[Smaug in AoS]

12 minutes ago, Shadowcortax said:

what about making it a 4+ or leaving it a 3+ but only for MWs?

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.

[Smaug in AoS]

16 minutes ago, Shadowcortax said:

is this better for 1200 points?

 

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. 

 

[Smaug in AoS]

1 minute ago, Shadowcortax said:

For 1200 points he would be the same as VORGAROTH THE SCARRED &
SKALOK THE SKULL HOST OF KHORNE. How would he fair against him?

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) 

[Smaug in AoS]

1 hour ago, Shadowcortax said:

So a friend of mine and I decided to try to make a warscroll for Smaug in AoS because, well.... BIG DRAGON. (and the model looks awesome)

so here is the warscroll, we were thinking 700 pts. any suggestions? balanced or needs work?

 

smaug-the-magnificent.pdf 1.07 MB · 0 downloads

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. 

[AoS 2 - Fyreslayers Discussion]

On 4/30/2021 at 4:07 AM, Clan's Cynic said:

Assuming that Battalions go away and Lords of the Lodge is thrown into the bin with it, do you see lists changing very much?

There'd be less incentive to take Runemasters over Runesmiters since although they weren't bad, the Smiter was generally more useful for the same cost.

Beyond that I imagine it'll depend on if the points cost of Hearthguard goes up in the inevitable launch-day GHB.

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. 

 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

3 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:

Case in point: multiple Auric Runefathers or Abhorrent Archregents in the same list, when the lore outright states there’s only ever 1 at a time

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. 

[Are Mortal Wounds a good mechanic?]

19 hours ago, Yoid said:

I admit it was a poor example the cannonbal one. Im sure there will be other weapons that one say "should kill a mounted horseman" but also "Should not kill multiple models". In fact a rule for this already exist in the system, and is in the Fiends of Slaanesh stinger. It deal 1 damage to 1 wound targets, D3 damage to 2-3 wounds targets, and D6 damage to 4+ wounds targets. Fiends are often look as a bad unit because it is design to underperform vs most enemies and only sligthly overperform vs 4+ wounds enemies (wich are quite rare), but that rule is actually a good fundation to develop better battlefield roles for the armies in the future.

For the cannonbal example, you can make something like: It have 3 attacks, so it can kill up to 3 models, but it got a damage value of 1 vs 1 wound enemies, 2 vs 2 wound enemies, 3 vs 3 wounds enemies, and 4 vs 4+ wounds enemies. Suddenly this artillery piece got a clear battlefield rol that differentiate it from a catapult, wich may get a number of attacks equal to the number of models in the target unit to a cap of 15 or something like that, making it an anti-horde artillery piece. And both may have -5 rend (or deal the damage in the form of mortal wounds if you please). But both this designs don't simply fall into the "more-more damage" rule. Wasting the cannonbal in a horde would be bad, and wasting the catapult in a multi-wound elite unit would be awful, so you still want both in your artillery-like list. The enemy then can do the tactical choice of going and destroy whichever is better agaisnt the mayority of his army in general (Gloomspite Gitz launching an all-out attack into the catapult, or Stormcast going quickly to dismantle the cannon).

If the monsters and artillery got a proper high rend and focus on anti-horde or anti-elite, the knights-elites got a proper low attacks with medium rend, and the light-infantry got a proper high attacks but low rend, then this kind of choices become relevant over all armies and all situations, and make the game more believable and more tactical, probably more fun and engaging. I would be fine with all armies having access to an specialist that deal mortal wounds in the form of magic damage just to counter ethereal, and that is probably wizards and priests already.

Having too much wards saves is becoming a problem too. Because you dont have a unit archetype that is good vs wards saves. They need to be toned down too or the tools to counter it must exist. The counterargument of "then some anvils become too squishy" is not valid because then you buff the wounds/armor/point-per-model of these units to compensate, and depending on what you have choosen to buff this units become stronger vs certain enemies but weaker vs others (again the value of attacks/rend/damage making the game more tactical and rich). Then when anvils are not simply "more-more tankiness" you start wanting different anvils for different purposes and your list become more varied, how you move your troops to face agaisnt certain unit types become more relevant.

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

3 hours ago, Galas said:

Probably deluding was too strong of a word. I apologize for using it, english is not my first lenguage.

 

For me AoS was like the Warcraft movie. A guilty pleasure. I love the warcraft movie, I'm a warcraft fanboy for life (even if in years past, blizzard has lost me). But the movie was, at best, a high 5, but not even a 6.

