GHB2019 really reduces variables in matched play when it comes to terrain. A table is six by four and has 10 pieces of terrain split into primary and secondary terrain types.

I'll be interested to see how the terrian rules firming up affects the game; to my mind the terrian rules in the core book were one of the very weak areas so its good to see GW stepping up to give some more guidelines. Heck just putting down enough line of sight blocking terrain significantly changes the game experience.

Oh? I haven’t heard about that. Sounds interesting!

Glad to hear about the terrain. I've been arguing that for Matched Play there needs to be more strict rules about terrain in general if they really intend on making AoS(and 40k as well) tourney games.

A lot of cranky Maggotkin players as this badly hurts the garden.

 frozenwastes wrote:
GHB2019 really reduces variables in matched play when it comes to terrain. A table is six by four and has 10 pieces of terrain split into primary and secondary terrain types.

Until you look at all the official terrain from GW and see some of it is literally 2" big, depending on you and your opponent 10 pieces could cover the table or it could only fill a tiny bit up.

Here are some example

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Walls-Fences
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Baleful-Realmgates
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Dominion-of-Sigmar-Timeworn-Ruins-2019

Here is a table mat with terrain sold together, terrain makes up like 5% the table lol. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Realm-Of-Battle-Blasted-Hallowheart-2018
Edit: That kit has "9" terrain pieces, so if you looking to add 1 more piece, this is what GW has in-mind for terrain

The GHB spells out like one pick is two wall pieces or one of something else or whatever. Its going to be on the sparse side but not as empty as the bundle/set. Less than I'd prefer but enough to matter. Enough that if you're not careful you could get your army terrain like a ship or moon shrine blocked from being placed. So it's not an empty table.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
GHB2019 really reduces variables in matched play when it comes to terrain. A table is six by four and has 10 pieces of terrain split into primary and secondary terrain types.

Until you look at all the official terrain from GW and see some of it is literally 2" big, depending on you and your opponent 10 pieces could cover the table or it could only fill a tiny bit up.

Here are some example

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Walls-Fences
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Baleful-Realmgates
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Dominion-of-Sigmar-Timeworn-Ruins-2019

Here is a table mat with terrain sold together, terrain makes up like 5% the table lol. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Realm-Of-Battle-Blasted-Hallowheart-2018
Edit: That kit has "9" terrain pieces, so if you looking to add 1 more piece, this is what GW has in-mind for terrain

They also released recently Dominion of Sigmar which is a very sizable kit. Then you have the Sigmarite Mausoleum, Numinous Occulum, and Warscryer Citadel which are all of decent size. Sadly they don't sell the Dreadhold anymore. Those were decently sized kit albeit way too expensive. Could also be that Azyrite Townscape is considered one "terrain feature".

Yes they do have larger ones for sure! But im just pointing out that 5 smaller pieces on a table isnt going to fill up a table at all.

Being able to have smaller pieces is something players dont normally do or think of.

"No terrain within 6" of a board edge" kind of breaks Skaven Gnawholes, doesn't it? Unless I'm missing something where Faction terrain rules trump GHB2019 rules, so then the rule doesn't even really matter.

Personally, I don't think the minumum terrain piece requirement will effect the way I set up tables at all, since I generally have 10 or more, between big set pieces and smaller scatter terrain, and I've not heard any complaints about my method. I show up first, or host at my home, and let my opponent whoever it may be, pick their Territory once we've rolled up a mission.

The issue with the Gnawholes is easy to Errata. "This rule overrides the general restrictions on terrain placement." Honestly, since specific override general (battletome vs. GHB), I don't think there should be an issue in the first place. I've spent enough time on the internet to know that won't be the case, though.

 EnTyme wrote:
The issue with the Gnawholes is easy to Errata. "This rule overrides the general restrictions on terrain placement." Honestly, since specific override general (battletome vs. GHB), I don't think there should be an issue in the first place. I've spent enough time on the internet to know that won't be the case, though.

Yep, their FB page has said there is a GHB FAQ coming out shortly after launch.

Relevant quotes:

this feedback has been passed on and it will be addressed. For now, we recommend carrying on using the rules as they appear in the battletome. Thanks!

and

Hi Jordan, guys. This will be addressed in the General's Handbook FAQ, which will land soon after launch. At present, continue using the terrain rules as they appear in your Battletomes for any unusual army-specific terrain.

Do you have the link? So i can at least show my local.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Do you have the link? So i can at least show my local.

Should work, just click on the chat icon and you'll see the relevant quotes down the thread:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FGWWarhammerAgeofSigmar%2Fposts%2F1063248077205318&width=500" width="500" height="356" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media

Thanks

 Eldarain wrote:
A lot of cranky Maggotkin players as this badly hurts the garden.

Not to mention that there's a lot more missions with "no one's territory" and gaining Contagion Points requires you to be in your or your opponent's territory. They really should change that rule to keep up with the newer summoning mechanics.

Maggotkin haven't gotten their 2.0 update yet (their first book was basically 1.5e), so hopefully they'll see some tweaks like that to bring them back in line with the current rules.

It does make things harder for Nurgle. Fortunately we can do something about it. The tree is small enough that it may fit somewhere depending on what the board looks like, smaller territories mean your opponent is less likely to be in yours (an extra +1), and Gutrot/nurglings will rarely have trouble getting into enemy territory round 1. Still not ideal but it is something.

The indirect issue this has caused is that players are starting to get cranky with any tables that have any moderate amount of terrain on it now because "it screws them over" in regards to their free terrain.

Which is highly irritating because the push is to return to planet bowling bowl or something akin to that.

The problem isn't that there is "more terrain", the problem is the terrain must be 6" away from other terrain rule.

But that ultimately is the issue. The more terrain there is, the less room for faction terrain, because of the 6" requirement. Without the rule, it's fine as your terrain can still go where you want.

I personally think a flat 3" would have been better; 3" from the board edge, 3" from other terrain, 3" from objectives. For regular and faction terrain. One number, the same number as melee range, easy for to remember and implement.

As for not getting faction terrain... Well, I can't think of an instance where it isn't just a free upgrade*. IMO they should have cost points in the first place, and allegiances with them still function perfectly fine missing it. Had those allegiances with terrain been launched without it there would not have been complaint they were too weak and needed a boost. But because it was given and now being taken away it creates a different dynamic. Part of me wonders if this is a plan to add points to the terrain pieces; taking it away then going "OK, you can have it back if you pay points for it" could go over better than just slapping points on them in the first place.

*Sylvaneth excepted, but that is a special case.

Terrain being to close also creates other problems, Horde armies for an example are harder to play and more time comsuming.

If i was playing IDK or other armies with lots of Fly and against Hordes i could place terrain in ways to lessen their movements making getting anywhere much harder giving me an advantage, but for the other player there is no terrain placement advantage at all.

Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

Well for now via facebook we can ignore the rules for faction terrain.

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

That works for me.

Also, is it just me or is this a real moment from GW? This whole incident feels like quite a cock up.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

That works for me.

Also, is it just me or is this a real moment from GW? This whole incident feels like quite a cock up.

I got the feeling it's intentional and they're just going to backtrack due to whining from folks who want their free special snowflake terrain.

Wayniac wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 obsidiankatana wrote:
Sans the terrain pieces that simply do not function with the new rules (Gnawholes RIP, pending FAQ), it looks like a lot of problems would be resolved if faction terrain was simply placed before map terrain.

That works for me.

Also, is it just me or is this a real moment from GW? This whole incident feels like quite a cock up.

I got the feeling it's intentional and they're just going to backtrack due to whining from folks who want their free special snowflake terrain.

Its a business choice to go back, not whining, if players cant play with the terrain then they wont buy it, simple as that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: Faction focus terrain is actually a good thing. It simple takes army rules and puts them to a piece of terrain giving a visual representation of the rules, gives players another nice looking model for a show piece, etc..

Otherwise those rules would have been modified and rolled into other units/army books. Having terrain doesnt make the army better, it would have been same power level with or without the piece of terrain.

Also faction terrain still counts as terrain, so Realm relics, spells, other spells and relics that targets terrain counts, you can force your opponent to take MW's, and it body blocks, you can use them to your advantage a bit if you wanted too.

I've since divorced myself from matched play rules and have found that the games are a little better. In that context, the gnawholes function just fine because there is no matched play mechanic preventing them from being placed "where they can't" even though its the only place that they can go.

 auticus wrote:
I've since divorced myself from matched play rules and have found that the games are a little better. In that context, the gnawholes function just fine because there is no matched play mechanic preventing them from being placed "where they can't" even though its the only place that they can go.

yeah. It could just be you can't use this is matched play. But since matched play is 99% what's played...

That's likely true of your area but certainly not of mine. There's a GW store, 3 other stores that sell GW stuff and they have hundreds and hundreds of customers but a given gaming night at a store will have 10 or so people and the biggest local tournaments have 20ish people. The vast majority of people play in people's houses and seem to do some sort of hybrid thing where they might use points but then play some narrative battle plan or try the open war cards or whatever. Points for structure, but not necessarily all the other matched play rules.

I think GW dug a bit of a hole for themselves with the Faction Terrain. On the one hand, it is awesome looking stuff on the whole and great for people without the time or inclination to make themed terrain for their armies. I would have been very happy if it was released without rules.

