehand. The rule of cool can apply then, but in a certain frame. But this would also only work, if the tools an army has, would be fixed before that, because otherwise, those restrictions will 170% backfire, as a player could possibly not compensate, since he can not take the amount he / she would need to.