Beer & Pretzels Gamer

Having come from Historical Wargaming I’d note that the community there is often able to embrace a different dynamic. For lack of a better term I’d call it the “learning mindset”. Since they are recreating historical battles and in history the generals didn’t get together beforehand and exchange unit lists to make sure everything was balanced I often sat down to a game where I knew ahead of time I had a 90%+ chance of losing the battle in the traditional sense. Now the “solution” is usually to give the two historical armies different win conditions. This can work out two ways. In one context you could have both players “win” in both achieve their objectives (or alternately both fail...) as, for example, the understrength player outperforms history by identifying an alternative strategy (or the dice are in their favor) but the stronger army still secures its objectives. In these scenarios “learning” feels paramount as you are often struggling as much or more against the historical limitations (as incorporated into the game design) as your opponent. The alternate creates for the understrength player the opportunity to force their stronger opponent to “win the battle but lose the war”. These are often “fighting retreat” scenarios. If the understrength player can save sufficient units, or hold out in certain objectives long enough then even if by traditional measures they “lost” they still “win” the scenario. AoS players have so embraced the incredibly unrealistic points system of ensuring each army at least theoretically evenly matched (again, in real battles this is almost never the case) and uniform objectives in battleplans (again, in real battles this is almost never the case) that these game play opportunities are lost. Clearly this heightens concern re:balance. 9e 40k may have taken a step in the right direction with secondaries allowing two players to have to very different paths to a victory but too early to tell really. To be clear, I came to AoS burned out by the abstraction in the name of realism that can creep into historical and I continue to have very positive game experiences in AoS so this isn’t to argue historical de facto better. Just that there may be mindset takeaways AoS could benefit from in looking at historical.

Finally sat down and typed out my "proof" (quotations intentional to acknowledge there can be no definitive proof re:this area but I think I have made a reasonable case that it meets each criteria in some way) that the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar meets the definition of a Wicked Problem. What is a Wicked Problem? from wickedproblems.com "A wicked problem is a social or cultural problem that is difficult or impossible to solve for as many as four reasons: incomplete or contradictory knowledge, the number of people and opinions involved, the large economic burden, and the interconnected nature of these problems with other problems." As the original definition has 10 parts, not just the four above, though I thought it best to put it in a separate blog post and I am providing the link below: Balance as a Wicked Problem - Zoom League - Socially Distant Gaming - The Grand Alliance Community The key reason I wanted to see if Balance in Age of Sigmar fits the Wicked Problem definition is because I believe that definition is because: 1) it highlights why there is so little agreement when it comes to discussing Balance in AoS given that there is no single definition of Balance that all stakeholders can agree on 2) it highlights that AoS is NOT static and thus any equilibrium it might achieve will be temporary at best and disrupted by the next tome or points change 3) this isn't a reason to just throw our hands up and walk away (either from these games or these discussions) but to recognize that progress requires (a) shared definitions, (b) accepting that solutions are not true or false but better or worse, and (c) there are too many stakeholders with too many diverging wants and needs for anyone one person or group of people to speak for the majority. I also think the Wicked Problem framework highlights why there isn't even agreement when it comes to the closest thing we might have to "facts" in this debate which are actual game results. Reading this thread it is clear that there is no consensus on the value of this data set nonetheless how to interpret the data. This is common issue with Wicked Problems as the data is often incomplete (and I think there is a strong case that given the massively multivariate nature of AoS and the regular release schedule we never actual accrue enough data for any given point in time to have a large enough sample size for a strong confidence interval regarding the data) and what data we do have can be interpreted in many ways (th old lies, damn lines, and statistics issue). This is the issue of incomplete or contradictory knowledge. Clearly the ~500 responses to this thread alone (and balance comes up in other threads regularly) highlights the number of people and opinions involve in this issue. The passion behind these opinions is certainly increased by the economic costs associated with playing the game (at least live, TTS of course offers one lower cost alternative). And reading through each of the responses in this thread and others highlights how interconnected issues of Balance in AoS are with other game play issues (e.g. NPE, basic game mechanics such as Terrain, list construction rules, the double turn, etc.).