But in an effort to sell the terrain kits, GW seem to have been sticking to the strategy of "Got a model? Gotta have rules."
This is pretty logical, plastic kits are not cheap to make and putting rules on the model is a way to add value and therefore make more players purchase the miniatures. It is part of the reason why GWs stuff costs more than generic stuff - the rules help justify part of the value.

However, this means they need to constantly consider terrain in their design in a way they did not previously, and given how unprofessional and incompetent GWs design team are, this extra challenge will likely prove a continual stumbling block.

Keeping these kits "in the game" moving forward will be a challenge, and I expect at some point in the next few years the kits will get dropped, some of them at least, with a lot of people getting very butthurt about it.

Now that GHB 2019 is in the wild, what are people's opinions on it?

I liked most of the ghb. Lot of ideas for my campaigns. Lot of ideas for outside of the box non-tournament play. It was worth the money to me.

 auticus wrote:
I liked most of the ghb. Lot of ideas for my campaigns. Lot of ideas for outside of the box non-tournament play. It was worth the money to me.

I agree, lot of nice stuff in it.

 auticus wrote:
I liked most of the ghb. Lot of ideas for my campaigns. Lot of ideas for outside of the box non-tournament play. It was worth the money to me.

Pretty much this.

I am also liking this new approach of having the new points in a separate booklet. If they could just add the Core Rules and Rulebook missions to GHB2019 it could easily become the only book to take with you beside your battletome.

Haven't gotten a chance to look at the points changes. Anything standing out yet?

Well two of our daughters of khaine players put their stuff on ebay this weekend citing that the points increases makes them "unplayable".

Looking at the point increases to hags and witch elves, I would disagree they are unplayable but they certainly can't take as many as they used to so from a busted standpoint they are probably "unplayable".

Stormcast vanguard are more popular here now. Evocators seem to be being binned as "unplayable" now that they are not steeply discounted. Their points cost fit on the bell curve that I have so I think they are more balanced now.

Flesh Eater courts are still laughing in Flesh Eater Court. At least right now.

There is the faq update coming in July that has more points changes so we don't know the full picture yet.

I like the Meeting Engagements rules. Having to divide your list in three contingents that come at different times depending of the scenario played actually lead to different strategies/tactics we see in "normal" Ranged Battle games.

And I agree, this year's General Handbook has plenty of nice ideas. Points are definitely a minor part in this book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
Well two of our daughters of khaine players put their stuff on ebay this weekend citing that the points increases makes them "unplayable".

Looking at the point increases to hags and witch elves, I would disagree they are unplayable but they certainly can't take as many as they used to so from a busted standpoint they are probably "unplayable".

Stormcast vanguard are more popular here now. Evocators seem to be being binned as "unplayable" now that they are not steeply discounted. Their points cost fit on the bell curve that I have so I think they are more balanced now.

Flesh Eater courts are still laughing in Flesh Eater Court. At least right now.

There is the faq update coming in July that has more points changes so we don't know the full picture yet.

Do you remember the guy who burned his whole dark elf army on a video when AoS was announced ? It was the new plastic one at that time. That makes me think of him when I read what you described.

Games may change, but players stay the same.

Tournament guys chase the meta. Thats part of being a tournament player, churn and burn baby.

Remember to your competitive player, if it's not broken, it's garbage. Doesn't matter if it's still good if it's not undercosted/overpowered/etc. with something that can be abused, it's "uncompetitive"

Auticus could make a comic detailing the exploits/comments of his local competitive community, literally with exact quotes and no exaggeration, and it would be hilarious.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Auticus could make a comic detailing the exploits/comments of his local competitive community, literally with exact quotes and no exaggeration, and it would be hilarious.

I would love to read that. Like his local area seems like a caricature sometimes of the stereotypical competitive community. Then you realize it's not a caricature...

There is a guy I talk to in another fb group that talks about his local group and he says pretty much similar things that I do, so I don't think my area is strange and unusual.

I think its just how competitive communities operate.

There was a twitter discussion about efficiency regarding tournaments that had a lot of guys discussing the same thing - that tournament guys use of the word "unplayable" is a lot different from casual players use of the same word.

Not strange, but you have to admit it has a pretty solid position on the upper side of the bell curve. Like Stormcast; sure it isn't FEC or Skaven, but still. And it's a perfect poster boy.

I think thats just because I talk about it more than others because I try to run narrative events, and I talk about the competitive guys in my area and the shenanigans they pull that capsize my attempts.

To that effort, a lot of folks that try to do narrative events just give up and make them competitive events because its a major hassle otherwise.

 auticus wrote:
Well two of our daughters of khaine players put their stuff on ebay this weekend citing that the points increases makes them "unplayable".

As for the GHB in general, I think it's the best one yet. So much game content! We played a couple games using the open war generator (army, terrain and mission/twist/etc) and had a great time. My friend is doing Tzeentch so we're going to do the Stormcast Chaos campaign in the Alixia section.

I guess the more on topic question though, is that does it do anything for the points in the OP about both balance inside an army where more units are "viable" and balance between armies where more armies are closer to the average.

Hopefully.

I'm actually impressed with how the smaller table size seems to help with the summoning issue in Meeting Engagements. I ended up with my mixed order making it so the only place a unit could be summoned on turn 3 was behind their main line. I need to try it with a lower model count army like with all stormcast.

 auticus wrote:
Well two of our daughters of khaine players put their stuff on ebay this weekend citing that the points increases makes them "unplayable".

Looking at the point increases to hags and witch elves, I would disagree they are unplayable but they certainly can't take as many as they used to so from a busted standpoint they are probably "unplayable".

Stormcast vanguard are more popular here now. Evocators seem to be being binned as "unplayable" now that they are not steeply discounted. Their points cost fit on the bell curve that I have so I think they are more balanced now.

Flesh Eater courts are still laughing in Flesh Eater Court. At least right now.

There is the faq update coming in July that has more points changes so we don't know the full picture yet.

The DoK thing depends entirely on what you were running. Those who were running Witch Aelves en masse got the worst of it(200 point increase on most of those compositions), whereas many Sisters of Slaughter and Snake compositions didn't lose much(Snake part even gained a few points back).

FEC seem to be trailing more and more with each tournament I see. Recently there was AoS Tournament Heat 3 and the highest FEC player only reached 19th place. There were ton of FEC players, but none of them managed to get higher than 19th place.

Top 5 placings were very interesting with:

1. Grand Host of Nagash
2. Bonesplitters
3. Hedonites of Slaanesh
4. Blades of Khorne
5. Skaventide

Of course, the greatest thing from the Heat was that Tomb Kings placed 11th! Settra bringing it back!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Auticus could make a comic detailing the exploits/comments of his local competitive community, literally with exact quotes and no exaggeration, and it would be hilarious.

I would love to read that. Like his local area seems like a caricature sometimes of the stereotypical competitive community. Then you realize it's not a caricature...

Auticus' exploits with his community remind me of Karol's(in the 40k threads) stories of the playerbase near him(I think Warsaw). Apparently very cutthroat and toxic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
There is a guy I talk to in another fb group that talks about his local group and he says pretty much similar things that I do, so I don't think my area is strange and unusual.

I think its just how competitive communities operate.

There was a twitter discussion about efficiency regarding tournaments that had a lot of guys discussing the same thing - that tournament guys use of the word "unplayable" is a lot different from casual players use of the same word.

I would almost go as far as that is how localized competitive communities in certain countries operate. We have a much more relaxed meta around me(that can be competitive if it needs be), but then we've had American visitors and they tend to go for the throat, at least in the 40k venue.

 Eldarsif wrote:


FEC seem to be trailing more and more with each tournament I see. Recently there was AoS Tournament Heat 3 and the highest FEC player only reached 19th place. There were ton of FEC players, but none of them managed to get higher than 19th place.

Top 5 placings were very interesting with:

1. Grand Host of Nagash
2. Bonesplitters
3. Hedonites of Slaanesh
4. Blades of Khorne
5. Skaventide

Of course, the greatest thing from the Heat was that Tomb Kings placed 11th! Settra bringing it back!

Anywhere I can read up more on Heat 3? Google isn't throwing up anything useful, but I'd like to see how many people were competing, and the TK list of course!

There is this:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/GWWarhammerWorld/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2582939365058861

Can't seem to find the list, but Will Rose is the name of the player.

 Eldarsif wrote:
There is this:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/GWWarhammerWorld/photos/?tab=album&album_id=2582939365058861

Can't seem to find the list, but Will Rose is the name of the player.

Thanks!

I would almost go as far as that is how localized competitive communities in certain countries operate. We have a much more relaxed meta around me(that can be competitive if it needs be), but then we've had American visitors and they tend to go for the throat, at least in the 40k venue.

That could very well be and be why a lot of people overseas are the ones that typically accuse me of using comic book characters to describe my meta lol (that its an exaggeration because in their environment its abnormal)

I do feel US culture comes into it. Something to understand for players from other countries is that we tend to get very competitive very quickly over everything. A balance concern that crops up with the occasional player/instance overseas is likely to be quite common if not the standard over here. The idea of intentionally restraining oneself in a game is unfortunately quite rare for many communities. I've talked about how I do so and had people not believe me.

It's not "US culture" IMO.

It's the culture that's cropped up, period, surrounding some games and the "optimized gamer".

