Phasteon

3+ for MWs would be totally fine and in line wirh his 3+ base save. Between this and the Mortal Wound output reduction 700 are ok.

More reasonable, although a 3+ wound shrug is really not fun to play against, 66% of all damage you deal is simply ignored. Make it a 5+ which still effectively puts him on 36 wounds with a 3+ save and its fine. Edit: That being said I really like the attempt and the rule names you created! Take everything i wrote from a „matched play“ perspective, if you want him to be broken thats totally fine as you will only play him in narrative play anyway.

He basically oneshots them on a 2+ (or at least almost), the Mws you gave him also needs to be reduced to D6, degrading to a single MW at lowest bracket. Tbf i would never ever play against that Warscroll because you would basically on a 2+ destroy my whole 2k points army. At this point, without any changes Smaug should be 2500 Points alone so I can bring a whole 2500 Points army and try to bring him down. (Which would probably still fail)

24 wounds with a 3+ ignore means you need like 72 damage to kill it. With a 3+ Save. This defense alone should make him like 1200 points because he is essentially not going to die. For 700 points you either need to cut his wounds in half (12-14) and/or change this ability to reduce damage by 1 (min 1) and make it a 4+ against MWs (or 5+ against wounds/mortals) As it stands now he is WAY to tanky to fit into a 2k game that easily.

Why would they get rid of the battalions? I wouldnt be mad about it though. And yes, I would never ever play a Runemaster as he is just a Runesmiter in very very bad. For the same cost I can get a useful prayer AND the ability to deepstrike a unit. On the other hand, his uselessness makes him excellent at babysitting the forge.

3 Arch-Regents and a Courtier as the general make my soul hurt. Also all time favorite: <random army list with god model leader> Some random Support Hero as General because HE is allowed to get a trait. Pls GW, make it so that unique Heroes get fixed traits they get when they are the general as in 40k, you can even write them on their Warscroll and say „If this model is your general“. But then again, that would not solve the problem really, people will always care more about better rules than lore. Can‘t even blame them in a game. As @wayniac said before - its in the rules so its allowed.

I don‘t like that kind of complexity, its also the major thing I dislike about 40k (although I really like the game in general). S vs T. When you have a full S3-7 army you are gonna have a bad time against a full T8 army (Knights for example) and if you got too many low volume shots to deal with high toughness, you are gonna have problems against those hordes. What I love about AoS is that the numbers work out as they do. Toughness of an army is generally measured in a wounds per point ratio and so is damage. Buffs and Debuffs can then shift the balance between those. For me its very engaging list / army building, knowing that my -1 rend 2 damage weapons will ALWAYS be good/ hit hard, whereas in 40k I always feel like I‘m lacking some punch/ defences against certain things, which is a bummer more often than not as it leads to me not playing the list I 100% want to play because I need to fulfil certain numver values or I cant compete against certain armies. Sure, the same thing can be said about AoS, but I think that most AoS armies are very forgiving in the „take what you like, even if its not optimal“ department. All in all MWs are a good mechanic in both systems - although they are far more restrictive in 40k than in AoS - but also more powerful in 40k, where normal damage doesnt spill over and invuln/high saves are a very common thing. But then again, in a game where most units delete each other in 1-2 rounds of combat, dealing 20+ mortal wounds is not any worse than dealing twice the amount of „regular“ wounds. I‘m still looking forward to my first game against the feared Lumineth and their Sentinels, but I actually don‘t think their MW output is that NPE as people claim.

subjective quality* It‘s your opinion, objectively the quality is very high, because there is quite some good work involved.

Just out of curiosity, what NH stuff did you buy for your 1k points, how many games did you play and against which armies did you play?

