Battlefury

I would like to try to formulate my experience into helpful words From what I see, there are a few factors, that will determine, who is winning a game: 1. Individual Matchup 2. Knowledge of the armies, that are on the table 3. Luck ( dice rolling ) 4. Usage of the table in an adequate manner 5. correct usage of the tools, that an army gives the player There might be more, but I wanna focus on these. For my next points I would like to aknowledge you, that my local tournament players absolutely squeeze the best possible potential out of the armies. I am not saying, that they are the best players around, but they are very good at what they do. Within the actual circumstances of the book releases, how they are released, and what the content of the books is, some of the 5 points above are not valid. What still is important is point 1, but different as we might think. Some armies just straight up can not compete with other armies. Just no. An example is BoK, where the army is not only very slow, but therefore has almost no bravery and melee damage to compensate on the speed. BoK versus any shooting: lost. Khorne is most likely to win a matchup vs BoC, maybe Nighthaunt. And that's where a problem is: It became very important, versus wich army someone plays. But it should clearly not be like that. In an ideal balanced game, each army would have about 50% to win, NO MATTER versus wich army they would play. Point 2 is mostly invalidated, toether with point 5. If I got a sword as my tool and I am an absolute sword master, I will not stand any chance against someone, who brings a gun. Yes, i could use terrain & Co. to compensate. But to be honest, I will still not have a chance, but the moment of surprise. But there is no moment of surprise in AoS, since everybody can see the opponent's army. To use the table in an adequate manner is something, that might well make a difference. I managed to bring my little Khorne grunts into a position, where I could charge an enemy. I was so happy that that unit had 100% strength, it was the MIGHTY Blood Warriors versus those little Gobbos. I prepared to go for it, but didn't get the 7" charge. I was still happy, because my chance was still there...and then the moment came: DOUBLE TURN for my opponent and fanatics hidden in that unit. BAM. Bravery. Done. That was just an example, where I hope to show, that the one army had luck on their side, and more and betters tools ( fanatics, buff mechanic of the spear gobbos ). What causes the problem is easy: GW releasing the books of an edition one after the other, rendering older armies kind of useless sometimes. If all armies would be released at the same time ( just an example ), and all of them would be on the average level as every other army, we wouldn't have the problem, since GW wouldn't even have the time to release totally new and broken mechanics at this point ( probably, but I trust GW to make bollocks anyway ). But technically it could fix the issue. I do see the arguments, wich say, that not every army need the same tools like other armies, and that's correct! But their tools will have to be able to compensate on that, and that's what is not happening at the moment. An example ( I would bring my BoK army again, sry for that ) would be, if BoK would be very fast, could make some tweaks on charges, would put out a ton of damage, when in combat. The bravery would have to be very solid for that. But then, the army would be very elite, and therefore have expensive units ( point cost...they are already very of expensive for what they actually can do ), so that could be the weak point maybe. I hope you get my point, just trying to help.

What I am concerned about is a little different, but directly connected to the topic. If GW keeps this course of bringing out stuff for armies, that where thechnically "remade" or introduced ( what ever it is ), it speeds up the need to buy stuff, wich is cool, and very very often also effective in the rules. Most people just can't go into the shop and instantly buy their 2000 points list. So they will make a list of what they want and go for it. But new releases, FAQs and erratas will absolutely distress them. Why? Because they will see, that the other stuff might be outdated, or new stuff just looks cooler. Normally, that happens in the hobby. We will buy new stuff, and that's ok, don't get my point wrong. But the speed this preocess happens, is getting ridiculous.

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.

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.

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.

The example with the Thirster was just an exaguration, but you're right. I absoltely agree on the rest you told.

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.

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.