Precisely. People over here compete over everything. That is just built in to our society.

Restraining yourself in a game and not going as hard as possible is often met with at best a mild look of surprise or an eye roll, and at worse a tirade about how people that expect others to restrain themselves in a competitive game are CAAC scum.

Note the at worse, meaning thats not the normal. But it can happen, and has happened in my community facebook a couple of times in the past couple of years.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "US culture" IMO.

It's the culture that's cropped up, period, surrounding some games and the "optimized gamer".

Cropped up? US competitive-ness was around before wargaming.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "US culture" IMO.

It's the culture that's cropped up, period, surrounding some games and the "optimized gamer".

Cropped up? US competitive-ness was around before wargaming.

We're kinda/sorta heading into pseudo-political territory here but there's a huge difference between what existed before and what exists now with the "<insert game name here>-crafters". These are the kinds of people that will spend huuuuuuuge amounts of time strictly trying to figure out what minute variation of perks/items gives them some tiny advantage over anyone else.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "US culture" IMO.

It's the culture that's cropped up, period, surrounding some games and the "optimized gamer".

Cropped up? US competitive-ness was around before wargaming.

We're kinda/sorta heading into pseudo-political territory here but there's a huge difference between what existed before and what exists now with the "<insert game name here>-crafters". These are the kinds of people that will spend huuuuuuuge amounts of time strictly trying to figure out what minute variation of perks/items gives them some tiny advantage over anyone else.

Yeah this is a person to person thing, stop talking about it as a whole of countries. Its pointless.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yeah this is a person to person thing, stop talking about it as a whole of countries. Its pointless.

That is what culture is. And I find the attitudes towards balance and how they differ between countries very relevant to the topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's not "US culture" IMO.

It's the culture that's cropped up, period, surrounding some games and the "optimized gamer".

Cropped up? US competitive-ness was around before wargaming.

We're kinda/sorta heading into pseudo-political territory here but there's a huge difference between what existed before and what exists now with the "<insert game name here>-crafters". These are the kinds of people that will spend huuuuuuuge amounts of time strictly trying to figure out what minute variation of perks/items gives them some tiny advantage over anyone else.

Ah, I get what you mean. I think the internet is responsible for that one by facilitating the accumulation and exchange of data which makes such analysis possible. IMO part of it as the same mentality given new tools to work with; it was not done before because it was not possible. But I also see what you mean about the mentality changing as well, I think that is a good point.

Mentality definitely changed in the last 20 years. The funny part is how competitiveness is praised as the end goal and liberator of our gaming woes only that such way of playing is simply not sustainable in a small environment and leads to the decline of it, something that was proven time and time again.

I don't think we'd rate high on the competitive scale, but it's a trend and doctrine that's observable and promoted in every branch of the society.

Once Magic the Gathering was put on ESPN, that was the shift in mentality. That was when tournament play became such a driving force.

Fast forward 20 years and esports are a huge thing as well.

It does contribute highly to player burnout, but it also highly contributes to enticing interest in the first place as well.

Gone are the days of narrative RPG / storytelling being the focus. Thats true even in RPGs themselves, where a lot of D&D nights are approached competitively, at least in the weekly open game nights we have in my city for D&D.

Or it could just be thats what is publicly visible and the narrative gaming is reserved to Joe's garage.

 auticus wrote:


Or it could just be thats what is publicly visible and the narrative gaming is reserved to Joe's garage.

I think this is a big aspect. It's like how you could argue football is mostly professionally played because that's basically all you see on the TV and yet local clubs have LOADS of casual games going on all over the world. There's even walking football for older generations etc... And taht's without touching on the myriad of custom rules/ideas/themes that get used at the club level.


Competitive games are easier for viewers to get into because the rules are the rules. It's a straight forward known easy to display package. Heck go talk about open play games and within a few posts its quickly apparent that everyone is doin their own variations and there is little common ground.

I think it's a combination of people always wanting to be competitive and show that they are better than their peers and that the tournaments get a lot of publicity so it looks to be way bigger than it is. Look at how popular ITC is claimed to be despite being a real minority because it has a lot of visibility.

The problem is that tournament/competitive play infests (I'm purposely using this word) everything it touches, as you well know. All it takes is for a handful of people to start playing competitively in a meta, and it will often infect everyone over time and eventually, you only have competitive play going on. I have a fictional story I like to tell to illustrate this:

One day, Bob shows up to his local game store, that has a casual and laid-back meta, with a competitive netlist army because he wants to start playing more competitively (note: nothing wrong with this in and of itself). He plays Jim, a casual player, and crushes him in full view of a few others playing that evening. A few weeks later, Jim has reworked his army to be more competitive so he won't get crushed against Bob. As time goes on, the casual players move to more competitive armies so they don't get curb stomped when playing as more and more players swap to competitive lists. Tournaments start being run, which increases the competitive play and brings in other people from other, more competitive metas.

A couple of years later, long after Bob and Jim and many others have moved on, you only see competitive play going on at the store because nobody still playing can remember a time before that fateful day when Bob started the arms race by bringing a competitive list. A new player looking to get started only sees competitive lists and monthly tournaments and gets pointed towards that, so that's all everyone knows and casual play has all but stopped happening at the store. All because one day one person decided to start the domino effect.

Now that story is exaggerated a little bit but that's what often happens. One guy starts the chain reaction and soon everyone is jumping onto the competitive scene so they aren't the one getting crushed.

I think the issue is also that FLGS usually try to generate interest in the game by having tournaments. People then get excited for the tournaments and want to do well increasing the likelihood of people becoming ever more competitive.

I see this currently at my FLGS. It's been having a very active tourneys this year and more and more people are interested in participating and in turn I see more and more people playing at the store, but also more competitive. These tourneys have done wonders in generating interests and having a more pool of people and factions to play against, but at the same time I must be willing to engage in a competitive mindset to play with them.

Ultimately casual and narrative games tend to be played at home where people can relax with a beer and some snacks and often those people don't engage with the local playerbase in such a manner that it makes a dent in the competitive mentality. Add on this that we now have WCP scoring and people being able to travel for tourneys so people are actually more incentivized in being competitive than ever before.

The tournament circuit offers a shared language to play with, but it comes with the baggage that people want to win.

Those are both (responses) pretty accurate from my perspective as well.

Stores run tournaments because they are easy to run and generate interest. Tournaments are about competitive play. This breeds a group of competitive players.

New players want to join. New player joins and gets hammered by competitive list. New player typically doesn't like that so new player gets a competitive list.

The cycle continues.

Casual play and narrative play requires a group that supports that which requires events of some sort that support that. This is why I run annual campaign events with full awards and rules that dictate what I expect from a narrative list / event.

The arms race is real. Even in a casual group that doesn't play tournaments, once Bob or Jim go to youtube and see the latest meta smasher and decide they want that and then go to their game night and pwn the living hell out of their opponents, their opponents will respond by either quitting the game or escalating the power of their lists as well.

If there is no reason to scale power back, people will by and large not do so in what most consider to be a competitive game.

One of the features of my leagues is an endurance award; one random player who showed up every week gets a prize. That's it. Just show up and play every week, you can win something.

Tournaments don't just drum up interest fast they are also dead easy to run for a store. You just organise a day, advertise it and everyone comes and plays a series of games against each other and you structure them to play in tiered groups so that in the end you've got a winner of the event.

Simple, easy and the only complicating or required elements are the same no matter what kind of game you are running.

Plus they are easily open to as many people as you have table space for. So you don't have to scale much up to take more and more players. Plus its easy for new people to pick up and take part in, even if they lose. They just need their legal army as written in the rules of the game and meeting the points requirement for the event.


Easy to run, works with small or big numbers, scales up very easily and doesn't really need anything special.



Open and Narrative are more the kind of thing you'd get once you've got a group going. Narrative is long running so you need to base it around your regular players and having people drop in and out is trickier; whilst open is a catch all and might just mean one or two house rules or a whole rafter of changes. It requires a degree of trust and understanding between the players that's beyond the "hey want a 2K point game?" that matched/tournament play can achieve.





Endurance awards are a neat idea - simple and not really open to abuse and just rewards people for taking part in a positive way.




On the subject of newbies and tournament/competitive environments my experience is that it can work fine so long as you get newbies in batches. If you gain 6 new players all around the same time they will scale up against each other at a generally similarish rate (assuming similar levels of prior game experience). Plus they've got each other to play with rather than only going against the "pros" of the club. The issue is more when you've got newbies going up against 10 year experienced gamers all the time. Both groups have to take some degree of give and take to make the experience fun for them unless the experienced player only wants to "newbie bash".
IT is an issue, made worse if there's also a generation gap going on (both if you've a young newbie against old experienced players and an old newbie who ends up trapped with young newbies all the time).

that's beyond the "hey want a 2K point game?" that matched/tournament play can achieve

That right there is the keystone.

I have helped with organizing two campaigns. One as Path to Glory and one Escalation League.

The Path to Glory was fun, but swung so wildly that some enjoyed it while others hated it. Also, as time went on, we lost players.

The escalation league was a bit more straightforward, but there we had a few tryhards among a group of people interested in having fun. The same happened here though and we saw numbers dwindle as time passed. One of the issues was also that the game doesn't really fit well into sub-1000 points and the Nagash player dominated that league, only facing challenge when we got past 1000 points.