What is a Wicked Problem? It is a concept originally derived for social/political planning problems by Rittel & Webber in 1973 as having 10 characteristics (borrowing from Wikipedia for this): 1) There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem. 2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule? 3) Solutions to wicked problems are not true-false, but better or worse. 4) There is no immediate and ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. 5) Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempts counts significantly. 6) Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions; nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. 7) Every wicked problem is essentially unique. 😎 Every wicked problem can be considered a symptom of another problem. 9) The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of the explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. 10) The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e. planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate). I keep on returning to this concept as I read all the different discussions of balance on this forum. While the framework above needs to be adjusted from a social planning framework to Age of Sigmar I think it can be incredibly helpful in sorting out why these discussions (a) get so heated and (b) rarely seem to lead to consensus conclusions. The first condition requires little if any adjustment as if 10 people are having a discussion of balance it is easy to pick out at east 12 different definitions of balance or more bouncing back and forth. I want to be clear, this is a comment on quantity, the quality of these definitions is often excellent yet the very lack of any consensus highly that none of these definitions are, well, definitive. Given this I feel comfortable saying the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar meets the first condition. Is there a stopping rule in Age of Sigmar? While there are definitive ends to individual games (i.e. individual games do have a stopping rule) as a system Age of Sigmar is not deigned with a definitive end. Of course there will be new editions (3.0 seems inevitable this Summer) but in general these are conceived as updates or evolutions. I guess we could argue that transition from Warhammer Fantasy Battles to Age of Sigmar represented a true "stop" but even then originally a majority of the armies and models transferred over to the new format. All in I feel pretty comfortable in arguing that there is no stopping rule for Age of Sigmar as a system and thus the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar meets the second condition. The third condition is one which I believe would be very fruitful to return to as a whole entire blog post could probably just be written about this one issue. Certainly there are those who argue that there are absolute answers or solutions to the problem of balance in these forums. Yet the response to their proposals suggest that they are far from convincing others. So if there is a greater truth to be found regarding Balance in Age of Sigmar I think it is fair to say we haven't found it yet. On the other hand reading these threads you can often see a consensus forming around what is good, better and even sometimes best and visa versa. Again, I think this is an issue worth discussing in deeper detail but for now I will suggest that the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar meets the third condition. I've already written a blog post expressing my belief that you have to play the games. One of the stronger areas of consensus on these threads is that new Battletomes could use more playtesting - though even here there is a contrarian perspective that some of the problems should have been obvious.... If we look at each Battletome and each points update as a "solution" to the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar though is there any other way to test these solutions except to see how everything plays out on the table top? And given how massively multivariate Age of Sigmar is arguably we need lots and lots and lots of games for certain aspects (particularly large point updates). This suggests the lack of an immediate test but what about an ultimate test? Absent a complete pause in new tomes, models, etc. (again, the lack of a stopping rule) there can be no ultimate test as Age of Sigmar is always evolving. I'm not as confidant in the fourth condition but I think it is okay for now to say that the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar meets this condition. The 5th & 6th conditions are the toughest to translate into Age of Sigmar's context. Again, in principle each time GW releases a new battletome or resets the points they are testing. Until recently (looking at you LRL) though we could consider each of those tomes as a "one-shot operation". The real question in regards to Age of Sigmar comes in that balance between trial & error and every shot counting significantly. I believe a lot of the frustration with GW comes from the fact that they do seem to get an above average number of trials with the increased frequency of releases but players struggle to see where the learning is coming from. That issue is clearly compounded though by the reality that every trial does seem to count significantly based on the responses new tomes receive from both their players and their opponents. If I emphasize the latter point then we can say that Balance in Age of Sigmar at least partially satisfies the fifth condition. At first glance though there does seem to be an enumerable/exhaustive set of potential solutions in points, changes to the war scrolls which seem well described. So it is not unreasonable to say that Balance in Age of Sigmar may not meet the 6th condition. But again the context of the game matters and thus I think it is worthwhile to jump ahead to the 8th condition where whether the problem of balance can be considered a symptom of other problems in Age of Sigmar and how this may interact with the solution set. Here I think the issue of feedback loops are vital to the discussion as what quickly becomes clear in reading these threads is how often the solution to one problems creates another. To use a popular recent example a lot of the solutions (not all to be clear) to LRL Sentinels would seem to devastate other factions. LRL Sentinels are certainly not unique in this way. AoS is chockful of feedback loops and a lot (though again not all) of the issues of balance arise out of these feedback loops. Put another way it may not be a war scroll in and of itself that is a problem but how that war scroll interacts with another war scroll's buff, a sub-faction ability, a spell and/or a battalion bonus. This would be an example of