Sorry, that I had to seperate my post into 2 parts here, but the text wanted to be underlined, after I posted the link, wich I could not get rid off. I would like to start with things, that I watch / observed as a TO ( and I do not play on my own events ) 1: It is likely always the new army, that wins 2: It is very likely always the same list, that wins ( with a few expetions, where armies win, no matter what list they brought ) 3: Players REFUSE to play vs certain armies entirely and drop the game at the very beginning 4: "Veteran" players, who started in Edition 1 of AoS, do not play anymore ( except 1 ) And what is the absolute most important point: 5: Experienced players and I do bet on the winners, just based on the list ( predictions are correct in 9 of 10 events, regarding the top 3 ) What is my conclusion as the organiser? The game balance is outright bad. People do not complain very much, but some players talk to me and share their thoughts. Some of them want to have restrictions on the amount of units ( rule of 3 as an example ). Some want specific factions to be banned. Others want specific lists to be banned. I can't blame the players for what they experience. And now the surpise: It is 100% the same in casual and narrative games. Some armies take their worst units in casual games, but they still win with a big advantage. I played Blades of Khorne since the beginning of AoS, since the very first release. Certainly, I won't need to share my experience here, and why I lost almost every game in the almost 6 years of AoS. But let me tell you, that I invested a lot of money, to keep my army on competetive standards and therefore changed them a lot. I had 7000 points of BoK on my shelf. Do the maths you own, what the army as worth. So what where my feelings, after each chance got errated of FAQ'd? You clearly coulnd't imagine the outrage I had on the game and the battle tomes. After spending the time, work & money on the army, it was just a waste. When you read the interview, you will see some important things, that will answer the question, whether it is balanced, or it will ever be balanced. And the simple answer is: No. Why is that? Because GW uses the Battle Tomes as their very important marketing tool to dictate the meta. Units, that have good warscrolls, will be expensive to a certain point. That's also why their keep rolling in new armies, because they are stronger than those before, and people will keep buying it. And to be honest, there are a lot of people out there, who will complain about the game, but still buy all the stuff from GW. And GW knows that. And even IF a new edition comes ( wich I absolutely doubt ), it will start over again. "Rebalance" = new meta = $$$, that's why there are edition changes. And yes, the game will be more balanced in the beginning. But to be honest, we all know that each edition had their zenith and went absurd after that. Can AoS be balanced? Absolutely. It will not be perfect, wich it doesn't have to be. But there should be a middle ground, that is around a 50% win rate, where each army should gather around on a range of 45% to 55%. And that is possible. But therefore GW would have to playtest, what they do not in they way it has to be. Asking the top 5 players of tournaments for their experience in the event is not playtesting. Having literally 2 guys writing the tomes is not enough. Mr Jervis Johnson is certainly more experienced than Mr Sam Pearson when it comes to rules. You can determine the worth of an army by finding out, who wrote the book. I could go on with facts, why GW will not balance the game, but I guess you understand my points. Make sure to read the interview, it is abolutely worth reading. How could AoS be balanced IMO: 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 ) The situation is metaphorical like: A guy wants tome people to fight. He gives 1 a sword, another got a fork, the 3rd got a spoon and another comes with his toothpick collection. They start to fight each other and recognize, that is absolutely unfair. Until that guy with the gun came to the fight. All armies should at least have tools, that will keep them on a realistic chance to win a game, no matter who they play against. Ever. That's why Warhammer Underworlds is better in a way. It still has power tiers, but the non specific cards give all the factions tool for their warbands. I do not mean, that GW should design AoS like Underworlds, but they shall understand the principle and adapt this to the game. I would like to encourage players, to vote with their wallets and treat GW just like every other manufacturer of miniatures. If you like stuff and the price is worth your attention, go for it. But if it is not either way, just don't. We should really start to redesign the tomes ourselves. At least for those, willing to balance stuff. Thanks to @NinthMusketeer, @Charleston, and all of you, who see the problems in the game, and can reflect them not biased, we can make it better on our own.

I'd like to get into the discussion with ( maybe ) a very different point of view, since I am a TO in my town, wich has 42 active AoS players, where about 20 come to my tournaments on a regular basis. But before I am going into detail, I would please you to read all the 3 parts of this interview: https://www.goonhammer.com/the-goonhammer-interview-with-james-hewitt-part-1-age-of-sigmar-and-40k/

I am afraid to say, that due to my knowledge ( also tournament player and TO in my city ) there is no reliable way to counter certain armies. The choice we have with BoK is either to counter magic, but then we lack battle resilience. The other way is to go for combat itself ( although our army is not good at it ) but then we lack magic counters. Within that we didn't even concider the ranges of our hero abilities, wich are restricting our amry very much. If you bring the popular Thirster / Archaon lists, they will just stay back for 1 turn and then shoot & magic your worthy models, so you will be pretty much done by that moment. AoS has a BIG problem, wich is SHOOTING. And as we know, BoK has basically nothing against that.

I absolutely feel your experience there. I played the army from the beginning of AoS and even then is was not easy to win. But since GW decided to control the meta via rules and therefore adjusts the pricing ( what is better in the rules will cost more ), I skipped totally on playing and sold the stuff. Would there be an example for a list? I am coming back after a long time and have no idea of that possibility.