 Overread wrote:

Open and Narrative are more the kind of thing you'd get once you've got a group going. Narrative is long running so you need to base it around your regular players and having people drop in and out is trickier; whilst open is a catch all and might just mean one or two house rules or a whole rafter of changes. It requires a degree of trust and understanding between the players that's beyond the "hey want a 2K point game?" that matched/tournament play can achieve.

100% agree with this.

I've run a handful of Narrative nights at my club - using Triumph and Treachery rules, or the Siege rules from last GHB, etc. Not even a campaign, just one night is organizing, you're telling people to shape specific lists, and then you're spending a good chunk of time before playing just explaining the differences between this and regular AoS. It's fun, especially when everyone is into it, but at the end of the day most people want to roll dice and push their dudes at another player's dudes, and Matched does that just as well as any other format with little to no time investment.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I have helped with organizing two campaigns. One as Path to Glory and one Escalation League.

The Path to Glory was fun, but swung so wildly that some enjoyed it while others hated it. Also, as time went on, we lost players.

The escalation league was a bit more straightforward, but there we had a few tryhards among a group of people interested in having fun. The same happened here though and we saw numbers dwindle as time passed. One of the issues was also that the game doesn't really fit well into sub-1000 points and the Nagash player dominated that league, only facing challenge when we got past 1000 points.

I'm working on a full update for the Path to Glory rules that should make it less swingy, may be what you're looking for.

Gotta say, I'd jump at the chance of a narrative campaign. Round my way though it's 2k pts of matched play or nothing.

I'm working on a full update for the Path to Glory rules that should make it less swingy, may be what you're looking for.

Looking forward to it.

I'd be interested to see your path to glory changes.

My fall narrative campaign the first two chapters are path to glory and then it moves into a hybrid of open and matched where there are random restrictions on what you can take beyond battleline that has 2 or 1 wound. Inspired by the open war generator.

I love the idea of Path to Glory. I don't trust most people in my area (possibly even myself!) to not abuse it, assuming anyone even wanted to give it a chance because it doesn't have points and relies on people not being donkey caves.

My campaign lets you pick your initial force, but no monstrous heroes to start. And then you roll the forces randomly after that as you upgrade. You don't ever get to pick. This way there is no way to intentionally powergame and break the campaign. Additionally my open war hybrid mixes up lists in normal 2000 pt games. And if you don't have the stuff to field an army because you only bought 2000 points of evilness and the generator says "sorry you can only take 1 monster this game" and you are 20% or more below your opponent in points, you get sudden death conditions instead or get to choose meeting engagements.

I’ve generally only had like five or six pieces of terrain on tables I set up, but they’re usually larger pieces, or a couple/few smaller pieces set up touching to form a larger piece. Gives stuff that better blocks avenues of movement and LoS. Should be fine setting up most of the faction terrains on them, though my sprawling Wyldwoods will have issues.

Differing opinion than the rest here, but I think the primary increase in competitiveness is twofold:

1. Most importantly. how insanely easy it is to find, discuss, and analyze competitive aspects with like minded people in an environment devoted to it. We've had the internet for a while, but the distillation of groups to their most extreme is so easy now.

2. Prior games, editions, etc didn't push competitive play and it wasn't pursued because everyone kinda knew the game was incapable of it. It is only within the last 10 years that we've started seeing miniature games with a tight enough design and ruleset that competitive play is not only possible, but actually fun. People are more interested in competitive play now because it is starting to become actually possible. Obviously, games like Magic are capable of having good enough design that competitiveness taken to the most extreme still cannot completely solve a meta before new additions are made. Wargaming hasn't reached this level yet, but it isn't *that* far off now.

WMH took a gigantic leap in this direction, and Xwing took it even further. We're starting to see games like Infinity where even at the most competitive levels there is a plethora of options and wide debate about whether X or Y is really better.

GW has only recently tried getting their games at level that support true competitive play. AoS and 40k still have a ways to go. Underworlds was their best work so far in this regard. I hope they can get there soon with their flagship products.

The new FAQs are up.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/faqs/?orderby=title&order=asc&fbclid=IwAR1DDXXcYZR2iG2Vf0quBfxokGVNMfhw2oW6fA4zBMKpW4tLfjN4miopxeA#items-warhammer-age-of-sigmar

Slaanesh is a very interesting read - probably - if you can read Japanese

My favorite is how those clowns put the japanese version of the slaanesh faq up. Unfortunately I cannot read japanese.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though slaanesh indeed had NO points changes from their battletome. So the Keeper of Busted remains busted for a year.

Rejoice and celebrate my min/max brethren.

I think the issue is GW wants us to buy Keepers and players want to put multiple keepers on the table at once. If anything needs a point reduction its fiends just so you can squeeze them in alongside all those leaders.

So have FEC, Skaven or Hedonites been reeled in at all?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So have FEC, Skaven or Hedonites been reeled in at all?

Somewhat. Savage Strike has been reeled in. Arch-Regent got a 40 point increase, Ghoul King and Terrogheist Ghoul King got a 20 point increase.

Crypt Horrors went down 10 points, and all the endless spells went up 10 points.

Those changes wont stop fec from teabagging the rest of the game.

It did little to address the root of their lmao.

Only time will tell.

Yeah. We shall see. My gut instinct is that FeC will still be a special powergamer vintage that we will all get to enjoy. But summer 2020 will ultimately tell us how 2019 went.

The forbidden spell boat doesn’t allow movement after anymore. Takes out some shenanigans. My Slaanesh stuff is still awesome though.

I want quotes from Auticus' competitive community. Since I have no local competitive WAAC guys I feed upon the tears of his ones by proxy.

The GKoTG being hit with only a 20p increase is not as much as I would have thought.

That being said, the 40p on an archregent and another 20 on a regular GK does take care of some of the stacking, as that baseline combo that I always ran in competitive builds, is now hit with +80p. I guess the bigger picture applies, as the stacking was mostly the problem.

And with Grisstlegore getting a hit through the savage strike nerf, it al least makes the GG AGKoTG killable by armies without shooting that aren't Slaanesh.






Now all that is left, is cutting down multi KoS Slaanesh cheese lists. But I couldn't see that update, as I kept getting an asian version (looks Japanese, but no expert).

 Elmir wrote:
The GKoTG being hit with only a 20p increase is not as much as I would have thought.

That being said, the 40p on an archregent and another 20 on a regular GK does take care of some of the stacking, as that baseline combo that I always ran in competitive builds, is now hit with +80p. I guess the bigger picture applies, as the stacking was mostly the problem.

And with Grisstlegore getting a hit through the savage strike nerf, it al least makes the GG AGKoTG killable by armies without shooting that aren't Slaanesh.

Agreed on all points.

I like the boat change. That made things how I'd expect it to work.

I want quotes from Auticus' competitive community. Since I have no local competitive WAAC guys I feed upon the tears of his ones by proxy.

They have mostly hopped off of our main fb group and have set up their own chat group for their tournaments and leagues that they are running and they don't mess with powerbombing the narratives any longer.

I have not heard anything and probably won't hear anything from them for a while. We have some players that play in both my campaigns and their tournaments, so I figure by late August or so I'll hear something. A lot of them are also heavy 40k tournament players (may and june there were six tournaments for example... two weeks out of eight that there was not a tournament running ) and have been more involved in the ATC tournament and prepping for that.

I'm anxious to see what they do. I have seen the DoK armies sold now . Slaanesh is now very popular I'm hearing.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
My Slaanesh stuff is still awesome though.

So are my Hearthzerkers! Until next update....

Slaanesh multikeeper may be top tier now, by virtue of nerfs to other factions. Overall I'm happy to see the changes they made. I don't think it is enough, but it is a huge step up from nothing. And I generally prefer changes that are too small over being too big.

I generally prefer changes that are too small over being too big.

I agree. It is easy to want huge nerfs on something and overshoot the target. Smaller nerfs means you can make things better without invalidating a whole faction.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I generally prefer changes that are too small over being too big.

I agree. It is easy to want huge nerfs on something and overshoot the target. Smaller nerfs means you can make things better without invalidating a whole faction.

I fully agree, i just wish my BoC monsters had any love

Today was an interesting discussion during the honest wargamer twitch stream.


Somebody made a great point: the points changes aren't so much about single units, but about what builds can do.

Some popular builds will now have to make do with a hero less, with a key endless spell less, with a unit less etc. Sometimes, that's just enough to bring them in line.

My 1000p grisstlegore list that took home a doubles tournament (with a gutbusters buddy of mine, so nothing OP) was previously:

GKoTG 400 --> 420
Archregent: 200 -->240
Ghoul king: 140 --> 160
Chalice of ushoran: 40 --> 50
2x10 ghouls: 200

That insane powerbuild is now 90p more, not only knocking the endless spell out, but also forcing one of the heroes out because I can't drop an already fully barebones force...

So it's going to have to be the ghoul king (with the additional 10 free summoned ghouls and one fewer attack on the general overall), that gets the cut. That is a hefty overall nerf to something that was previously incredibly hard to stop at 1000p.

Dont forget about IDK, Scryers up 30pts and Eels are but 10pts, some lists had 2 scryers (+60pts) and +90-120pts on Eels making the Eel/King/Scryer spam up 150-180pts if not more. SO that list is almost dead now too, also b.c they played 50pts down for a CP (they need) and triumph, it was actually 60pts down i think

It was one type of Eel that saw a price bump, not both. Scryers are also a big thing because the alternatives(Soulrender and Tidecaster) are extremely niche.