a runaway positive feedback loop where something that may just be okay to good becomes great to OP once all the factors are applied. There are examples of negative feedback loops (where an ability sounds great but the conditions required to make it work, whether from a points basis in support units or the limited range of an aura ultimately make it impractical) but these are less an issue when it comes to balance. In theory solving a positive feedback loop is simple as removing one piece of the puzzle often causes the whole buff stack to collapse. But here's where the problems begin. All too often removing a piece of a buff stack causes ripples across the rest of a faction. While that aura may be too good for unit X, without it units Y & Z are kneecapped for example. Given so many of these buffs, are for example, KEYWORD based, and that GW has tried to a certain extent limit KEYWORD proliferation it may become a binary issue. Either remove the buff entirely to prevent X being OP and accept the weakening of Y & Z or visa versa. Again, I can continue to go on with the 8th condition just like I could the 3rd but for now I think it suffices to say I believe that the issue of Balance in Age of Sigmar meets the 8th condition. With that knowledge I think it worthwhile to briefly return to the 6th condition and acknowledge that while the "solutions" may be more easily enumerable/exhaustive than the wicked problems of the original social/political planning issues the framework was designed for, the commonality of the difficulty in parsing apart the feedbacks loops in order to derive truly discrete solutions means we can argue for at least a weak case for Balance in Age of Sigmar meeting the 6th condition. After that difficulty fortunately condition 7 is a reasonably straight forward case. Balance in Age of Sigmar cannot be solved by importing a solution from a different gaming system. Certainly you can try and incorporate best practices from another system (see the push & pull between AoS & 40K in recent editions) but there is always an adjustment necessary to factor in the unique rule sets and numerous war scroll interactions. Thus while it can be useful to look at gaming systems perceived as having more balance it is never as simple as just doing the same thing in AoS. The 9th condition, like the 3rd and 8th, is one that we could spend multiple blog posts on. Having read about balance in as many threads as I have I feel fair to say that so much of the discussion/debate is over how to define the problem. The question I often ask myself when reading though is the order of operation. Are people arguing for a given definition because they believe it is accurate and thus they are willing to accept the resolution that logically arrives from that definition? Or, consciously or sub-consciously, are they starting rom their preferred solution and working backwards? Regardless, I think Balance in Age of Sigmar strongly meets the 9th condition. How about the last one? I think it is fair to say that the position of many on these threads is that GW has no right to be wrong... So if we can argue that Balance in Age of Sigmar is a Wicked Problem does that gain us anything or leave us in an even worse spot? Rittel & Webber fortunately offered another shorter set of characteristics that I think are helpful (again, thank you wikipedia): 1) The solution depends on how the problem is framed and visa versa (i.e. the problem definition depends on the solution) Honest AND HUMBLE discussion & definition is more likely to lead to progress than debating solutions whilst different parties hold different definitions. The key is the honesty and the humility. If it is a wicked problem than suggestions that the definitions are obvious and/or indisputable is NOT helpful. Part of that humility is recognizing that you're never likely to convince everyone and that those you don't convince are not bad/stupid/ignorant etc. they just are coming at a wicked problem from a different perspective. Than carryover that honesty and humility when you try and get your solutions implemented (unless you work for GW chances are this will be more in the context of TO rulings or tournament conditions), especially when it comes to how that solution may impact other players. 2) Stakeholders have radically different world views and different frames for understanding the problem. There are so many different stakeholders when it comes to Age of Sigmar. Recognize that no one voice can speak for all of them. Recognize that no one framework can represent all of them. The solutions that work for one set of stakeholders may not for another. There is unlikely to be any solution that makes every stakeholder happy. If you are currently among the happier stakeholders, have empathy for the less happy. If you are among the less happy, please don't subscribe to a "misery loves company" approach either in stoking the negative sentiment of others or trying to diminish the enjoyment of the game for others who are not (as?) impacted by the issue(s) you are facing but rather work to positively contribute to the debate surrounding the definitions of the problem and look for ways things can get better. 3) The constraints that the problem is subject to and the resources need to solve it change over time. AoS has a variety of different constraints ranging from the cost to build an army (whether defined in money or time), the points limits of a given match, the rules for list construction (e.g. battle line or available allies) to simply finding other players to play against. Different stakeholders have different access to these resources. At different times in their gaming lifecycle different constraints will arise (ahh, the joys of trying to find time to game with a new child... or finding ways to play during a pandemic). It is worth remembering though that it is not just players that face constraints. GW only has so much production capacity. New launches require vast timelines. Stores have limited space to carry inventory, etc. All of these constraints and resource limitations may only indirectly effect Balance in Age of Sigmar but they're ones we can all probably find a few we can relate to or understand. It is helpful to keep constraints and limitations, yours and those of others, in mind when discussing & debating a wicked problem. 4) The problem is never solved definitively. Unless a stopping rule for AoS arises (and again, I think that would be a bad thing) any balance is more likely to be a brief point of transition in a longer journey rather than a permanent resting place. If we ever get there enjoy it while it lasts as some new balance issue will inevitably arise. The good news about this? We'll never run out of things to talk about on these threads!