I‘d really like to elaborate on that and argue why I think Fyreslayers are a really good example for a balanced army (and why they are doing so well competitively) 1. The army works very well thematically and gameplay wise. They are very hero dependend but as long as you are within your bubbles your army just hurts. Pro: One of the strongest close combat with some very good staying power Con: Once Heroes die the army falls apart in 1-2 rounds of combat Thats a very straight forward playstyle and wouldnt it be for Auric HG (Bodyguards) the army would probably underperform. But between the Heroes, Vulkites as cheap bodies (7p per wound) HGB and Aurics everything has its place in a competitive list. 2. Thats why the army works so well. You basically have 2 close combat units, Heroes and a Bodyguard unit. Thats it. Its almost impossible to not build a strong army (even if you go full Magmadroths / Aurics it could work in a Lofnir list). Now another great example for a balanced army that does often not perform that well. Stormcast Eternals. This army literally got everything. Close combat, Ranged combat, Casters, Priests, Shenanigans (teleport, reserves, very fast movement) you name it. On top of that you got the biggest Hero Roster to choose from. Its basically Battletome: Synergies. And thats why the army often does not perform that well. You have so many choices and so many tools that you will always need to leave some home. While Fyreslayers have one of the strongest melees in the game and all tools to get them where they need to be Stormcast Eternals have everything but neither the strongest melee, nor shooting or magic. They excel in versatility and „tailoring“ potential. But due to how synergies in AoS work and how mandatory they are to win a game you cant build a SCE army that does more than one thing really well. You have to build around 1-2 strenghts and put everything into it and you will still be outmatched if you face someone that does just one of those things, because he will probably do it better. I could have just said „Jack of all trades, master of none“ but that just sums it up in a phrase without ppl realizing that thats actually good balance. You can do many things = you will lose against specialists You can do just one thing = you will lose against counter There is no army that does nothing well. Even Sylvaneth can ****** slow armies with backdooring Tree Revenants or shooty armies without fly with their wyldwoods. Sylvaneth might not have the best tools that are needed to win against the #1 list at the moment, but there are match ups where those rules just murder the enemies plan. And I admit, I AM afraid of what would happen if GW would listen to those people and their points why balance is flawed and would actually make it that every army beats every other army 50% of the time. Basicall AOS 0.5 again, where all units had the same profiles, the same rules and where pure dice luck decided who wins. And who has the bigger mustache of course.

I‘m playing Vostarg, so wasnt even fighting first ☝🏻😄. But yeah, there totally should be a unit like this in an army consisting of otherwise Heroes, bodyguard and cheap battleline. This army NEED an „overpowered“ close combat unit to function. Imagine HGB would not have a 4++ - what other threat would Fyreslayers have? You totally got it right. When facing the most menacing close combat unit in the game you dont charge it but use every tool you have to avoid it and get the rest. Without 300+ points of Hero support and a 150 points battalion that unit doesnt even do that much. Its just about the willingness of accepting that the own close combat unit is probably doomed if facing the fully buffed HGB and many players cant handle it with their ego.

I encountered the same thing in many gaming groups, but to be fair - more often than not that one guy bringing the top list tends to be the only „competitive“ player in that group - thats why people are losing to his netlist. When I build a new army I buy and build what I think is the best. Sure I‘ll do some reading on what other people think is best, if it matches my perception - nice - if it doesnt and its just about an artifact or a battalion I consider changing it. But I‘d never do a 180 just because the internet says List X is the absolute best. That being said I rarely get stomped by some random netlist because I‘m prepared. Most people I watched getting stomped by those netlists were players that dont even know their own rules most of the time... When Fyreslayers got their new tome I did exactly that. Looked what was good, fielded it and got my rules 100%. Played against a Stormcast Player who charged my fully buffed Hearthguard with his 10 Evocators without even asking what the Hearthguard is capable of. After losing 1 Model to his attacks (2+ save rr) and wiping his whole squad (-2 rend rune + 2x pile in and fight) he raged about how op that tome was and that he will bring 20 Evocators next time to defeat that unit. 1) that was just a moment of frustration and I realize (also i warned him about taking the turn and charging in but he went for it anyway 2) Thats where my experience about „bad balance“ discussions comes from. Its mostly people not knowing something, losing to stuff because they arent prepared and then directly blame the balance instead of thinking how to overcome.