Tidecasters require:
a) Them to be your General for their special ability to reverse the Tides of Death to be in play
b) Not to be of an Enclave that mandates a specific spell(Mor'phann, for example, forbids you from their Lore and you have to take Freezing Mists)

There's a reason why the Aspect of the Sea was making an appearance in Mor'phann Namarti lists as he could cast spells out of the Lore and didn't require him to be the General.

Soulrender only works on Namarti.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It was one type of Eel that saw a price bump, not both. Scryers are also a big thing because the alternatives(Soulrender and Tidecaster) are extremely niche.

Tidecasters require:
a) Them to be your General for their special ability to reverse the Tides of Death to be in play
b) Not to be of an Enclave that mandates a specific spell(Mor'phann, for example, forbids you from their Lore and you have to take Freezing Mists)

There's a reason why the Aspect of the Sea was making an appearance in Mor'phann Namarti lists as he could cast spells out of the Lore and didn't require him to be the General.

Soulrender only works on Namarti.

Yes, but he said "lists were nerf " and i showed that Morrsarr Scryer spam was one of those lists that s targeted, i never said both types were nerfed.

Somebody made a great point: the points changes aren't so much about single units, but about what builds can do.

Some popular builds will now have to make do with a hero less, with a key endless spell less, with a unit less etc. Sometimes, that's just enough to bring them in line.

This is a very good point. Since I run mass ghoul(Morghaunt) my list has probably been nerfed the least. Had to drop 10 ghouls from a squad of 40. However, with the power builds out there I imagine - as you mentioned - that those lists are being hit quite harder. Also, a lot of lists were running two Arch-Regents. Just that is an 80 point increase for those armies and then you add the price increase of Ghoul Kings and Kingheists and I wouldn't be surprised to see that some of the more tryhard competitive armies have increased by 10% in cost.

I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few FEC armies for sale on ebay after this.

 auticus wrote:

Though slaanesh indeed had NO points changes from their battletome. So the Keeper of Busted remains busted for a year.

Rejoice and celebrate my min/max brethren.

Just wanted to remind everyone that GW does make points adjustment between GHBs and FAQs. We get two big balance passes per year, and if an issue is bad enough, they sometimes make "hot fixes". Just because something didn't get nerfed in these PDFs, it doesn't mean it'll be safe from nerfs until next summer.

They are moving to points updates twice a year for AoS, one of the reasons the points booklet is seperate from the GHB.

We shall see. We shall see.

Current management of GW seems more inclined to tone things down where needed. They've already done a job on the 40k meta with the latest FAQ and Ynnari re-release. Wouldn't be surprised if they do more to AoS balance-wise before the year is over.

I don't know. the pattern seems to be to amp up new releases. Its literally a dart board right now.

Some releases are fun. Some releases have an obvious OP build. Some releases have several OP builds.

In all cases what they have shown is no desire or ability to step away from the listbuilding dominance and keeping the game stale with the same type of lists being played without severe social engineering or negotiations.

The only saving grace right now is that 40k has exploded even bigger than before so a lot of the min/max guys are in 40k land and AOS still has a more for-fun mentality unless you're doing tournaments specifically. My group has been humming right along with the campaign pack that I wrote and where the nasty nasty balance issues resolve themselves with sudden death victory conditions.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
They are moving to points updates twice a year for AoS, one of the reasons the points booklet is seperate from the GHB.

Man, now I am even more confused. So if I buy the battletome, I do not get the points. I thought then I was forced to buy a General's Handbook each year to get the points for that year, due to the incompetence of the GW game designers.

Is there a separate document I can get (for free hopefully, rather than being charged a yearly GW incompetence tax) with the points in it, up to date? I know the Warscroll Builder has the points, but I would like something from GW to print out.

I went away from GW a few years ago and came back with everyone accepting this completely bonkers way of maintaining the rules sets as totally normal and it blows my mind how everyone accepted this. It is stupidly complicated to figure out what you need to play a game of Age of Sigmar or 40K these days.

I don't know. the pattern seems to be to amp up new releases. Its literally a dart board right now.

I would say that is an exaggeration. Personally I would say that they are currently working at a breakneck pace with releases with books for 40k and AoS being released at considerable speed. Add to that they are also working on other specialist games alongside and I would say that the state of the game is a miracle considering how much they are releasing at the moment. Compare this to years ago when you'd at best get a handful of book per edition and those were truly dart board books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Is there a separate document I can get (for free hopefully, rather than being charged a yearly GW incompetence tax) with the points in it, up to date? I know the Warscroll Builder has the points, but I would like something from GW to print out.

Only Warscroll Builder and the GHB addon. To be fair they could just release the points for free at this point as all of this stuff is already in the Builder. Wouldn't be surprised if that happens sooner rather than later.

I'm using the term dartboard to describe the power levels of the releases this year.

They have ranged from fun to all out broken. Sure they are releasing things at a breakneck speed. Thats great. But the balance has been all over the place.

They are clearly incapable of balancing stuff. They also make money from releasing unbalanced stuff by charging for the fixes on an annual basis.

Mental. They probably think their customer base are a bunch of mugs.

Which is why I will daily lament the death of the fan comp systems.

 Da Boss wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
They are moving to points updates twice a year for AoS, one of the reasons the points booklet is seperate from the GHB.

Man, now I am even more confused. So if I buy the battletome, I do not get the points. I thought then I was forced to buy a General's Handbook each year to get the points for that year, due to the incompetence of the GW game designers.

Is there a separate document I can get (for free hopefully, rather than being charged a yearly GW incompetence tax) with the points in it, up to date? I know the Warscroll Builder has the points, but I would like something from GW to print out.

I went away from GW a few years ago and came back with everyone accepting this completely bonkers way of maintaining the rules sets as totally normal and it blows my mind how everyone accepted this. It is stupidly complicated to figure out what you need to play a game of Age of Sigmar or 40K these days.

Battletome - Allegiance abilities, subarmies (some factions have these some don't - its mostly a spilt on some unit selection and allegiance abilities); all faction warscrolls for models released at that point in time (including faction terrain and endless spells); all spell lores, equipment lists and any additional army rules; all current points for the game accurate at the time of printing. You also get painting guides, lots of lore (over half of most books), artwork, showcase models.

Generals Handbook - new battleplans, new game rule features (eg mercenaries), new concepts of play for the 3 modes.
Points update booklet - sold as part of the Generals Handbook - contains updated points for all armies across the whole game.

The system in 2018 was that the generals handbook also had the points within it, however because those go out of date GW chose to split it into two publications sold with each other. That way the gamer gets the handbook which has a long term value and lasts beyond the points updates; and a booklet they can put to one side when the points are updated.




It should be noted that the Warscroll builder has all the points whilst the GW store has all the Warscrolls. So if you don't wan't the GHB you can get away easily without it. Heck considering most armies only get tweaks not wholesale changes you can easily read the store copy or a friends copy and get the updated info.

Thank you for that explanation.

No worries

It was only the first year that GW did the generals handbook where you needed it for the points because back then it was a panic reaction to tanking sales and popularity and the battletomes back then I don't think even had points (I think they mostly just had warscrolls and that was it - not even alliance abiltiies or much of them).

Now the GHB is more of a rules expansion, battleplan addition and points clean-up/update.

The first battletomes indeed were nothing more than a collection of fluff and warscrolls. Allegiance / alliance abilities were not a thing in the first release of AOS. It was purely warscrolls and no one near me touched the battletomes because the warscrolls were free and no one cared about what fluff GW was trying to pedal. Once battletomes started having allegiance abilities (the first sylvaneth book), there was a collective annoyed groan that people would have to begin buying books again but they grudgingly did. This was still the era of fan point systems.

And then GHB 2016 came out with official points, based mostly on the SCGT point system (which did things like purposely undercost monsters so that people would take them, because AOS should have lots of large monsters) but which surprisingly used the non granular point system of Azyr (my comp, not the army builder that came out with the same name to bury the comp from searches lol) and a couple others that were not granular points-per-model but points per a selection of X models (I was shocked at that one, I didn't think that would fly) and the rest is history.

Battalions were the reason invoked to buy the first battletomes, if I remember well. The first books were the big ones detailing the war of the gates and Sigmar's first strike against Chaos. But yes, it was clearly directed to narrative players at that time. I still have those at home.

I think the main reason AoS's point system got accepted that way is mostly because the community at that time still has a core of narrative players and what was brought at that time was looked as what it really was : a tool to get things ready for a game without having to spend much time. It finally gets the work like this. So the community got used to it and when new players came to the game, they naturally were taught with it.

You can see it's completely not the same with 40k, which never let the point per model go and thus the community was always the same.

I agree to a point. The extreme competitive crowd in AOS is fairly minor and low in count compared to 40k's. But it grows monthly...

Yes, it grows, and it is also thanks to the shift in AoS's design studio towards the competitive scene (Ben Johnson is one of those actors).

Though I admit I sometimes miss the times where we had MongooseMatt still playing and supporting AoS. A lot of the narrative stuff has been replaced by debates about balance, powerbuilds and how stupid you are not to play that unit instead of that other one.