One can absolutely enjoy Age of Sigmar. I did. And theres nothing wrong with that. But the objetive quality of the game is very low. Specially as it is right now.

subjective quality* 

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

 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

1 hour ago, relic456 said:

Just to throw my perspective in to the mix. I'm a competitivly minded person who started AoS in 2.0 and chose Nighthaunt as my army due to some favorable early tournament results. I also clearly overvalued an army that has all fly and ignore rend, but that's my fault. I bought a 1k point army but haven't bought any other WH product since, and it's entirely due to the games lack of balance. Even in kind terms, NH is not a competitive army, and it stings to look at my models and realize they were a waste of time and money. I'm not sure how to make the problem better, but knowing that NH had an extremely low chance of 4-1'ing a tournament (5-0'ing being borderline impossible) stopped any investment I could make in the game going forward.

Thankfully, TTS exists now and I can play with my friends and others using any model or list I choose without monetary investment. This makes the game significantly more enjoyable because even if I take a risk on a unique list, I have nothing to lose. I have a hard time imagining going back to tabletop even post COVID because of all of the advantages of TTS. However, is that what GW wants for its players? Im no economics expert but I would think they would prefer to have my money instead.

Why do I bring these points up? To underscore the emotional side of the balance discussion and how it might impact new players. It's an awful experience to slowly realize that the army you chose cannot hang competitively. It calls in to question the time and money you were previously willing to invest in this hobby. And player skill is irrelevant in this point, I have no illusions about becoming the greatest player in the world, but if the top minds in the game can't make Nighthaunt work (or BoC, or Sylvaneth), then what hope do I have? Why should I invest my time in to this army?

I truly believe the goal should be that each army has at least one competitively viable list. I would take an IDK situation over the NH situation any day.

Further, and potentially an aside, I take issue with the fact that so many armies have "trap" choices. Models that would never see competitive play without significant changes. Though I guess that's by design, since some entire armies don't see competitive play. It would be interesting to compare the % of an army with trap models and the win rate of that army's lists. 

A little ramble-y but hopefully you get the gist.

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?

[Discussing balance in AoS]

2 hours ago, Phasteon said:

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‘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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

21 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I get what you're saying, and you're 100% right that the SC player made a poor play due to not understanding the conflict and didn't seem to learn from it. But on the other hand, maybe the discussion of balance could also be framed as "regardless of player skill, is it okay for a unit to have a 2+rr/4++ save, strike first, with a double pile in, -2 rend and 2 damage?" 

Some would argue yes, because you can avoid and screen the unit. They're slow and can't fly, and the rune is only one round.

Others would argue no, because while you can get around them, the fact that the only way to deal with the unit is by doing everything in your power to not engage the unit suggests there's an issue. 

If we take a ridiculous example of a model with 1000 attacks, 1/1/-6/100, a 1+ save and 2++ ward, costs 300 pts, but only 1" movement, no teleport, no fly, and no run and charge, we can look at this in a vacuum. I use this silly exaggeration as it very clearly shows the 'super powerful if left to have free reign but weak when dealt with correctly' in an inarguable form, and so there's no extras (like calling out a specific model that may have other rules I'm not aware of, or any feelings attached to it). In the case of this model, either the opponent will know how to deal with it and screen or zone the model into uselessness, killing tiny amounts of points in the game, or the opponent won't know how to deal with it and will lose a lot as soon as the model gets a charge off. Ignoring the terrible design, would you consider it balanced? It will beat anything in a fight, but nearly any opponent (sorry SoB) will be able to stop it charging so it'd be a waste of 300 pts against a good opponent. 

I think it's this sort of rocket tag that invokes discussions of balance. It's not that some units can't be played around, it's if they're not played around or a mistake is made, you take heavy losses and possibly lose the game if the mistake was big enough. On top of that, many armies don't have the capability to provide this threat in return, and so the opponent needs to be less defensive. In the case of SC vs FS, I can't imagine fully buffed Hearthgaurd have anything to fear from a SC unit and so for them the tactic is keeping within buffs and picking the best target.  

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

1 hour ago, wayniac said:

Not always.  It has been proven time and time again that what happens at the top tables will trickle down to the lower tables, and eventually to the casual ones as well.  People see X army is winning, and will play that army.  They hear "all these units suck, only these three are good and you should spam them" and they do it.  In a casual environment all it takes is one guy showing up to the game night with some top tier netlist and crushing someone playing a casual list, and the entire scene can be turned on its head nearly overnight to nothing but comp netlists as people scramble to play "good" armies so its not them getting curbstomped (this is not a joke I have literally seen this happen several times over the years).  It's not just a top table problem, it can and does affect the entire game due to the monkey see, monkey do attitude that comes from trying to make games competitive.

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

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! 