THIS... IS... SPARTROGG!!! Played Battle for the Pass again, this time against a PBK centered Nurgle list. Continue to evolve my list, dropping the Squig Gobba and Mollog to add a Loonboss on Mangler Squig and an extra CP. Allegiance: Gloomspite GitzDankhold Troggboss (250)- General- Command Trait: Sheperd of Idiotic Destruction - Artefact: Aetherquartz-studded Hide Fungoid Cave-Shaman (90)- Lore of the Moonclans: The Hand of GorkMadcap Shaman (80)- Artefact: Moonface Mommet - Lore of the Moonclans: Itchy NuisanceLoonboss on Mangler Squigs (280)6 x Rockgut Troggoths (280)3 x Rockgut Troggoths (140)3 x Rockgut Troggoths (140)1 x Dankhold Troggoths (190)Colossal Squig (300)Stomping Megamob (160)Extra Command Point (50)Balewind Vortex (40)Total: 2000 / 2000Extra Command Points: 2Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 106 Basic plan was to use the Rockguts as an Anvil, bringing the Squigs out as a Hammer as necessary. Meant accepting that I’d go down on points early and have to make it up in last couple of Rounds. Things kind of went to plan but required a lot of luck (of the bad variety for my opponent) to pull out a Victory on the last turn of R5. Round One We were both 5 drops and I won initiative and chose to have him go first. Gutrot and the Slime Fleet w/10x PBKs landed to the North of my objective while the other two blocks of 10x PBKs moved onto the two middle objectives. I was a little surprised by this as I’d thought they’d use the Pusgoyles and Lord of Afflictions (proxied by Plague Drones) as forward deployment leaving one of the PBK blocks on their objective but they were left as defenders (which would have late game implications). He made his charges but I weathered his attacks only losing 2 out of the 3 Rockguts in the North, conveniently clearing space for my Colossal Squig to pile in (had made sure any charges would bring him within 3” to activate). Couldn’t chew threw the entire block of PBKs in a single Combat Phase though and at end of their turn my opponent up 5-0. In my turn got off the killer combo of Itchy Nuissance on the remaining PBKs, which I would hit with Moonface Mommet in the Combat Phase as well. This Combo was my basic key to victory in my Combat Phases throughout game. Unfortunately Hand of Gork did NOT go off and I rolled low on Mangler Squig’s 3d6” movement so couldn’t challenge other objectives. Focused on repelling Slime Fleet killing Gutrot and then the remaining PBKs. End R1 I was down 5-1... Round 2 Lost initiative this time and Nurgle took their turn. This was unfortunate as it meant at worst they were going to be add 5 more points to their total. Nothing I could do though and my opponent decided to move up their two blocks of PBKs. Got lucky in that the Southern unit rolled a lower charge and once the Northern unit of 10x was stuck in they weren’t going to be able to pile-in too many. But again I’d forced them to activate the Colossal Squig. So after I’d weathered their first attack, losing 3 out of 6 Rockguts but again opening space up for the Colossal to pile in, they tried to remove PBKs from the North to get out of activation range when I swung back with my surviving Rockguts. They failed to lose enough to achieve that but that meant the ones in the South were still cut off and could only pile in 3x splitting attacks against the surviving three and the Southern 3x. Again, I couldn’t chew through a full block of 10x, leaving 3x survivors in the North and only killed 1x from the Southern block but again got off the combo of Itchy Nuissance and Moonface Mommet on the Southern Block and easily took care of the remaining 3x survivors in the North. Would leave 4x survivors in the South though as my Mangker Squig rolled poorly again in both move and charge and thus just missed piling in close enough to attack Southern by ~1/2”. Fortunately before that in the prior turn my Colossal Squig had killed enough to be out of combat and rolled well on his 4d6 to Challenge for the Northern Central objective held by the Lord of Blights and Lord of Plagues. Unfortunately would kill the former but the latter would survive my Trampling Feet... Similarly Hand of Gorked the surviving 3x Rockguts to challenge Southern objective held by Harbringer of Decay but they failed charge... End of R2 I was down 10-2. Round Three This time I did win initiative though. You guessed it Itchy Nuissance and Moonface Mommet on Southern survivors so I can ignore them early. Move up the 3x Rockguts to get a 3” Charge into Harbringer. Mangler joins them. I do Hand of Gork my Troggboss to go after my opponent’s objective in the West and they make their charge. In South it is a pillow fight as neither the Rockguts & Mangler kill Harbringer. Degraded Colossal fails to kill Plagues, only doing 5 Damage. Troggboss comes up 1 wound shy of killing a Pusgoyle and then is killed off. Clear out the last of the PBKs. All that gets me... 3 VP. Ugh. My opponent uses their turn to summon 5x Plaguebearers onto their objective and moves the Pusgoyles up to charge my Collossal, retreats Plague further onto Northern objective, and positions Afflictions to Charge my Mangler Squig. Afflictions makes it but... Pusgoyles fail a 3” Charge and are out of range for a CP reroll! Mangler Squig just barely survives. End R3 I’m down 13-5. Round Four I win initiative. Hand of Gork the 2x surviving Rockguts on my objective to 9” of Plaguebearers on his objective but they’ll fail charge. Itchy Nuissance and Moonface Mommet Afflictions (though the later means moving Madcap off my objective to get in range which almost costs me game...). Use Charge into Afflictions to get one Rockgut just a little closer to their objective. Will kill him. Colossal charges Plagues and finally kills him. Score 5 VP and think I’m in okay position to win in final round. But my opponent summons 5x more Plaguebearers onto objective and skips Colossal Squig to run to far side of Northern objective with Pusgoyles. End R4 I am still down 16-10. Round Five I lose initiative and realize I’ve screwed up big time. His Pusgoyles are only 9.5” from my objective so he just needs to roll a 2 on his run to tag my objective and put game away. I get super lucky as they roll a 1. No Heroes left to CP. But Feculent Gnarlmaw there to allow a run & charge and they make the charge into my Fungoid who is up on Balewind. Game will come down to whether he can survive and do 1 Damage to kill a Pusgoyle... Bad rolls for my opponent. Good saves and wound negation rolls for Fungoid means he survives with 1 wound. Then does exactly 1 in return. In my final turn I need to score enough to overcome a 17-10 deficit. Basically I need to end with all the objectives in my control. Secure my own objective by dropping Fungoid off Balewind and fir good measure bringing Madcap back. Colossal finally secures North. Mangler, 1x and 2x Rockguts make charges onto opponent’s objective. Mangler kills one set of Plaguebearers. Solo Rockgut whiffs their attacks though. With my last rolls of the game my last 2x Rockguts clear the last unit of Plaguebearers. Score 9 VP on final turn to win 19-16. Conclusion Loonboss on Mangler Squig definitely an upgrade over Squig Gobba and Mollog. Very fun army but still feel like I need more tweaks. Want to get some Fellwater Troggoths in next time. Regular Dankhold Troggoth doesn’t feel like he’s justifying points. We’ll see where we go next time with this list but foundation is at least fun to play with, even if I needed a lot of luck to pull out the win.

