Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I swear I am only curious about this . What is the relatively "power rankings" of AoS armies post GHB? Is anything standing out as being highly competitive, and on the flipside anything that isn't really competitive no matter how hard one tries? I'm actually curious how the "official" points have changed things up, if any. Is there any sort of concrete data showing what the "competitive" armies are?

I do a lot of reading about this and a few themes have emerged. Among the more casual set, a lot of armies are competitive and whatever a specific individual considers OP/cheesy could be one of any of a large number of competitive lists and/or monsters. In broad strokes, these generally fall into three categories: undercosted monsters/characters, powerful battalions, and extreme synergy/buffstacking.

The more competitive set has identified a number of the factions as being very powerful/competitive, and a few as really struggling.

In no particular order, the competitive ones involve:

1. A very specific Clan Skryre build that is nearly unbeatable at 2k points
2. Bonesplitterz (abusing Kunnin' Rukk and huge blocks of arrowboys)
3. Beastclaw Raiders (Thundertusk/Stonehorn spam)
4. Possibly Tomb Kings. I hear less about this but that may be just because there are fewer TK players. Top lists generally involve Settra, chariots, and necropolis knights.

In addition to these, Stormcast Eternals, Sylvaneth, Ironjawz, Nurgle Chaos, and Flesheater Courts all have their proponents and can be quite competitive. I've also heard that Free People's gunline armies can be very strong but have only heard that a couple of times and don't know the specifics. I'm not really sure about Seraphon.

The bottom tier seems mostly comprised of dwarfs and elves stuck with legacy lists and/or crummy newer lists (fyreslayers).

I very well may have missed something, so definitely don't consider this exhaustive!

Well Swarmofseals beat me to it... pretty much everything he said.

So really the "very powerful" are mostly pure cheese, except maybe Beastclaws because they are all cav. But "very specific Clan Skryre" and "abusing Kunnin' Rukk" seems like it's very much in the "pure powergaming cheese" category?

Before this goes full ret**d when the trolls jump in, there's an interesting thread on TGA a power calculator you may find interesting. But at the top I'd say (in factions, not GA)
Skaven
Stormcasts
Beastclaw

bottom:
Free People
Dispossessed
Warherds (though my next army)
Dark Elves
Grot moonclans

WayneTheGame wrote:
So really the "very powerful" are mostly pure cheese, except maybe Beastclaws because they are all cav. But "very specific Clan Skryre" and "abusing Kunnin' Rukk" seems like it's very much in the "pure powergaming cheese" category?

That is largely true imo, it is not entire factions that are OP so much as specific builds/models/battalions within them. Often it s a case of layering elements that are individually somewhat OP into something that's outright broken.

 VeteranNoob wrote:
Before this goes full ret**d when the trolls jump in, there's an interesting thread on TGA a power calculator you may find interesting. But at the top I'd say (in factions, not GA)
Skaven
Stormcasts
Beastclaw

bottom:
Free People
Dispossessed
Warherds (though my next army)
Dark Elves
Grot moonclans

Dispossessed are definitely weak, but I'm not sure where Moonclans being weak are coming from. The basic grot units are insanely good because the net upgrades are free, their shaman is dirt cheap, and their other stuff is middle-of-the-road. I suspect its a case of people not using them right (like running a Grot Warboss for the command ability), but not sure. No comment on the others, I'm not informed enough.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
So really the "very powerful" are mostly pure cheese, except maybe Beastclaws because they are all cav. But "very specific Clan Skryre" and "abusing Kunnin' Rukk" seems like it's very much in the "pure powergaming cheese" category?

That is largely true imo, it is not entire factions that are OP so much as specific builds/models/battalions within them. Often it s a case of layering elements that are individually somewhat OP into something that's outright broken.

