tom0tom

Let's dream: Slaughterpriests within 18'' are back to what they used to be.

Fully agreed.

It would probably be difficult to boil it down to a unique comprehensive rating. But you would a have line by line comparaison for a number of selected "core" stats/abilities. That said probably easier said than done.

Quick question about the methodology used to compare armies - apologies if this has already been addressed. As far as I can see the debate is generally based on army per army win rates. Another way to measure balance would be to find a way to compare lists on a "skill by skill" basis (probable damage output in the hero phase, probable damage output in the shooting phase, range, max move, possibility to teleport , max charge, bravery + bravery buffs/debuffs, tanking, probable amount of MW in each phase, summoning, etc.). I appreciate that it would obviously be far from perfect. E.g. how to take into account the effects of bonuses to cast spells, range, the buff/debuffs of the opponent, how the opponent tanks, specific abilities, etc. In addition, the amount of data to be recorded for each army would be significant. Also it would not be possible to compare all the possible list options. Yet it seems that users of each army are able to identify a couple of "strongest" (or at least more frequent) lists. Wouldn't it be possible to think about building a table comparing these lists? At least the result (which would not only be a figure, but rather a list "skill per skill" comparison) would not depend on the skill of the players. It would probably not directly tell if list A is stronger than list B. However my guts feeling is that in many cases it would give a pretty good idea. Now maybe it is just not feasible...

Fully agree. + they have a teleport spell + they have units that can cross the board in one movement phase... I am a casual player, started playing a couple of years ago. Like many players I think that what makes me like AOS is a balanced mix between the esthetic of the models, building good lists, improving my tactical skills and the way my army plays . I follow up the meta - although I have other hobbies, a job, a family, etc. It takes some personal investment to build/paint an army (I have several armies: NH, BoK, OBR, started StD). At the end of the day it does not really matters if I win or lose but having a chance to do something on the board is key, otherwise why play? To make a long story short I have the (maybe wrong) feeling that I belong to a category which probably represents a significant part of the players. There can be longs debates about nerfing shooting or GW's marketing strategy, etc. Just talking about my personal experience, the powercreep and NPE has went to far for me. I am happy to optimize my lists by buying new units but I am not prepared to buy a new army every 6 months just because it is what it takes to have a chance to win games or at least enjoy AOS. The result is that I have significantly reduced my purchases of GW products in the last 6 months. Assuming that I am not the only one to react like this, I am wondering if at the end of the day when things go too far the economic outcome of powercreep is really positive for GW. Sadly, I guess that the answer is yes, it is...:-/

Hi there! Once upon a time GW announced the release of this guy... Any idea of when he will be available? And of what he will do?

+1 I also like the idea. To me any mechanics which would keep the double turn (random needed , not playing chess :)) but mitigate it would be welcome. Also less massive mortal wounds and easy hero sniping, and the game would be more balanced and well... almost perfect! By the way when I started playing aos I was a little bit puzzled that a) the hit roll is the same when you shoot on a close target and on a target far away and b) you can shoot and fight. Obviously aos is not meant to be a realistic wargame but still it’s strange no? This has probably been proposed many times but as power creep is also a consequence of massive shooting armies maybe a -1 to hit (or to wound) from a given distance and a -1 to hit in combat for a unit which used its shooting abilities (or, other option, a model can only shoot (on any unit within range) or fight) would maybe also help reinstating the balance.

Hi there. Quick question: how much does Reikenor cost right now? The French version of the GHB 2020 I purchased says 170 but the warscroll builder gives 160... Any clue?

Hi there. I am starting to work on a Blade of Khorne 2000 points army and would be happy to know what you think of this list. Many thanks in advance for your ideas!

OBR do not run bravery tests do they?

Maybe GW will make a decision considering the comments on the forum, so let's dream: an updated Nighthaunt book with a couple of sub-allegiances - LoG being one of them with no obligation to use Lady Olynder as your general if you take her. That would be cool...

Here are a couple of thoughts from a poor nighthaunt player (1- yes there are some left and 2- yes we guys do know what grief means): I will not buy speeches about playing narrative games or house rules and then having fun and being happy again. We are not discussing the same thing anymore. I want to play AoS. I am not obsessed by being competitive, but to some extent this is also a little bit why we play: it does not matter if we eventually win with the beloved army we created, we are just buying a tiny hope of victory. Armies cannot be perfectly balanced internally or externally - that’s impossible and that’s why we all love AoS. In other words I am prepared to play with an army which is considered as weak in the meta, that’s fine. There is no perfect system to give a fair value to everything (whether subfactions, artefacts, etc.) so I am not convinced that points for subfactions would solve the problem - just because we would then have endless debates on the right amount of points; on top of that I have the feeling that this issue only relates to some subfactions (I do not whine when playing against SCE Hammers of Sigmar or Anvils of the Heldenhammer) . IMO the issue is more simple than that: GW should just be more "balance focused" and not issue subfactions with rules which are OP -despite their sales targets. In this respect Elite Petriflex is too much IMO. I have not played against all the armies in the game and I am prepared to be tabled out round 3 and well yes, this might and will happen. But at least when the game starts there is a hope. Against OBR Elite Petriflex there is no hope. After the couple of games I played, I’ll just give up. And when you reach a point when there is no hope, the game is dead. I am not saying that OBR are unbeatable (you'll probably need a better player than me !:), but seriously, how many armies are able to deal with an OBR competitive list? So it all boils down to having reasonable rules and as far as Petriflex is concerned GW should just nerf it. They did nerf Archaon in StD recently so why not? (I guess OBR players will not agree at all and I will understand - my son is on the top of the list J). At the end of the day, I dream of GW meeting their marketing goals with no power creep… Just my feeling J

Hi there, First of all thanks for the exchanges, I’m learning a lot from you guys! Reading your comments about rumors and upcoming AoS updates, just a couple of thoughts from a recent player. I dived into AoS a year ago with my two sons, starting from scratch, and we really invested into it (with all the meanings of the term…). We love the game … but… discovering little by little that the army in which you put some much love and hope (and money) is just ****** on the competitive stage can be a salty experience. I read here and there that before choosing an army you can just get informed but 1- it’s not that easy for beginners who need time to understand how the game plays and 2- imo armies go up and down on the power curve way too fast - factions that were considered as competitive one year ago are now just average in the meta I do not understand the GW power creep. One of my son is playing OBR and yes they are OP! Maybe not for good players who can afford to permanently change their faction to follow the meta. But take my other son who plays SCE - even on a non-competitive basis the gap is so big that it sometimes simply kills the game. I appreciate that GW needs sales but at the end of day, at least as far as I am concerned, this is a deterrent and they miss their target. I am not willing to invest into a full army of models which will be out of the game two months after I finished painting them. I would probably buy more if things were a little bit more subtle please GW, would it be possible to have all the rules, FAQ, points and (let’s dream) faction warscrolls in ONE place?… I am prepared to pay a subscription fee to have it all in an app, or to pay a reasonable amount on demand for each update. Right now I am not psychologically prepared to pay for a book sold with other stuff that I am not interest in (Forbidden Power…) just to get a couple of pages I would need, and which will anyway be obsolete in a couple of months. With an app and a subscription I would probably spend (even J) more, GW would be happy and life would be much simpler!