I don‘t know what tournament statistics have to do with „balance“ of the game. The tournament statistics we get just show absolute data about win %. It does not show WHY the army won (better player, favorable mission, decisive double turn?) and it does not show against which armies it won. Rock Paper Scissors will always exist aka Kroaknado is very strong against elite armies where those mortal wounds can bring down all the important stuff, but against armies with lots of wounds and/or mortal wound saves it just falls off hard. Are those high wound / MW save armies played though, or are they the rock to Kroaks scissors in a „meta“ where mostly paper is played? You guys are discussing about so called „facts“ nobody 100% understands, coming to the conclusion that game balance is flawed because there are 3–4 armies (more likely lists) that perform above the curve at the moment. The meta is a self–fulfilling prophecy, where a „strong“ list is mathed out by the internet as „the army to beat“ and everyone and their mom just brings exactly that list or tries to counter it. If you really want to win a game you have to focus on list building. Thats how its always been and always will be. And thats fine. If you could bring whatever you want and have a realistic chance of winning against everything why even bother with points and matched play? My point is that you absolutely can win against every list / army out there. Even with Blades of Khorne, Beasts of Chaos, Sylvaneth against [insert op army of the month]. But if your list gets countered by the mechanics of the other list, win chances might be low. And even if you have a 50 / 50 win chance, it still can be that you lose 10 out of 10. Thats no indication for bad balance, thats just how games work. I also have like a 90% winrate against Khorne, but I never got the feeling the games were easy or auto win. Actually I felt outmatched a lot of the time and got the feeling that it came down to decisive dice rolls most of the time. Anyway, we can absolutely discuss balance for ages, in the end GW either will change up things fundamentally or they wont. This discussion has no impact on the game – its just an opportunity for frustrated players to blow some steam ;–) Its fun though, thats what forums are for, no? Stay healthy and enjoy the games you are able to play, cheers!

I take run + charge (also rerolling both) over a 6+ shrug anytime for +10 points.

I played in like 10-11 different gaming groups and it was pretty much the same everywhere. Also played against every army there is. So in my personal experience in a „casual“ even „competitive“ local gaming group the game is pretty well balanced.

Because thats a general „competitive scene issue“ rather than a GW specific issue. I run my Fyreslayers as Vostarg with Magmadroths from the beginning and never had any unsolvable problems, although everyone and their mother claims Hermdar is the only way to go. I just dont play at tournaments, thats about it.

I want the same thing as you, I just think GW does a good job at creating just that situation, while others claim GW doesnt. And there is no real data that shows either point.

Nah you are absolutely right and the whole „GW balance is flawed“ - train people happily jump on is just hyperbole. Most people who complain are those that lose a lot. Instead of trying to improve or adapt to the game they want the game to adapt to them and they openly admit it! They literally write things like „I want to play the army i want the way I want and still be able to win against everyone!“ Its like me saying „I want to play for FC Chelsea as a goalkeeper but I also want to score a lot of goals - but all those other players are just OP and unbalanced because their skills (rules/stats) are just so much better than mine!!“ Demanding that Fifa makes it so every amateur soccer player can play at every position in every league and still be able to win. See how ridiculous this example sounds?

He said army but you are always bringing a list. And a 2000 points list will always have some theme (aka rock paper scissors) in it, you will never bring everything your battltome has to offer in a single list. So my point stands.

I disagree, your list should not be viable no matter who you face. If you play a OBR army with 4 Mortek Crawlers your damage should be nullified against an army with high rerollable saves because you heavily invested into low rend shooting which would OBLITERATE low save armies. Just because you spend 240€ on those catapults should not make them good against EVERYTHING. Same goes for every other army concept. Your army is viable in a sense that you can still move, roll dice, hold objectives and theoretically win - how easy or hard it will be should always depend on the „tools“ you equipped yourself with compared to the tools your opponent brings.

How can an opinion completely based on subjective experience be „wrong“ ? Are you telling me that the things I encountered are a lie or sth? Get your ****** together man, just because its the internet you dont have to act like you are Mr. Big Brain. Also, its cool that you seem to know that your superior skill and knowledge of the game leads to you only winning or losing because of rock, paper, scissors but allow me to just call bs on that and say that you probably dont 100% know why you win or lose and your and your opponents skill plays a role in this. Anyway, you are pretty fun - i won‘t argue with you anymore but I will still keep on reading your posts, because they kind of amuse me. Keep on fighting the good fight lol.