 VeteranNoob wrote:
Before this goes full ret**d when the trolls jump in, there's an interesting thread on TGA a power calculator you may find interesting. But at the top I'd say (in factions, not GA)
Skaven
Stormcasts
Beastclaw

bottom:
Free People
Dispossessed
Warherds (though my next army)
Dark Elves
Grot moonclans

Dispossessed are definitely weak, but I'm not sure where Moonclans being weak are coming from. The basic grot units are insanely good because the net upgrades are free, their shaman is dirt cheap, and their other stuff is middle-of-the-road. I suspect its a case of people not using them right (like running a Grot Warboss for the command ability), but not sure. No comment on the others, I'm not informed enough.

Yeah, I suppose any could come from what and how you play but while there is enormous potential there, I've only witnessed bad games. I'm sure I see potential there, though, since the lower power factions tend to be the ones with fewer options and not up to speed with the current armies.

WayneTheGame wrote:
So really the "very powerful" are mostly pure cheese, except maybe Beastclaws because they are all cav. But "very specific Clan Skryre" and "abusing Kunnin' Rukk" seems like it's very much in the "pure powergaming cheese" category?

Yeah, mostly. The Skryre and Bonesplitterz lists that I mentioned are pretty much pure cheese. I'd argue that Thundertusk/Stonehorn spam is equally cheesy -- yes Beastclaws have a lot of cav, but completely filling your army with behemoths is another thing entirely. Tomb Kings is a weird case because the best lists don't even really look cheesy. Sure you CAN make a TK list that looks like obvious cheese, but you really don't need to.

It's worth noting that one of the things that is universally true of all of these factions is that they all have a very strong option that counts as battleline. Skryre has stormfiends, Bonesplitterz has arrowboys, Beastclaw Raiders has stonehorn/thundertusk riders, and Tomb Kings has chariots.


As an aside, I think that in basically any edition of any GW game the most powerful lists are always going to be pure cheese. If you discount cheese lists entirely, I think AOS is actually really well balanced for the most part with almost every updated army being reasonably competitive and several of the legacy armies being pretty good/great as well.

Honestly this is the worst balance I've seen since late 7th WHFB. Though I don't play 40k right now. I think many people are OK with it because the GHB gives them a framework in which to build reasonably balanced matchups, where before they had nothing. Now there were actually a number of community comps that worked quite well in that regard, and I can think of at least two that worked/work better than the GHB, but its not something a lot of people realized or wanted to commit to.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Honestly this is the worst balance I've seen since late 7th WHFB. Though I don't play 40k right now. I think many people are OK with it because the GHB gives them a framework in which to build reasonably balanced matchups, where before they had nothing. Now there were actually a number of community comps that worked quite well in that regard, and I can think of at least two that worked/work better than the GHB, but its not something a lot of people realized or wanted to commit to.

The balance is nowhere as bad as it was with late 7th, DoC alone made entire armies useless, and then followed up by VC and DE.. Typically here at least the mid-codex's have SOME bite to them, with lower codex's not being regulated to 'pure trash' pile.

40k is going through problems when it comes to it's own balance, Eldar dominates, then tau, then SM superfriends, but currently it's mostly eldar.

I don't know that there is an effective way to gauge.

I'd say that overall the GHB points are "mostly" ok, but the extreme edges of the builds make anything worthless to take against them.

I've seen the skryre army that does 30-40 mortal wounds or more when it pops out. It in no way should be allowed to exist.

Is it as bad as 7th edition Daemons? I'd say it ranks up there yeah. Does that make AOS in general worse than 7th ed?

I'd say the feeling I get is similar to the two. But that's a subjective thing.

Just want to reiterate and be absolutely clear that I was arguing that AoS balance is pretty great IF you completely ignore the obvious cheese lists. There are a LOT of obvious cheese lists, of course so in practice the balance isn't so good --- but if you get past the cheese a lot of armies are quite competitive.