But I do agree with you, AoS's competitive scene is still nothing in comparison to 40k levels. On a funny note, Power Level in 40k was clearly made with AoS's point system in mind - and I found the AoS players I know going to 40k are usually the ones not having a problem by using it instead of points system, while 40k competitive players can't even think about this possibility.

Since we're in nostalgia mode I'll add my lament for the fan point systems next to Auticus'. For the first year and a half (or 2 if I remember correctly) GW were focused more on their narrative, campaign books etc. and not at all with balancing the game. Which one would one prefer: a game with a lot of people dedicated to balancing a set of arbitrary rules released along campaign books and miniatures or a game with a game balanced merely by interest by a group of 4 people which also have to write the rules, story etc (oh and minus the campaign books because they don't do that any more)? I know it was probably a selling decision, but still compared to what PPC and Azyr did in the past with their regular updates and statistics the GHB seems like a half - hearted job.
The moment that AoS became GHB and nothing else (probably at the turn of 2017-2018) was the moment I lost my interest as up until then I was reading all that there was to read (even as bad as most of it was), collected the books and models, gathered fan made missions and warscrolls (there were many shining example in the beginning - Mengel miniatures scrolls and missions, hivefleetcharybdis' scrolls etc). It felt like a wide enough experience compared to "here are points and several standart, but you know - you can play however you want" which is the exact opposite of what I want from AoS.

Im working on expanding narrativewargaming.com to include cinematic battles. Not sure how successful that will be but we will see

Count me in the 'nostalgia for fan comp days' crowd. A big part of why I am so critical of GW balance. Don't get me wrong--GW has added a ton of content to the game that I am really happy with and is great fun, but the game could be balanced as well if they cared to do so.

They do care about trying to update points more often, though, otherwise they wouldn't bother with putting that July update

Thing is, balance tends to be a different thing depending on who's talking - and it doesn't help it shifts with the context as well. I mean, it's true the Keeper of Secrets is very interesting to say the least when taken in a Hedonist of Slaanesh army, but if he's taken in a Chaos Great Alliance Army ? Losing his summoning mechanic and all shenanigans with Slaanesh allegeance suddenly makes him less interesting for that cost in points, IMHO.

I don't think it's an easy task as well, while I do agree some things are quite obvious to abuse when you read it from the book the first few times.

When balancing models and units, I don't think looking at it from it's Grand Alliance is worthwhile. I've never seen a real army (one WITH a battletome) ran under grand alliance, but my community also has nobody with multi-god chaos armies.

They'll always be most efficient when used in a proper battletome army, and I'd be confidant in saying that that is when models are used most of the time.

My only issue with GHB vs. fan comps is that they picked essentially their buddies versions. Most of the big UK tournament players and GW's designers are mates. So they were already familiar with the guys who ran SCGT, despite it not being a great comp so they picked it anyways.

Despite most of the AOS team being UK tournament players, they still seem to be crazy with balance, but this makes sense when you consider the modern competitive gamer wants to have crazy combos and meta-chasing armies all the time, compared to the comp gamer of old who wanted actual balance so they could prove their superiority with tactics and not combos.

I think they just don't particularly care.

It may not be “easy” but its certainly a lot easier than we like to give credit for. Its too hard to balance is an old excuse.

None of the fan comps were perfect but all of the top three or so used were many times better than ghb points.

Gw record is 100% unbalanced. Every. Time.

Fan comps were many times closer.

So what gives? I have been a games dev for a very long time. Its too hard to balance doesnt fly.

Either it is too hard for them and they are not competent... or churn and burn of a rotating power meta is very profitable.

That one seems easy to me.

 Thadin wrote:
When balancing models and units, I don't think looking at it from it's Grand Alliance is worthwhile. I've never seen a real army (one WITH a battletome) ran under grand alliance, but my community also has nobody with multi-god chaos armies.

They'll always be most efficient when used in a proper battletome army, and I'd be confidant in saying that that is when models are used most of the time.

This is generally the case in my experience too. Though GW has shown some willingness to do different slices via the free city rules & more recently Defenders of Lethys. I like those options being a thing.

I think their point of view is just different - though I believe it's slowly shifting as the new generation of designers is taking their job and the old guard being slowly replaced as time pass.

Jervis Johnson's point of view about the competitive scene is well known, after all. And he's still part of the studio about AoS, though Ben Johnson is clearly taking a big part now. And it is Ben Johnson who's pushing towards the competitive scene.

Also, they could certainly put more ressources and update the points/warscrolls on a faster pace, but what about the rest ? Would players be happy to buy a battletome that is obsolete merely a month after it is out ? You could tell them to download the FAQ for free on the website, but I'm not sure customers will be happy to go back too often there to have the most recent update just to be able to play. The 9th Age had a similar problem at a time, when they were changing rules way too fast for their community to follow up - and some players left confused about which version was actually the good version to play.

I think balance isn't the only factor out there. Still, that's not a justification.


About army faction rules, it is clear they are indeed intended to be more interesting than the Great Alliance. After all, it's "free". You can see with rules for mercenaries they are giving more tools to players to keep their precious army faction rules instead of having to take that less interesting Great Alliance rule and still having a broader choice of units. It's obviously made so that you keep using their battletomes, and I wouldn't be surprised if some tournaments decide to get rid of Great Alliances and accept battletomes/faction rules only in the future, when we'll have a broader choice of books and the Great Alliance books become obsolete as well.

I think they're going to continue to rely on the fan base to determine which subset of armies and which subset of units within those armies are "tournament viable" and not bother fixing everything. For some, list building is fun and getting an advantage by choosing the right stuff is the game for them as much as playing is.

I think Magic the Gathering has proven that you can make drastically different power level cards and have deck building be a valuable skill and the game can still be incredibly popular.

We may not want that, but I think it's the direction GW has settled on. Intentionally better and worse units and even armies and let the player base work it out as part of the development of a constantly shifting tournament meta. And those following the game and playing in competitive events can make new armies a couple times a year.

I think the Magic perspective does not work in a miniature game where people pick extremely expensive armies based on looks and themes, and then spend hours of their lives assembling and painting them and then bring them out to play, only to find out that they picked the faction with poopy rules or that the fickle and unprofessional design team is not interested in any more, and therefore they have broadly wasted their time and will not have fun. Magic is different, cards are just cards and making different decks is not as expensive or time intensive (not to mention the emotional investment).

I think of young kids playing who are using ALL of their disposable income on this hobby they are excited for, and it is a total crapshoot as to whether they will get an army that will be fun to play and stand a chance if they go deeper than open play with their friends. Add to that that the situation with "where do I find my rules" is crazy and not clear from the outside and I think it is very poor for an experienced game company with the resources GW has. They seem to not give a crap about player experience at all.

It genuinely makes me angry that people employed as full time rules writers would be that lazy and feckless. I do not think it is an impossible task to make each faction AT LEAST viable, even if balance is not perfect. Especially when you are charging for your rules.

If I was introducing kids to the game these days I reckon I would use the One Page Rules.

I could guarantee you 100% right now that if you locked a handful of us into a project that in a month we could produce a points document and warscroll edits that would bring the game and every faction in the game into a 44/55 split (44-55% win/loss) and have it so its not just having to use that one uber build in a faction every time but having the choice between several builds per faction.

The big whine, as I learned in the past with azyr, would be that now the game is "boring" because listbuilding doesn't matter as much because there was a lot more viable combination patterns to choose from.

Yeah, I have come around to that argument too. People want to do their thinking in the list building part of the game, and the time they spend daydreaming about their build and thinking about it outside of game is important game time to them.

So perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree. But it seems wrong that a newbie could pick the cool steampunk dwarves faction, spend 500 euro or whatever on them, spend hours and hours assembling and painting them, and then find out that they just picked the wrong faction and they have to wait X years til someone at the design team takes an interest.

Maintaining this system of list builds and stuff should really take a back seat to making sure each faction is at least viable for someone to play with.

I think the real issue is we've never been totally sure if GW's powerbuilds are the result of deliberate choice on their part to enable that style of play; or the result of poor balancing method which results in very over and underpowered builds slipping through the net.

Considering the builds they appear to use in their media and marketing I'd err closer to the latter than the former. We often see GW staffers not using power builds and building far more fluffy style armies. One would think if power-builds were a deliberate core part of their marketing and product design we'd see them market them, even if subtly, through their battle reports and the like.

 Da Boss wrote:


It genuinely makes me angry that people employed as full time rules writers would be that lazy and feckless. I do not think it is an impossible task to make each faction AT LEAST viable, even if balance is not perfect. Especially when you are charging for your rules.

.

I wouldn't call them lazy. I think it was Ben Johnson, in one of their stormcast episodes, who said that that there were effectively 4 or 5 people engaged with rules development, reviewing point balance, fluff writing, game playing etc.. Factor in management involvement and the result is there - too much work laid on a too small team. Again not factoring a possible management involvement or SCGT warping numbers to promote/retain certain builds...
Which makes me think that points should be left out of design's team schedule at all. At least until they can afford a bigger team. A dedicated group focused only on balance would be a lot more successful.

On top of that it would free some of the dev's time to do what they probably signed in to do - write cool rules for miniatures they like. I'm betting money that there are days when they look at the excel tables full of SCGT point submissions waiting to be reviewed and approved and moan "I didn't sign up for this..."