Grimwrath such a great model but don’t get weakening the war scroll AND increasing the price. Had just had a lot of fun running one in our last series but now just that much harder to justify fitting into a list.

Allegiance: Gloomspite GitzFungoid Cave-Shaman (90)- Lore of the Moonclans: The Hand of GorkDankhold Troggboss (250)- General- Command Trait: Sheperd of Idiotic Destruction - Artefact: Aetherquartz-studded Hide Madcap Shaman (80)- Artefact: Moonface Mommet - Lore of the Moonclans: Itchy NuisanceMollog (170)6 x Rockgut Troggoths (280)3 x Rockgut Troggoths (140)3 x Rockgut Troggoths (140)1 x Dankhold Troggoths (190)Colossal Squig (300)Squig Gobba (160)Stomping Megamob (160)Balewind Vortex (40)Total: 2000 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 107 Ran this the other night in Battle for the Pass against a BCR list running a double Icebrow Skal & Eurlbad with Frostlord and Butcher list. Net-net new to the army played too conservatively in the first round, even after a nice set up when my opponent (even with rerolls) failed all their charges) and then overcompensated when I did get the double turn allowing myself to get out of position. That lead to me not having enough oomph where I needed it to finish the job, leaving 7nits I needed somewhere else pinned in combats they needed to finish (reducing the value of the ability to retreat and charge). Thus even though I was able to take his objective and rack up some points in R2 I ultimately struggled to protect my own objective and by R4 was too far behind. Squig Gobba, as expected unfortunately, was worthless. Maybe did 1 Damage given the decent Saves and Shrugs of key targets. Even as a speed bump for screening really didn’t work, though admittedly I could’ve positioned better. Mollog a nice looking model and theoretically fun war scroll but ultimately too hard to get value from. Both candidates to replace when I run the core of the list against Nurgle next week. Colossal Squig almost MVP nearly one shooting Frostlord but then, once degraded just couldn’t do much. In death though was able to position the cave Squigs exploding out of him to take objective in North from my opponent. Will leave in for another go. Enjoyed playing army and with loss seeming to come mainly from my not fully leveraging the capabilities first time out actually came away from loss more encouraged than discouraged. With a few tweaks and better play on my part think there’s something there. These guys came close to finishing off Frostlord my first turn but couldn’t get job done. When he dug deep his heels killed the Dank and severely degraded Colossal, who was a lot less effective on lower profiles... Had stolen this objective on the double turn after a failed charge on Hand of Gork unit. Failed the spell second turn so no reinforcements but at least it forced my opponent to use both their ambushes to retake, and they held out for a turn.

I have no insider information but to me this foolish consistency has always read less as the hobgoblin of small minded pricing strategy and more as the interaction of a separate team interpreting another departments rules. By this I mean these rule sets always feel like they are written by an entirely different group of rules writers, ones who obviously spend most of their time writing for different rule sets, than are writing the battle tomes but that they have been given a set of commandments like: - different weapons MUST have different profiles - named characters MUST have unique characteristics - no copying existing war scrolls (even when the model is obviously meant to be a direct equivalent to one...) This combination seems to result in a perverse creativity where these separate rules writers feel like they are churning out these really “cool” war scrolls. Yet they never actually play nice with the AoS rule set once they’ve been filtered through this process. Could this be corrected when these war scrolls are reincorporated into a battle tome? Absolutely. But the fact that these seem to be the war scrolls least likely to get any sort of tweaks in the new tomes just screams to me corporate territorialism with a whole bunch of NIH (not invented here) syndrome. this all being office politics would stink but to me would be all too common a basis for what we are all seeing...