The SKrye fire is not that terrible. I experienced a game of Fyreslayers and Skryre Fire Skavens. The Fyreslayer consisted a 'Lords of lodge' battelion, 45 Vulkite Berserker and 40 Hearthgurad. The berserkers eventually surrounded all other models in a huge big circle with a diameter of 16 inch. (one model take about one inch space)

That turn Skaven got out with two battlions of tunnel diving flame caster group. They cannot attack anything else except berserkers cause their 8' range wasn't long enough.. (16' diameter and 3' minimal distance between Berserkers). The Skaven poured 55 mortal wounds on that turn, but only able to kill 27 Berserkers due to their ward save. Then Lords of Ledge battlion used special ability to ensure the initiative next round. The Hearthgurad and Berserkers moved and shot 80 bullets and 55 fyreaxe in 8' with reroll of failed wound... all 14 Skaven flamecasters died immediately. Then they charged and killed quite a lot other stuff like stormvermins. The Skaven lost without any chance.


Also bonesplitter with Kunnin Rukk is just a piece of cake against Stormcast Fulminators block. Fulminators have 2+ save plus reroll 1 against shootings and they are not monsters.
540 arrows shots in one turn from Bonesplitter arrow boyz can sadly only make 8~9 damages on them. While in melee combat 10 Fulminators can cut down 40 of orcs in a single charge.

swarmofseals wrote:


It's worth noting that one of the things that is universally true of all of these factions is that they all have a very strong option that counts as battleline. Skryre has stormfiends, Bonesplitterz has arrowboys, Beastclaw Raiders has stonehorn/thundertusk riders, and Tomb Kings has chariots.

Arrowboys are not battleline. Savage Orruks, Boarboys, and Maniak Boar Boys are the battleline options. What does this Bonesplitterz list look like?

Aeonotakist wrote:
The SKrye firs is not that terrible. I saw a game of Fyreslayers and Skryre First Skavens. The Fyreslayer consist a lords of lodge battelion, 50 Vulkite Berserker and 50 Hearthgurad. The berserkers eventually surrounded all other models in a huge big circle with a diameter of 16 inch. (one model take about one inch space)

That turn Skaven got out with two battlions of tunnel diving flame caster group. They cannot attack anything else except berserkers cause their 8' range wasn't long enough.. (16' diameter and 3' minimal distance between Berserkers). The Skaven poured 55 mortal wounds on that turn, but only able to kill 27 Berserkers due to their ward save. Then Lords of Ledge battlion used special ability to ensure a initiative next round. The Hearthgurad and berserkers moved and shot 60 bullets and 55 fyreaxe in 8' with reroll of failed wound... 10 Skaven flamecasters died immediately. Then they charged and killed quite a lot other stuff. The Skaven lost without any chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also bonesplitter with Kunnin Rukk is just a piece of cake against Stormcast Fulminators block. They are 2+ reroll 1 against shootings and they are not monsters.

540 arrows shots in one turn from Bonesplitter arrow boyz can only take one of them down in a round. When in melee combat the arrow boyz are way too vulnarable that 16 Fulminator can cut down 40~50 of them in a single charge.

Now that's a good Fyreslayers list vs. skaven mortal wounds shooting Need to get myself 20 more hearthguard berzerkers
@Ninth you hit on something I was going to, am going to now,suggest and that's player-made comp. Before GHB we were all quite happy to use Clash or SCGT if opponents wanted some point guideline. So in the games where we didn't just go open we did have some sort of tool and I played someone who was wary of GHB points but needed points so we used SCGT and it worked fine...and actually we both still prefer that over GHB if given the option.

Actually I would say AOS is quite balanced.

All the normal lists which consist almost everything from a fiction is quite balanced playing against each other.

All the chesse lists, they got some hard counter that no one is really unbeatable.

Aeonotakist wrote:
Actually I would say AOS is quite balanced.

All the normal lists which consist almost everything from a fiction is quite balanced playing against each other.

All the chesse lists, they got some hard counter that no one is really unbeatable.

