NinthMusketeer

It is indeed a massive lie.

Hggg I hate how right you are. Humans are just so shockingly bad at humaning.

I am thinking that there are some concepts that need to be recognized about types of game: -At a tournament, the goal is to win. Short of cheating/bad sportsmanship all of the overpowered models you can fit into a list are totally OK. It is a competition, that is what everyone signed up for. To achieve success one must win. -If a match is practicing for a tournament then again, both players should be bringing the strongest thing they have. Because the goal is to improve skill for the purpose of winning. -This is the point where things become an issue: in a casual game the goal is not to win. It is to have fun. If player A brings a super powered list and crushes player B they may have won, but they also failed in the goal. In this instance they are a failure, because they made the game unfun for the other player. Victory or defeat is irrelevant. This is a very difficult concept for some people to grasp but the more people that do the better off your community will be.

This is a BIG problem I have seen with top-end tourney players; they just don't get how things are different for the vast majority of players who aren't as invested in the game. It is also a problem I have never really understood. At risk of sounding arrogant I am at that level of skill but never had issue understanding when others aren't. But then I have friends who are the same way. Maybe it's just the most oblivious who are the most outspoken?

Happy to help! Can you give me a run-down of your local community? That way I can put it in relative terms. Also which country/state would help.

FWIW in my local community we have cultivated a culture that disregards the normal values where competitiveness is a positive trait and winning is the goal, and suddenly a lot of the balance problems become immaterial. Not only are people not seeking them out, they are actively being avoided because they get in the way of fun games. It isn't a wonder cure that fixes everything as the imbalance of AoS runs far deeper than that but dam does it really, really help. As somewhat of a shameless plug I also run exclusively Path to Glory leagues using my '2nd Edition' Road to Renown ruleset (found in the narrative section). Because it is not matched play and the theme is customizing one's warband people are less looking for what's strong and more towards what they want to use.

Building a strong list is part of player skill just as much as using it.

You're right. From my perspective I have seen what is essentially the same discussion complete with the same fallacious points-counterpoints play out countless times and it grates on me to see it again and again. But they are in reality different people in different discussions and I need to keep that in mind. I was letting a personal peeve affect my tone and I apologize.

By responding to the hyperbole as if it is a real argument one legitimizes it to some extent. If someone posts hyperbolic nonsense just call it out as hyperbolic nonsense and leave it be. Meanwhile, one who counters it as a means of making an argument is basically just a straw man.

Obviously it is always possible to win. You could roll nothing but 6s the entire game, and your opponent nothing but 1s. It's possible. Of course that point adds nothing to the discussion since no one in their right mind means to say it is literally impossible to win a given matchup. The only reason to bring that point up at all is if the game is imbalanced to the point of it being a serious issue. Someone with a valid argument would not want to dilute it with such drivel. Which gets to why I have not really been responding to the the imbalance-defenders, because I have had this discussion enough times to know they are perfectly capable of committing conversational seppuku on their own.

Having the odds stacked heavily against you just due to choice of army sounds rather unreasonable to me.

I think players should absolutely ask that every army have some reasonable means of defeating every other army.

Take everything you like about Broken Realms. Psychic Awakening has none of it.

The rule was never a problem because everyone assumed GW would go out of their way to break the system by giving a model a 1+ save characteristic. And now it has in effect 2+ ignoring rend re-rollable (because yeah, it's gunna be by some means); it is in essence a model that MUST be countered with mortal wounds or cannot reasonably be killed. But even light MW output will obliterate it in short order. It is an extremely poor warscroll design that is almost tailor-made to create unfun experience on the table.

"Q: How does the Rend characteristic of attacks interact with the Bastiladon while it has a 1+ Save characteristic? A: An unmodified save roll of a 1 always fails. When a save roll is modified by the Rend characteristic of an attack, it can never be modified to less than 1. When a model has a Save characteristic of 1+, modified save rolls of 1 are successfully saved. This means, while the Bastiladon has a Save characteristic of 1+, only unmodified save rolls of 1 will inflict damage regardless of the Rend characteristic of the weapon used for the attack." Can you articulate how, exactly, I am demonstrating an inability to read the rules properly?

2+ saves, on the other hand, are exceedingly rare outside of characters and almost always involve cover which is entirely battlefield-dependant. 2+ saves are not the problem. 4+ or 3+ with full rerolls are, because there are line units which can reliably do that and it effectively means armies without MW output are screwed since rend -2 is extremely rare, far more than outright MWs. And the way 1+ saves work is bull.

Units have been doing MWs on hit rolls since the launch of AoS, and armies have been stacking hit penalties since the launch of AoS. What's gotten FAR more common is using doing MWs, whereas stacking hit penalties is as difficult as it ever was. -1 to hit is not crippling (and also does not affect the wound or save roll so dealing MWs on 6s to hit is not a counter) while -2 almost always has a strategic cost to compensate for it. -3 is possible in some cases but is also wildly impractical or extremely niche.

'Most tournament friendly edition' is a very low bar...

The new units seem overcosted in a lot of places, while the stuff that was already the strongest remained so. KoS healing hand being so much better that it would justify a split warscroll to get it's own cost, the ease to summon spamming, daemonette spam being more efficient than almost all other unit options, I could go on. It feels like the new stuff got nerfed to compensate for the strong stuff which is so nonsensical as to a antagonize players further. It's like, remember those game breaking cheese Slaanesh lists? Still around. You want to do something different? Suck daemon nipple we don't support that playstyle.

If only there was some way GW could make single-character clampacks more appealing to the customer! Or at the very least distil their lack of appeal down to a certain metric, a numeric value even. But to be fair, it is $30 for the normal Khemist. So he is a wee bit cheaper.

I read 'played against LRL with Khorne' and literally my first thought was "you poor ******" which I think says quite a lot about the situation you are facing. You may need to resort to a points handicap for the LRL player and/or extra points for yourself. Because there are a lot of ways to slice this matchup and none of them end well for Khorne.

Being largely illiterate they heard "buff characters" instead of "character buffs" 😆

Huh, I really liked Gloomspite exactly because of the main characters. I liked how they did fail, not everything went according to plan. They didn't miraculously put the pieces together; they only saw what they could from their perspective (it is easy for us to see what is happening; we've read the battletome!). And they don't have ridiculous plot armor; because the author establishes halfway through that he is willing to kill off main characters the reader actually doesn't know who is going to make it (if anyone). That alone magnified the suspense for me tremendously. As opposed to something like Realm-Lords where characters have "I AM GOING TO DIE" or "I AM GOING TO LIVE" written on their faces from the onset. Not having a mental sketch of the rest of the plot halfway through is a big draw for me. And it was fun getting a 'victim's perspective' on the Bad Moon without it being restricted to a three-paragraph-sidebar of battletome fluff.

Everyone else gets to use the command abilities from the core rules, from matched play, and from realmscape rules. OBR don't. Everyone else gets to benefit from terrain/scenario/realm rules that benefit CP use, OBR don't. When it would be beneficial for relentless discipline to work like CP, OBR do not get that benefit while every other army does. So yes, it is entirely fair that the inverse would be true as well. I think any Lumineth player who wants eclipse to work against OBR should let their opponent take a spell which doubles the amount of aetherquartz they have to spend to activate their allegiance mechanic. If the Lumineth player is willing to do that then I will say they have fairness in mind. Again, I really get that OBR generated/generate a lot of resentment. But that is something which needs to be kept separate from balancing.

They also increased a number of point costs and faq'd khemists to not stack.