The pre-established way to integrate Mawtribes into Destruction is via Gutbuster mercenaries. There is also a previously established relationship between the Frostlord Braggoth and the Ironjawz faction of Warclans.

My first real list was Braggoth’s Beasthammer which combined BCR w/Gore Gruntas. It was an absolute blast with nice synergy between the units. Was disappointed to lose that battalion when the new Mawtribes tome came out. There has been a lot of conflicting trends though lately as far as allegiances go. Tomes like Mawtribes, Warclans and even Cities have brought previously separate factions together. Morathi certainly broke the fragile DoK/SCE alliance. Gitz has had more post-Tome releases than anything except maybe SCE but largely they keep the segregation of factions with no obvious Big Waaagh equivalent. Thematically I think Destruction the easiest alliance to make work together. Simple things like counts as for Sons and Mawtribes carrying over into a Biggest Waaagh option would allow for a lot of flavor without per se pushing OP limits (e,g. by giving Sons or Frostlord Mighty Destroyers or escalating buffs...).

This won’t be terribly different from the above but having been playing a lot of smash ball lately in AoS think I would rank them as follows: 1) multi-Frostlord Boulderhead: seen three on the table several times recently and I would be hard pressed to think of a more smash face approach. 2) double-cabbage & gore grunta Ironjawz: this is a close second but a lot more dependent on shenanigans. Want a little more fun? Throw in a Rogue Idol! 3) for surprise actually going Blisterskin FEC with loads of Flayers: what it lacks in first impact, with proper mustering, I’ve found it more than makes up for in its ability to keep dishing out turn after turn, round after round. There’s just something satisfying about landing a solid hit (or two with a second pile-in?), taking your opponent’s best shot but then mustering back most or all of the Flayers you just lost and doing it again... And with great movement and no degradation, once it does wipe out its target, has zero problem heading off to its next victim or an objective. 4) if you don’t care about winning, just doing some damage while you’re there... then maybe try the multi-Bloodthirster approach. Screen with Flesh Hounds or other meat shields to make sure Skarbrand gets in when he’s topped up and bring a couple of guys with those big axes dishing MWs to everything around them and you’ll certainly add some more skulls to the skull throne. Sure you’ll donate your own models’ skulls as soon as your opponent hits back but you know what they say - Khorne Cares Not...

Looks very much like the list I was building towards until the new tome nerfed the Thundertusk snowball. That said, I don’t think it is auto-lose every match as you could be devastating against any horde armies (rolling up to 48 dice at 4+ to do MWs against units with 20+ models... well Battleshock should cover the rest) or, as you note with a good chance of 5 MW each turn, for armies dependent on 5W models for keys buffs. Your charges would also be potentially devastating with 6 chances again for those MWs on 4+ for each charge roll (~42 thus time on average if all 6 make the charge). The problem I see is after you make the Charge as in regular combat those Thundertusks just aren’t going to be putting out as much damage as you want and while the -1 to Hit is nice it is unlikely to be enough to make them as resilient as your Stonehorns. Against elite armies with after saves and/or their own MW spam though you may be looking at regularly going out, Albright in a blaze (freezing blast?) of glory! Still, I think it could be a lot of fun to play and you have me tempted to try and go for it again despite the nerfed snowball...

I think MWs are an excellent game mechanic in the sense that they are exactly the type of “rule breaking” (no base save) that can add flavor to the game. I feel the same way about after saves. The problem as I experience it on the tabletop is that these “rule breaking” mechanics require a fully thought and and relatively consistent game design philosophy. That is what appears lacking in AoS in both these areas (particularly at the degree of power creep we are seeing as 2.0 enters it’s entropy...) as the use/allocation of mortal wounds has no real overarching logic to it. Certainly for individual models a a logic can be found but when looked at holistically it just doesn’t have any intellectual coherency.

Allegiance: Ironjawz- Warclan: IronsunzMegaboss on Maw-Krusha (460)- Boss Gore-hacka and ChoppaMegaboss on Maw-Krusha (460)- Boss Gore-hacka and Choppa3 x Orruk Gore-gruntas (160)- Pig-iron Choppas3 x Orruk Gore-gruntas (160)- Pig-iron Choppas3 x Orruk Gore-gruntas (160)- Pig-iron ChoppasRogue Idol (420)Gorefist (130)Extra Command Point (50)Total: 2000 / 2000Extra Command Points: 2Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 91 Not a top tier list but can say, having faced it, once those Mawkrusha’s are fully stacked you’re facing some crazy choices as an opponent.