Agreed, and thanks for sharing that.
Even if it's a tournament the hardest list might face its problems. It's funny because in the US (at least between the coasts) those hardest "filth" (we say with love) can win best general but not the overall event due to soft scores and taking a hit in sportsmanship for taking that type of list.
...Now, that's an entirely different discussion for a different thread. I love it, personally, but I like that style of play. I want to attend an event in the UK some day but I'm not sure I've found one where I would have fun.

If you're in an environment where the cheesy lists exist, then if you aren't running a hard counter cheesy list you are going to get run over.

The normal lists are very playable against each other and quite fun. It only takes one of the broken lists showing up though to end that fun time.

 auticus wrote:
If you're in an environment where the cheesy lists exist, then if you aren't running a hard counter cheesy list you are going to get run over.

The normal lists are very playable against each other and quite fun. It only takes one of the broken lists showing up though to end that fun time.

Yep and US "tournament mentality" tends to infest where all it takes is one TFG to bring a broken list, and all of a sudden it's an escalating arms race long after that TFG leaves or goes elsewhere, the corruption permeates the area and everyone has already started the arms race, often becoming the TFG themselves.

It's rather sad when I put it that way, isn't it? Long after the corruption could be cleansed, people have forgotten that there didn't used to be any broken lists until "Bob" showed up, but now Bob is long gone and Steve, Jim, Bill and Andy all keep building broken lists from the Bob days.

I think that's my issue with some of this stuff; it just takes one guy bringing a "cheese" or "filth" (cheesy 2.0 term?) list and then everyone else forgets how to have fun or band together against the jerk and start to play the same game, so when the TFG leaves people still choose to play that way because it's all they know.

swarmofseals wrote:
Just want to reiterate and be absolutely clear that I was arguing that AoS balance is pretty great IF you completely ignore the obvious cheese lists. There are a LOT of obvious cheese lists, of course so in practice the balance isn't so good --- but if you get past the cheese a lot of armies are quite competitive.

I disagree with this though. The cheese lists ARE what is competitive. Just because you can have some really close and fun games doesn't truly mean competitive. The nature of competitive gaming by GW has always been maxing the cheese.

I don't find the points in the GHB to be very balanced. I do like that there are guide lines now to build in and that there are some more enjoyable ways to play but as far as competitive there are just too many things you can do to break this game.

I like AOS, but as a casual game with friends. I don't have interest in this for competitive play. I do know and agree that 40k has some balance issues of course but I think there are still a variety of armies which can be top tier. (elder/tau obv the best)

In regards to that Fyreslayer list, how did that all fit in 2000 pts? 50 Vulkite and 50 Hearthguard alone is 1800. There's other issues with what you described too.

@Veterannoob, if you are looking for balanced points you can use PPC (see my sig) since its still running and been updated to account for the GHB. As an added bonus the two are compatible; I use PPC lists against GHB ones regularly and it works fine because they are the same scale.

@Ninth thanks. It seems like the most balanced games I play are the ones we eyeball rather than use a point system, but that won't work every time with traveling and meeting new players for the first time/game. Diff tools for diff gaming experiences. Thanks though for the new (to me) points system. Always good to try out new ways of playing. I thought when GHB came out the local store would switch to that but all that's (thankfully happened) is more open and narrative play with points used as an initial guideline. Got one of those games tomorrow, in fact, and without the Matched Play limits of heroes, which is a huge boon for Fyreslayers.

I am going to disagree with most of the commenters in this thread. Firstly I think you can't yet rank armies against each other because meta hasn't settled. Secondly I don't think the "cheese builds" (namely Stormfiends Spam or Beastclaw Raiders) are that bad (-caveat-) at high level play. Let's have a look at the UK tourney winners since the GHB came out:

Rain of Stars - Flesheater Courts*
Alliance - Mixed Order Gunline (Hurricanum, Kurnoth Hunters, Glade Guard).
Brothers of Sigmar (doubles) - Mixed Chaos
Warlords - Kunnin' Ruk Bonesplitterz
Facehammer - Stormcast Eternals**

*, ** note the Flesheater Courts was a pure build and didn't include the Mournghul and the Stromcast Eternals weren't built around the Vexillor banner and Retributors but instead Skybourne Slayers.