Alas the officially stamped points are there as was demanded...

it's pretty obvious that the players want to have list building be the most crucial pieces, so having actual balance now is "boring" (as auticus' feedback from Azyr Comp showed) when actual balance should be the most important thing so the better general wins.

But SCGT was from what I saw one of the worst comps, and that's the one they went with as I said above, presumably because they already knew the guys who were running it and they were local enough to go to GW HQ and talk about it.

Wayniac wrote:
it's pretty obvious that the players want to have list building be the most crucial pieces, so having actual balance now is "boring" (as auticus' feedback from Azyr Comp showed) when actual balance should be the most important thing so the better general wins.

But SCGT was from what I saw one of the worst comps, and that's the one they went with as I said above, presumably because they already knew the guys who were running it and they were local enough to go to GW HQ and talk about it.

Thing is I often see power-list building like that being in inherent into the game design for a wargame being more a product of bad consumer thinking.

Ergo the customer doesn't realise that what they are asking for isn't actually a good thing overall for the game. The sort of person asking is the type to buy armies on a whim; who can comission or play with greys; who is only going to be building the one power list and who just wants to win. They forget that if the game is built around shifting power builds they have to spend more on more armies to keep up; that they have to run the risk that if they meet an opposing power build they "will lose" without question adn the fact that "super easy wins" are actually not all that fun after a while for the majority of people.

Also for GW it's not a good thing because it means some models are going to sell really well, but others, which cost the same to develop, are going to sell really badly. That means less profit for them unless they assume all gamers are using their full budget on power builds only - which is not likely the case.


Also part of it is packaging the idea. A one or two power build approach is far more boring than having a few dozen potential power builds within each army. You just present it as "the most powerful army ever with the most varied choice of superbuilds" for every army.

I think the real issue is we've never been totally sure if GW's powerbuilds are the result of deliberate choice on their part to enable that style of play; or the result of poor balancing method which results in very over and underpowered builds slipping through the net.

Considering the builds they appear to use in their media and marketing I'd err closer to the latter than the former. We often see GW staffers not using power builds and building far more fluffy style armies. One would think if power-builds were a deliberate core part of their marketing and product design we'd see them market them, even if subtly, through their battle reports and the like.

This goes back to the two option theory for me.

* they are incompetent and can't design rules properly
* it is intentional

We know Sam (bottle) is not incompetent. I know Ben Johnson is not incompetent. Erego this has to be intentional to appease the list building for life people.

We often see GW staffers not using power builds

Their lists in tournaments are the filth lists or competing with the filth lists so that is not entirely accurate. They may not advertise the filth lists but they certainly use them in the tournament events they attend. Ben Johnson and Ben Curry are also seemingly best buds and both have high prestige and influence in the gw universe and fanbase and both have commented to some extent on making AOS tournaments a form of esport spectacle, the same as the 40k fanverse is trying to make 40k.

But SCGT was from what I saw one of the worst comps

SCGT wasn't HORRIBLE. There were elements in my area that demanded to use it instead of Azyr because thats what the UK GT scene was using, and I messed with it. It was good in some spots, but the fact they intentionally undercost monsters encouraged spamming them and that bothered me.

I have a team put together that is working on a 40k re-write that is making a 40k game that we can enjoy that is more about modern battlefield tactics, to include repointing the game to work in the new system.

I have my AOS houserule pack (kingmaker campaign, posted in the forum) that lets me enjoy AOS, though I have been going back and forth with repointing and redoing warscrolls.

I have done a Tomb King rewrite and the Bretonnian rewrite (deus vult), I may bite it and do a slaves to darkness rewrite and rejig the warscrolls and points values to make them not a wet blanket anymore.

Thing is I often see power-list building like that being in inherent into the game design for a wargame being more a product of bad consumer thinking.

Its like Brawndo. Its got what plants crave. (idiocracy reference)

When tabletop game design started intentionally melding with collectible card game design, they attracted those type of players, which brought about the demand for deck building. The traditional wargamers that wanted battlefield tactics moved on to other games like Infinity or Spectre Operations or Kings of War or T9A.

If I'm being honest though its hard commercially to not notice magic and pokemon raking in wads of cash and the traditional wargames being niche. From a commercial standpoiint, meldiing with CCGs is smart business wise, because the gamer pool is dominated by people that enjoy listbuilding / deckbuilding over playing the game. That doesn't mean they don't enjoy playing the game at all (because people like to jump to extreme conclusions) it means that the primary draw for a lot of people is as whayne says... sitting around dreaming up combos that cannot be beaten. If your system treats points as actual points and not a structure to min/max within, that becomes harder to do and you lose sales.

Da Boss wrote:I think the Magic perspective does not work in a miniature game where people pick extremely expensive armies based on looks and themes, and then spend hours of their lives assembling and painting them and then bring them out to play, only to find out that they picked the faction with poopy rules or that the fickle and unprofessional design team is not interested in any more, and therefore they have broadly wasted their time and will not have fun. Magic is different, cards are just cards and making different decks is not as expensive or time intensive (not to mention the emotional investment).

I totally agree. But it's where things have shaken out. It sucks, but i think event attendance and the fact that people do chase the latest lists shows GW is on to something here. At least a portion of their customer base is very happy with the current state of affairs.

I think of young kids playing who are using ALL of their disposable income on this hobby they are excited for, and it is a total crapshoot as to whether they will get an army that will be fun to play and stand a chance if they go deeper than open play with their friends.

Maybe there's more depth to open play with friends than tournament games? Tournament games are going to use a minority of the units in a minority of the armies playing a small group of scenarios with the games pretty much always being the same size and equal points. Maybe the deep part of wargaming is all the stuff tournament players and equal points pick up game players neglect?

It genuinely makes me angry that people employed as full time rules writers would be that lazy and feckless. I do not think it is an impossible task to make each faction AT LEAST viable, even if balance is not perfect. Especially when you are charging for your rules.

If I was introducing kids to the game these days I reckon I would use the One Page Rules.

Free rules that fit on a page and are more balanced than GWs. Kind of lame that GW does worse than them.

Da Boss wrote:But it seems wrong that a newbie could pick the cool steampunk dwarves faction, spend 500 euro or whatever on them, spend hours and hours assembling and painting them, and then find out that they just picked the wrong faction and they have to wait X years til someone at the design team takes an interest.

It definitely is.

They could even take a super lazy approach and just do across the board points hikes to everything that's good enough to show up regularly in a tournament and things would probably get better. Like take the lists of top 8 finishes from the last year and just bump everything 10-20%. Then do it again after the next couple major events. While it would certainly not be an optimal solution it would certainly make it more likely that garbage tier armies become at least field-able than the current do nothing approach.

Overread wrote:I think the real issue is we've never been totally sure if GW's powerbuilds are the result of deliberate choice on their part to enable that style of play; or the result of poor balancing method which results in very over and underpowered builds slipping through the net.

I wonder if it matters? Is there really a difference between intentionally "pushed" broken things and accidentally broken things? It's kind of a sad state of affairs that we can't actually tell if things are just accidentally or intentionally broken.

Considering the builds they appear to use in their media and marketing I'd err closer to the latter than the former. We often see GW staffers not using power builds and building far more fluffy style armies. One would think if power-builds were a deliberate core part of their marketing and product design we'd see them market them, even if subtly, through their battle reports and the like.

I think the majority of GW customers simply don't play equal points matched play with strangers. The nature of online discussion is that people who are really passionate about something tend to talk about it, so I think social media and forums over represent tournament and pick up games as the norm. I think their average customer plays with friends at home. A quarter of a billion pounds in revenue in the last year and events get what? A few hundred for the largest major event and a few dozen for the typical tournament? And there's lots of repeat attendance where the names show up in ITC rankings and whatever? I think tournament players and those who rely on equal points matched play with strangers are a minority so GW doesn't put in the effort and lets the volunteer quasi-playtester tournament organizers get back to them on points. All the while they show off armies of sub-optimal units and combinations because they know most of their customers don't do the tournament thing.

The worst though is that when balance breaks down at the kitchen table. Thankfully though with combos and list craft being so important, and a truly small minority of units being actually included in tournament lists, it's less likely to happen by accident. Tournament level armies of a totally different level of power just don't happen by accident very often. They need to be crafted.

I think the majority of GW customers simply don't play equal points matched play with strangers. The nature of online discussion is that people who are really passionate about something tend to talk about it, so I think social media and forums over represent tournament and pick up games as the norm

Anecdotally - in my area pickup games and tournament games make up about 85% of all games played based on who goes to the stores to buy product.

So 85% of the people that go to the store to buy product only play pickup games (primarily) or tournament games (secondarily) with my group's narrative campaign event encompassing about 15% of our area's players.

There is very little crossover. The guys that play in our campaigns are largely not playing tournaments though most all play pickup games regularly. The guys that play in our area's tournaments have (finally) moved away from seal clubbing the campaign players' fluff lists and primarily only play in tournaments and pickup games (there are a few notable exceptions but those guys also know when to tone things down in campaign play) but there is a huge renaissance of tournament play in the eastern US to include trying to push for professional 40k and this has really caught their attention and focus.

The only way the majority of my area are playing garagehammer out of sight is if they also do not ever come to the stores and get their product exclusively on the internet AND intentionally avoid any public discussion of the game whatsoever, which I am highly doubtful of.