@DoctorPerils cats could certainly work but if you wanted to go all Jack & the Beanstalk (and Tzeentch didn’t have that whole bird aesthetic kind of all sewn up) giant evil geese could work. They’re already foul fowl irl, ready to go after anyone who gets too close, so not too big a leap. As far as filling in gaps there is a size niche that could be filled via a human barbarian though Bonesplitterz do capture a bit of that space already (albeit with a very limited range). Females definitely underrepresented in Destruction (only one very “interesting design choice” Maneater for Ogors and the Troggoth Hag spring to mind) so that could be a combo that offers something new. If I’m looking for other gaps in Destruction, besides the evil Steampunk Destructo Dwarfs could bring, FLY seems very restricted in the faction. Have Mawkrushas and... I guess some of the Squigs and Spiders count as Flying with their bouncing but aren’t leaning into a winged aesthetic. That’s where I think an insect aesthetic could fill a gap as overall that is a wing style only sporadically seen in AoS (e.g. a Sylvaneth Hero I believe has an insect “jump pack”).

Yeah, I’ve been getting burned hard by FW of late. Troggoths are basically what I’ve been reinvesting Legion of Azgorh sell off into. Got a Rogue Idol that we love that we’re trying to play as much with before it loses its points now that it is gone. As seen in my list above I’m sitting on the other two FW Gitz options and looking for excuses to play them while I fill in my Troggoths. Would ask same question of whether double Fungoid a better way to go than say Skragrott?

Thanks @PlasticCraic. Definitely something to build too. Think Fellwaters clearly the obvious “next”. If I fielded everything I currently have for the Gitz it would look something like this. Allegiance: Gloomspite GitzDankhold Troggboss (250)- General- Command Trait: Sheperd of Idiotic Destruction - Artefact: Aetherquartz-studded Hide Fungoid Cave-Shaman (90)6 x Rockgut Troggoths (280)3 x Rockgut Troggoths (140)3 x Rockgut Troggoths (140)1 x Dankhold Troggoths (190)Colossal Squig (300)Squig Gobba (160)Stomping Megamob (160)Total: 1710 / 2000Extra Command Points: 1Allies: 0 / 400Wounds: 95 Still well shy of 2K and I really don’t think either of the Squig options are great (heck, even decent) options. What are your thoughts on adding Skragrott instead of the Madcap?

I’ve been all for your terrain piece idea. Selfishly though would like to see Sons rationalized a little bit and feel like a 40 pt (e.g. Frost Sabres, another DestructoPet) or 90 pt Scavenger unit (love the Hyena idea at multiple scales as long as they can be distinguished from other options) would allow GW to drop the points just a little and open up some choices. Worry a terrain piece is just the same lists plus terrain. For Ogors I’m with previous posters who want to see the Firebelly side expanded. Think it is a nice design space that could easily fill in some gaps (thinking, for example, a true missile focused Ogor unit launching fireballs and a fanatics style unit that could pop out from gluttons units) that Mawtribes could benefit from.

Looking more broadly for 3.0 there are a lot of Predatory Endless Spells that I would like to see converted into actual units, for 3xample the new DoK viper or the Sylvaneth Gladeworm. Never had the sense that Predatory Endless Spells and their like have fully lived up to their potential on the table but they’re occupying some awesome design spaces I’d love to see exploited.

Staying on the destruction theme I want the Sons to get their “pets”. Gitz have squigs. Orruks have Boars, Gruntas & Mawkrushas. Ogors have Mournfang, Thundertusks and Stonehorns. Whether it is in the form of scavengers that just happen to follow the Sons around for the opportunistic meals and thus have developed some loyalty to their patrons or some animal they’re actively “husbanding” I want them to get the same wildlife aspect to their faction the other Destruction factions benefit from. If I were to get greedy each mega would get their own themed pet so maybe a giant squid for the Kraken Eater (in a Princess Bride Dread Pirate Roberts I’ll probably eat you tomorrow kind of relationship) and a rhinoceros like animal for the gatebreakers...

I agree with both these points. Just trying to throw options out that I’ve seen because while I regularly hear calls for more balance there is a tendency to focus on narrow solutions such as nerf faction X (which the poster typically does not play). When the changes are bigger (nerf shooting) the unintended consequences are rightly highlighted. So I’m just struggling to understand what trade offs people are interested in.

As I work through the five stages of grief in losing my Legion of Azgorh how about some bargaining? Instead of a one-for-one replacement the above has inspired me to desire that instead of Chaos Dwarfs we get DESTRUCTION DWARFS. Building upon the above can you think of a group better suited to be the crazy alternative to the Steampunk KO? Why destruction? Because I want these guys to be going nutso in what they build. Think Dark Mechnicus meets Ork Mechas within a Steampunk Framework and trading tips at the Maker studio with Clan Skyre. Think this would set up as a natural enemy to a unified Duardin in 3.0. One wants to build something new with the return of their god. The other wants to tear everything down due to the disappearance of their own.