So, that looks like a very healthy meta to me. Certainly seems you can't predict what army will win next. So what do you guys mean when you say the balance is terrible and Clan Skyre and Beastclaw are OP? Shouldn't we see that represented in tournament dominance? Because it's not happening.

If you're talking about the disparity between cutting edge lists and bad lists - yes there is a great divide. It's possible to make a really really bad list in Age of Sigmar and often the good lists for horde armies are the most boring to collect/hobby (for example, who wants to paint up 90 Handgunners really!?)

That can suggest bad internal balance perhaps, but moreso I think it's down to the AoS mechanics; with warscrolls getting better on a sliding scale as you increase the unit size it means you really really need to commit and max out unit sizes to get use out of weaker troop types. Otherwise they just do NOTHING. But that's often something players won't want to do as it is ultimately more fun from a hobby side to collect 3 x 10 models from different units than it is 30 models from a single unit - and that's why when you look at the oft called filthy lists they are usually very low model count because it's not soul destroying to collect a super efficient army of Beastclaws or Stormfiends or Blood Knights or Morghast compared to painting up 240 Night Goblins (all armed with nets).

Players may even do it by accident and that's where you can see a big difference on the casual scene (compare Player A who buys one of each unit (min size) in the Deathlords or Soul Blight factions compared to Player B who buys one of each unit (min size) of the Dispossessed)

So in my opinion, the balance across factions is fine for the moment, but if the design team really want to look at the game they need to make the weak chaff units better in smaller numbers because it's the casual players who buy mixed bag armies of "horde" factions that end up having the toughest time.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
In regards to that Fyreslayer list, how did that all fit in 2000 pts? 50 Vulkite and 50 Hearthguard alone is 1800. There's other issues with what you described too.

@Veterannoob, if you are looking for balanced points you can use PPC (see my sig) since its still running and been updated to account for the GHB. As an added bonus the two are compatible; I use PPC lists against GHB ones regularly and it works fine because they are the same scale.

yep I couldnt remember that clearly, so i modified somehow around 45 berserkers and 40 hearthgurad. Actually i may take less after some careful calculation cause Fyreslayer can fight back Skaven Warpfire Weapon team so easily. hearthguards are not really short on damage compare with those flamecasters in a 8' range.

The Fyreslayer just indicate one thing that is if you have cheap enough infantry (Vulkite Berserker is 8 points for one wound against MW, which in my opinion isn't cheap enough) and really powerful ranged damage dealer (Treeman hunter is not good enough, Irondrake and Hearthguard will do better), you can have at least 50% of winning chance against Skeven warpfire (In case they might roll a double turns). However, the Lords of Ledge battlion eliminate the hope of Skaven go into a double turn.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:
I am going to disagree with most of the commenters in this thread. Firstly I think you can't yet rank armies against each other because meta hasn't settled. Secondly I don't think the "cheese builds" (namely Stormfiends Spam or Beastclaw Raiders) are that bad (-caveat-) at high level play. Let's have a look at the UK tourney winners since the GHB came out:

Rain of Stars - Flesheater Courts*
Alliance - Mixed Order Gunline (Hurricanum, Kurnoth Hunters, Glade Guard).
Brothers of Sigmar (doubles) - Mixed Chaos
Warlords - Kunnin' Ruk Bonesplitterz
Facehammer - Stormcast Eternals**

*, ** note the Flesheater Courts was a pure build and didn't include the Mournghul and the Stromcast Eternals weren't built around the Vexillor banner and Retributors but instead Skybourne Slayers.