I am 100% with you I am really thinking of designing an unofficial version of a BT for Khorne. I mean, people could argue and say "what for, you ain't gonna use it on any official events" and that's true. But for friendly games it could be ok for our sake of mental health though.

I like your idea, it would bring a lot of helping feature to the army, as it is a total lackluster in comparioson to other books. What I would like to further change would be base profiles of some units, as most of them are very expensive for what they can do. Increase the movement of most units by +2" ( since speed is our only chance in the curent shooting meta ). Blood Thirster Save should be a 3+. If it would stay at 4+, give him a save after save of 4+. Add rend to units like Skull Reapers, Blood Warriors. Give the units a reliable damage output by changing D3 & D6 to their average value. If anyone would like to redesign the army for inofficial purpose, let me know please!

Came back after several time of not playing the army and as I see, it didn't went for the better. Essentially, I will have to go into the Tyrants list with those 4 BTs, right? Seeing it from a competetive standpoint here, i want to have at least a chance to win. What do you think about it?

Thank you very much! In the gterman warscroll it is defined to "MW per model", and that's a huge difference. Best regards, Ba5terD

Does the Vengeful Skullroot deal D3/D6 MW per model in a unit? Or does it inflict D3/D6 on the unit? Refering to the german warscroll it deals D3/D6 per model. Best regards, Ba5terD

A true bloack colour for the stone itself would probably look unnatural imo. I would recommend you to take a dark grey as a basecoat, then shade it with any black wash and lighten it up again by drybrushing the base colour again, and then with a slightly brighter middle grey tone. I would suggest these: as the Base colour for the 2nd drybrush Why that greenish grey? It already will give you a very very slight gritty and dirty tone to the overall stone. But tbh, you will not see it very much, since the green in the colour is not really dominant at all. After you have achieved the result, you could again slightly wash it with a sepia wash, wich would give it a little dirty tone. And there you could apply a variaty of pigments, for the dirty look. You could also achive a similar result by drybrushing the stone with some brown colours. The very difference would be, that you won't have texture on it this way. With pigments you will gain some texture to the stone. Hope this helps!

Right now I wanted to state th same, but thank you for the reply! We could easily build our own versions of Sayl, use another model that we find fitting ... . Or watch here for an alternative: https://www.thingiverse.com/

Good question. "From the second battle round, if this model is on the battlefield and did not attack in at least one of the combat phases of the previous battle round, when you look up a value on this model’s damage table the model is treated as having suffered 13 wounds." The Warscroll does not specify, that the unit has to be on the battlefield in round 1, but it has to be in round 2. My interpretation: Since the text is stating in 1st place, that "from the second battleround", and in 2nd place "if this model is on the battlefield", that the circumstance being on the battlefield is applied for round 2, not obligatory for round 1. So afaik I would say, that you are right, when you say, that when he comes in in round 2, the ability does apply to the model.

So Sayl changed from "Sayl the Faithless" to "Sayl sucks now". What a shame... . But thanks for the advice.

Just saying, it could be benefitial to use, for being in combat pretty soon. As that sorcerer I would recommend Sayl the Faithless, since he himself can teleport one Chaos unit across the battlefield.

So, been here a long time ago now. How did the Khorne List meta evolve so far for #competetive play? Did anyone find a way around those shooting heavy lists? Like Tzeentch being the new number one with shooting right now... . Also, did anyone think about using an allied sorcerer in combination with the soulscream bridge?

Hey there! A player of my community and a member of my tournaments wants to have confirmation on how many artefacts he can use in his army. As I know, it is 1 genreals ability for his general and one further artefact for any hero. For one more battalion he can use one more artefact per battalion. BUT As I wanted to show him I saw, that it isn't written in his BoK Battletome. there is no restriction mentioned. I then had a look at the basic rules to confirm the rules, but couldn't find it. Now I don't know if that rules is even existing anymore. Could you give me the rules text for this within any of our documents please, so i can show him? Thank you in advance! Cheers///

If I got you right, I would partially agree. BUT I can totally understand him, that the community might, and most likely will be splitted, as more options roll in. Sure, it is nice to have several games to dip in. BUT The prerequisite would be, that the now established players will be willing to pay fot that option to have. Otherwise there will be a distinct number of players wanting to play that version of AoS ( wich i really think it will be ), or the existing ones. Some of those will find it better than the AoS we know, others won't. I guess that's what his concern is. Iagree totally, that this shall not happen frequently, since communities are very integre, BUT that also depends on the community itself. If they are not that integre with each other, it might be a splitting in that community.