So I‘m denying a bitter truth because I‘m afraid that changes could impact me or my army negatively when I‘m saying „Balance is not a general issue in AoS“ ? Like thats my honest opinion. I think the people who cry the loudest are actually those who open threads about balance issues because they play army X and want to win games but tend to lose alot, hence they call other armies except their own OP. Thats my experience. I think „overbalancing“ a game makes it feel bland in the end, because you always need to make sure that all numbers even out in the end, which makes experimental, hard to calculate rules (aka random results) pretty impossible to implement. You can strive for balance in a game like WoW or LoL, because those are purely numbers based, but in a dice game, where success or failure is decided by a random D6 roll, you cant possibly account for every % of outcome. Just let the game flow, let new armies/rules be created and be competitive about it in the sense that every mechanic has a work around, sometimes its just difficult or counter intuitive, but if you really want to win you can with every army. And if not, who gives a ******? In the end its a GAME - Tournament winners are no international Heroes or sth, nobody really cares in the end who wins or doesnt win a tournament. I rather have a game where my army feels strong against some armies and weak against other armies, where my units are defined by individual rules than a game where I have a 50% winrate all the time because all the numbers always work out the same. Thats just boring for me. Just my opinion on the matter.

thx for the insight, i am 100% honest now: 1. I really like your list! The Karkadrak Lord, the Knights, pretty cool theme. 2. You 100% lost cuz of the list 3. I would probably 100% win with my OBR as well, not even playing a „tournament list“ Your list has some really cool models but no win condition imo. Everything that can handle 6 Skullcrushers (which sadly is pretty much everything) can handle your list np, and you on top of that lack bodies to hold objectives. In this case LRL with Teclis just outclass this list by galaxies as you play like a decent „fun list“ against „the hottest ****** right now“

What exact lists did both of you bring (if you recall)? Sounds like the generic Teclis, Sentinels Syar list LRL tend to bring, which is probably the most competitive thing LRL can bring. Just want to know how strong your Khorne list was in comparison.

Is it really that bad though? My worst games were Tomb Kings back in 8th Ed Fantasy. The army felt so weak and slow, to a point where I almost always lost if the dice weren‘t completely in my favor. Then again, I just played what I liked and just owned what I liked at that time. I never changed the list, I never tried something different, I never used Characters like Settra or Arkhan to try some different builds. I had 4 Chariots, so I also never utilized this units full potential. No catapults, not enough archers. Always the same 40 Skeletons, 40 Tomb Guard with King and some support stuff like a Sphinx and a squad of 3 Snakes. Also I was a poor young student, so just buying into a „competitive“ list was no option at that time. I bet if I tried different styles of list I would have had more fun and also more success. I think too many people in the hobby buy into an army they like but end up pretty much fielding the same models over and over again, often without a real gameplan. eg: 3 Chariots without support = expensive chaff 9 Chariots with Heroes and buffs = something the enemy needs to deal with. If hes able to or not is a different story, but if you dont commit into something you are not playing into your armies potential strengths. Another example: Such a day and night difference! OBR Mortek Guard. Just a block of 20 vs 40 with Harvester. One game they just got wiped by Archaon in one round of combat, the other game they completely annihilated him without any notable losses and controlled the center of the board, winning me the game. Maybe next time he brings Be‘lakor and blocks them for a round or has something that can destroy them in one round of combat again - but I commited into a huge deathstar that is winning me games at the moment. Long story short: Imo a game is not only balanced if you can put on the table whatever you like and win by rolling better. A game is balanced if you can make armies work with the right concept, gameplan and dice rolls. And thats imo definately the case. If you are going for „fun lists“ you basically throw away the most important part of the game. Regarding rules. And thats ok. But calling GW out for bad rules / game design because your favorite list cant beat list A or even army B in general, because you have no way to deal with their special trick isn‘t the right way either. Also not very objective because if A list could deal with all other lists and armies it would be pretty imbalanced, wouldnt it?