So, that looks like a very healthy meta to me. Certainly seems you can't predict what army will win next. So what do you guys mean when you say the balance is terrible and Clan Skyre and Beastclaw are OP? Shouldn't we see that represented in tournament dominance? Because it's not happening.

If you're talking about the disparity between cutting edge lists and bad lists - yes there is a great divide. It's possible to make a really really bad list in Age of Sigmar and often the good lists for horde armies are the most boring to collect/hobby (for example, who wants to paint up 90 Handgunners really!?)

That can suggest bad internal balance perhaps, but moreso I think it's down to the AoS mechanics; with warscrolls getting better on a sliding scale as you increase the unit size it means you really really need to commit and max out unit sizes to get use out of weaker troop types. Otherwise they just do NOTHING. But that's often something players won't want to do as it is ultimately more fun from a hobby side to collect 3 x 10 models from different units than it is 30 models from a single unit - and that's why when you look at the oft called filthy lists they are usually very low model count because it's not soul destroying to collect a super efficient army of Beastclaws or Stormfiends or Blood Knights or Morghast compared to painting up 240 Night Goblins (all armed with nets).

Players may even do it by accident and that's where you can see a big difference on the casual scene (compare Player A who buys one of each unit (min size) in the Deathlords or Soul Blight factions compared to Player B who buys one of each unit (min size) of the Dispossessed)

So in my opinion, the balance across factions is fine for the moment, but if the design team really want to look at the game they need to make the weak chaff units better in smaller numbers because it's the casual players who buy mixed bag armies of "horde" factions that end up having the toughest time.

Actually we have tried some of the lists in the event. Sadly they are really not competitive enough against some cheesy lists.

But to be honest, I would say the chessy but niche lists have their own problem. A Bonesplizz orcs will NEVER win a counter like what I mentioned, It's not like a dynamic but competitive list that you always have a 20%~60% chance to win someone. With good dice roll and strategy you may overcome tough rivals. But imagine a pure shooting table with no rend against something 2+save reroll 1?
That might be the reason of why cheesy lists never shows up in tourney. These lists are powerful but easy to counter, cause most of them are either one shot tactic or have only one kind of unit.
You can also take examples from card game like Hearthstone. In those games there are also some meta that is so powerful against 80% of other meta but got a auto lost against a hard counter. Usually those setup will never win any series games tourney.

My optimistic thinking AOS is finally all ambitious player will turn to dynamic but competitive lists, instead of piling up Skaven Warpfire. Because your cheesy list is so niche that in front of a hard counter it is wiped out when you place them on table. And that is totally no fun.

In a tournament setting, scissors will almost certainly eventually have to face rock.

Right, that's one thing why I keep pushing balanced forces and always try to do it myself (in 40k too). Less likely you'll A) wipe out someone who DOESN'T have a hard counter to your list, and B) get wiped out if someone DOES have a hard counter.

It makes for a much more enjoyable game when you both have your handful of "good" units but are both well balanced, and the game can go either way than rolling up with some min/maxed skew list that eats enemies or falls apart.

Plus those really close games are often the most enjoyable.

Gimmick lists will always feel strong. I think at the moment, crazy alpha strike armies feel overbearing, but they have clear counters (deployment positioning, counter-reserves, Gryph Hounds to an extent).

There are armies that are for sure stronger than others, and ones that are weaker, but at the moment I don't see any as being super imba and ruining the game in the way Eldar seems to be for 40k right now.

i haven't seen a good counter in person to the skaven list that pops up and doles out 30-50 mortal wounds yet. I'm sure one exists, but I'm also sure its a hard counter, which would put it in the classification of about what the eldar do to 40k right now.

I did want to say though it seems like while there are your gimmicky spam lists, AOS seems a lot more balanced than 40k. Of course, I haven't played 40k yet in ages, but AOS seems like a lot more fun from what I see between the AOS interactions and 40k players. It really makes me want to focus on AOS as my main game instead of 40k.