[AoS 2 - Fyreslayers Discussion]

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

 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

1 minute ago, azdimy said:

If you don t play in tournaments, I wonder how much exposure you really have to other armies and army builds? Your games may be balanced because of the list you play against within you local group but this does not show the big picture which looking at tournament data does and when warhammer weekly can show that the top armies (lrl,idk,seraphon ,tzeentch,dok) have a 70% win rate against any other armies from the tournament data removing the top 25% finishers of the events, we have a real balance issuep

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

How on earth can you think they do that when even the good armies tend to have only one single way to play if you want them to be good?  Does that not clearly indicate an issue?

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

8 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

That isn't true. Some of us simply want this game to become as good as possible, which involves not having easy opponents just because they wanted to start the wrong army, i.e. we want competition and fair play. Sort of like those who stood against ESL because they didn't want a special group people to have an unfair advantage and some having to compete over scraps. The latter part is especially relevant to this discussion.

As for the rest of your post, even the guy you claim believe this has already clarified he doesn't. Yeah, we agree with you. You shouldn't be able to take whatever in whatever combo with no thought behind it. Misunderstanding someone's point is not the end of the world. Let's move on, shall we?

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.

[Discussing balance in AoS]

8 minutes ago, Maogrim said:

Though, to be fair, from what I've gathered there seem to be quite a lot of armies that are considered S or A tier. Far more than those that are always fighting uphill battles. For me personally it's just a shame that Sylvaneth fall into the latter category.

Please correct me if I've got this wrong. 

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? 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

53 minutes ago, Overread said:

Aye, but Battlefury didn't say list, he said army, which is a key difference.

Sure if someone builds a really poor list or skews it to a specific theme very heavily they might find that they have a hard time winning or that they have an easier time against some armies but much harder against others. However a well built list should work and most armies should have within them the capacity to have several well built lists.

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.

[Discussing balance in AoS]

25 minutes ago, Battlefury said:

@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.

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.

[Discussing balance in AoS]

47 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

blub..

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

12 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

What I find super interesting is how whenever there is a discussion about systemic issue, the loudest people tend to be those that insist that "there is no problem"/"problem is not as bad as it is claimed"/"it is all your fault anyway" as if their lives depend on it.

Which is kind of odd, given that, in this particular example, there are two possible outcomes:

1. Balance gets fixed

2. Balance does not get fixed.

Why are the people who claim that balance has little impact so invested into shouting down anyone who asks for 1.? Will something change for you if 2. happened, @whispersofblood? If you do not think that balance is important, why participate in this conversation at all?

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

2 hours ago, Sharklone said:

ahh i dont recall his list exaclty but it was Teclis, cathalar, and then archers and spears in the first game. He swapped out a unit of archers for horses in the second.

I ran - 
Chaos lord on Karkadrak
Bloodsecrator
Priest
Priest

Blood warriors x5

Blood warriors x5

Reavers x 10

5x chaos knights

6x skullcrushers

5x skullreapers

5x skullreapers

5x wrathmongers

gore pilgims

Skulls

 

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“ 

 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

25 minutes ago, Sharklone said:

Was looking for a Balance thread and found one!

I played a game against LRL with my mortal Khorne list. And I fully understand that some armies counter other armies. That's fine. But LRL didn't just counter me. There was literally nothing I could have done to make the game any more competitive, except not run Khorne.

Teclis had the portals and Searing white light + archers kill my secrator, both slaughterpriests and my general before I had a turn. Lost models from nearly every unit due to bravery, not being able to use CP and being -2 bravery board wide. Thought thats fine Ill play the objective game knowing lumineth need to stay somewhat castled and his whole front ranks are -1 to hit and I cant afford to be losing any more models in combat cause they will just run in bravery. Didnt matter, essentially lost by turn 2.

Reracked. Tried again, my opponent gave me first turn to try see if there was anything else to do. Same result, just took an extra turn because I was able to spread out slightly and not cop the full searing white light. The archers still killed the secrator and a slaughterpriest turn 1 (couldnt hide them)  Highlight of this game was bravery chick making 5 of my skullcrushers run away after they managed to kill 8 dawn riders who had charged them, by teleporting the cathalar to where the dawnriders were gonna be in the hero phase. Im just happy rolling dice and drinking beers and stuff and dont mind a good flogging if its dice or something I did wrong, but this was neither of those. Even my opponent agreed that there wasnt anything significant that I could have done different.

Im fairly new to the game, but consider myself a pretty good player. I managed a win against a shooty competitive DoK list a few days prior with the same list.

Any thoughts?

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. 

[Discussing balance in AoS]

13 minutes ago, wayniac said:

 

Sadly I think this is more common than people think.  People don't want to lose because they like X and X happens to be weak or someone else likes Y and Y is OP.  The fact that is such a common occurrence shows there are major issues, and it's worse because GW seems to pretend that these things don't happen.

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?