This has been an interesting thread but I keep coming back time and again to the question: what are we willing to trade off for more balance? For example, are we willing to increase list building complexity to increase balance? Certainly if AoS went the 40k route and started charging points for a lot more of the options we currently get “free” the ability to increase balance via point differentiation would increase. Alternatively would we be willing to accept more of a Rock Paper Scissors style balance? By this I mean would we except that for our faction there are opponent’s that we are simply going to have a very low win probability if they are balanced out by alternative opponents where we’ll have very high win rates if it meant overall the balance in the game improved? This stems again from my basic impression that there are deep & complex feedback loops in AoS so it is difficult to make adjustments in one area without impacting many others. Given this I struggle to see “free” ways to improve balance. That is not to say there are not low cost options currently available or higher cost solutions that may be worthwhile to pay up. I’m just very curious what prices players would be willing to pay, most particularly s relates to their favorite faction, to improve the game’s overall balance?

Thank you for being a tourney judge. To be the level of player capable of being effective in that role and then opt out of actually playing is a big sacrifice. To then largely be dealing with angry people... Glad people like you step up.

Except my good friend @AlexScipio we do not take the sentences individually but rather in a paragraph and in an order as written. Your reductio ad absurdum simply put requires a logical leap that the Tzeentch interpretation does not. So as fun a scenario as you posit it is not an equivalent to what is under discussion. And it is not a language trap. It is a simple example of why the Tzeentch interpretation can be made. And we can see it from your example of “Jump Up and Take a Seat” because the first response of most people told to do this will be... to freeze. Because it is a case where using the AND here instead of THEN creates confusion because many people are not unreasonably biased towards the simultaneous interpretation of and in action based instructions. In between posts I happened to go to my personal trainer for a workout. Since they are a college educated professional that literally gives people instructions for a living I put the premise to them and they said that if they tell me to do X and Y they are expecting me to do both at the same time. If they want me to do X followed by Y they will tell me X then Y. I asked them why and simply put it they told me they do it that way because it provides the clearest approach they can think of. So while the Tzeentch Interpretaion (good name for a short story...) does not require any leap beyond one many of us make on a regular basis let us now contrast that with the AlexScipio Battleshock Interpretation which requires us to ignore basic writing structure to posit that because we are not explicitly told not to go back and repeat that we should. I have wracked my brain and simply put cannot think of any cases where absent an instruction to “rinse & repeat” a rule/contract/instruction is interpreted as a loop. So, for example, if I go and buy something from GW’s website they will apply my local tax to the total. They will not then apply the tax rate again to the new total ad infinitum. I’m open to cases I not thinking of but punctuation and sentence order are typically very clear. And thank you for the clarification re: your comments specificity vs generality. Sorry to hear in other forums commentators are more abusive in their language. Unfortunately not surprising. And to be clear, if I were playing Tzeentch Pink Horrors against you I’d be fine with your interpretation. But as someone already noted writing rules is tough and interpretations can get complicated so glad GW both acknowledges it and provides at least one simple solution (obviously in a tournament setting a more uniform approach is needed and one reason I always feel bad for TOS as it is a truly thankless job in areas like this).

As you have already reminded us my good friend @AlexScipio punctuation matters too so the lovely periods included in those sentences are sufficient to avoid the reductio ad absurdum you posit. That just highlights yet another way GW could have chosen to make absolutely sure people understood these were not meant to be simultaneous. They could have broken the removed from play and counts as section into two sentences. And I’m perfectly happy to concede that it doesn’t always mean simultaneous as long as there is acknowledgement that it frequently does. Here’s a simple test. Next time you’re at your local club or a tournament go up to 10 people and then ask them to “clap their hands and stomp their feet”. See how many people do both simultaneously and how many do one then the other. Go up to another 10 people and ask them to “rub their belly and pat their head”. See how many do it simultaneously and how many people do one then the other. Again, I’m personally not advocating for one interpretation or the other. All I am suggesting is that as written two people in good faith can argue for two different interpretations and thus objecting to the arguments made in this thread that any Tzeentch player who interprets it as they split is acting in bad faith or trying to cheat or that the many TOS who have read it that way must be idiots as itself a bad faith argument. There is no need for such vitriol in this game (or really any game). And if I need to cite a rule for that point I give you what GW has described as the most important rule. That’s it. GW has acknowledged there will inevitably be ambiguity and has given us a simple way to settle it. The existence of this thread, the number of TOS that have ruled different ways, etc. all highlight that in this case there is an ambiguity. To argue that there is no good faith argument behind the alternative interpretations does not change that reality it only makes the game more toxic. GW could solve it with a FAQ. I hope they do. In the interim I guess I’ll just feel bad for the people who are letting this negatively impact their playing experience.