My local area has 2 independent shops and a GW store. Weekly in store gaming gets like 10ish people per store and tournaments get 30ish. The GW store is also a larger one with 3 staff members.

There's just no way the people who show up to these events can be buying enough to keep just the GW store open. The independent shops likely do the majority of their business in magic cards and board games and x-wing and the like.

I'm sure there are areas where those who play in public make up the majority of the sales, but in many cases they'd have to represent a tiny minority or be buying entire 2000 point armies every week in order to even cover the rent, let alone staff costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If we consult GW's financial statements, we find that about 45% of sales is through independent stores, a third through their retail stores and the balance through their web store.

So if we just take GW stores and divide it by the 500 stores, each store sells on average about 170,000 GBP each year.

Just think about that number and count the number of people who play publicly. And now add two more thirds as GW's retail only makes up a third.

Oh and add another 75%+ to the trade sales numbers because they represent what the stores pay to GW, not the final retail price.

Matched play gamers of 40k and AoS are a minority who think they are the majority because they are the most vocal and visible. They just cannot come close to accounting for the monthly sales of even the third of GW sales that that happen through the company stores, much less the mammoth amount in MSRP once you add in trade sales (even at a discount).

Now look at the GHB2019 and notice just how much of that book is geared to games that fit on smaller tables like those people who have in their kitchens or dining areas. It's not an accident.

It becomes quite clear why GW can get away with pretty much no effort put into balancing when you realize the matched play scene is such a small portion of their customer base who happen to think they are the most important. The models they feature in their promotions, the amount sold per GW store, the barely functional level of balance, it all starts making a lot more sense when matched play is not the majority. if it's so easy for GW to balance things if they just put in a little bit of effort, and yet they don't, maybe it's because it's really not worth it to their bottom line because they know who their customers are better than those crying for balance?

Don't forget there are GW customers who barely play if at all - they buy the miniatures and/or the paints, and just enjoy building/painting/collecting. Others buy the miniatures to play other games, or use them in RPGs. These people couldn't care less about balance in AoS for obvious reasons.

Talking purely about from a gamer's perspective, you can look at what the 9th Age does - this is indeed a team of fan players who also believed in being better than GW to make a perfectly balanced game. They're still working on it nowadays, and they changed quite a bit of versions since the beginnings. So I would be inclined to believe it's not that easy to do, even with passion, a team and spending a few years into it.

I guess there is easy, and then there is very difficult.

Its not very difficult to push AOS where at the minimum every faction is viable.

Its more difficult to provide multiple builds within each faction as viable but again not VERY difficult.

With the 9th age, from what I have read and discussed, it wasn't that they have difficulty in just balancing, they have had difficulty in having a direction, they've had multiple chiefs pull in different directions, and they've for a time not really known what it was that they were creating beyond the base idea. Its been very chaotic on that team from day 1 and that makes a very difficult project platform to work from.

Not just that they were laser-focused and just couldn't achieve balance because it was hard.

I firmly believe that if GW were to push out a reasonably balanced Warhammer sales would improve. People who currently are not interested would be drawn in, and players who actually want imbalance... Will still be here. Where are they going to go? Warmachine?

Besides, the claim that balance makes listbuilding not matter has been and remains baseless at best. Personally I think a not insignificant portion of those who raise that complaint are doing so because "I need skill at playing to win now and I don't like that" doesn't sound good. The hard min-maxxers often tend to be surprisingly average at actually playing because when one's army crushes the competition easily there is little chance to develop that skill.

For listbuilding to not matter that would mean that a specifically built list would be even to a list where all selections were made completely randomly, and in turn even to a list that was specifically designed to lose. Obviously that will never be true. Even if all units are appropriately costed the army that is built without consideration for the right amount of characters, support, main line, etc will be inferior to one which has taken those into account.

In regards to the effort/laziness issue, I think it is apathy. I think they do not care to balance things better, be that because they desire the min-max friendly environment which results or otherwise. Because really, a ton of the broken elements are immediately apparent on reading. On the other hand if they were intentionally min-maxing I don't think we would see things like the Gloomspite book, or the gradual improvement of balance over time. Each GHB has improved things.

I would love to come back to the game, but I am in the stage of my life where I do not have a stable group at all and so I kinda rely on pick up games to make friends and find one. I have moved country and city a lot and I am gaming in my third language now. That makes negotiating house rules and balance even more difficult. I realise my situation is not common, but it is just an example that not all pick up games are because people want to test out their tournament list or whatever.

I started lurking these fora again because I got excited when people said the balance was better in AoS 2 and points and so on were back.
(I feel like going on a tangent here about how the "competative/narrative" dichotomy is bs, and I am a guy who chooses armies and lists based on narrative and visuals but still likes to know he has a chance to win the actual game, so the idea of some balancing mechanism making most choices viable is important to me. It really bugs me that you have to fit into one of the two camps, either you care about winning at all costs or you are a total fluffbunny who does not care at all. 99% of gamers are in between those two poles but online discourse makes out that the two extremes are all that exist sometimes, I guess because it makes discussions simpler and makes it easier to monster "the other side".)

But looking into it it became apparent that:
- The rules are not really balanced, there are trash armies and OP armies even worse than in old WFB.
- The release system is crazy and there is no consistent design across books
- I have to get my rules for pick up style games from a variety of constantly updated hardcover books that are quite expensive.
- People will expect me to rebase my old armies because GW made a system where they knew a large portion of the customer base was on different bases have bases with a significant in game effect (and that would be SO easy to avoid).

So is it apathy? Deliberate design for profit? Incompetence? I dunno but it is definitely crap game design and not what I would expect from the biggest company in the industry by far.

It is a shame because in terms of models they are doing a great job, and I think there is a pretty fun game at the heart of Age of Sigmar that can do some fun stuff. I want to like it!

 Da Boss wrote:

- The rules are not really balanced, there are trash armies and OP armies even worse than in old WFB.
- The release system is crazy and there is no consistent design across books
- I have to get my rules for pick up style games from a variety of constantly updated hardcover books that are quite expensive.
- People will expect me to rebase my old armies because GW made a system where they knew a large portion of the customer base was on different bases have bases with a significant in game effect (and that would be SO easy to avoid).

1) Most of the "trash" armies are armies without any battletome or without a 2.0 battletome. Far as I'm aware none of the 2.0 Battletome armies are "trash". The lag time to getting all armies on the same rules edition is partly the result of AoS having a massivly messed up history and start in life. 2.0 is basically the launch state it should have come as. Don't forget at launch AoS was basically GW embracing "we make models not games" mantra into the extreme. They didn't really want to make a game, they just wanted to make models and sell bucketloads of them. It was born of a management who had their heads in the sand regarding marketing and market awareness and didn't properly review their consumer desires nor wants.
This isn't saying no one liked AoS, indeed it was very popular with "I want to write my own rules" people; but it meant it wasn't mass market appealing.

2) The books are consistent, just broken into 3 phases where not all armies got a book for each phase. The current phase of 2.0 rules and 2.0 Battletomes IS a line in the sand and all armies are getting updated. The earlier editions were more kneejerk reactions to get something out fast in reaction to dwindling sales. The 2.0 is much more measured release and introduces a fairly stable format of rules over all the battletomes.

3) Not really. Right now if your army has a Battletome you get that and a copy of the games core rules (which can be downloaded free form the GW site - picked up cheaply on ebay with the rules insert booklet which is the same rules just formally printed or in the "big rule book" as normal).
There are Errata and FAQ for books online which you can print off; the generals handbook 2020 can also give you updated points, but you can also get them off the free Warscroll Builder on the GW website
https://www.warhammer-community.com/warscroll-builder/
Each year there's a new GHB and GW is also intending to update points twice a year (roughly) in distinct phases. Other than that the core rules remain the same and the core battletome rules remain the same - again FAQ and Errata perform tweaks and balance adjustments, but by and large are small documents that amend or make things clearer - they are not wholesale changes. Plus you can pretty much ignore them when getting started.

4) yes and no. Most are not too worried in casual games, though as time goes on more and more will steadily rebase and more AoS players will be new with new armies and thus will already be on circle bases. Most competitive events do enforce it. so yes if you were keen on playing rebasing would likely be something you would do over time; but in general for casual pickup games in most places you'll be fine.

1) Yeah, I get that, but it does not change the fact that GW still has this weird system of updating one faction at a time over the course of 4 or 5 years, but not maintaining a consistent design paradigm over that time period so there is always a weird gulf between the early books and late books, particularly if they start designing the later books to be useable in the next edition. This has always been a problem and it is sad that they have not addressed it. I think it is worse with AoS because as you note the initial release was such a mess.
2) I still see this system as fundamentally flawed as long as the designers do not have the discipline to maintain a design paradigm for an edition.
3) This is still too complicated in my opinion, too many documents for one army. It used to be that you bought an army book and the core rules and that was it. Now you need so many different documents or access to the warscroll builder to do your army planning, I do not see this as an improvement, just laziness and an extension of "patch culture" seen in video games into the tabletop. Why bother designing it properly when you can just release patches for your bad design after people have had a sufficiently bad time with it?
4) I will never rebase my old armies. Not a chance in hell.

Not all 2.0 books are solid against each other either. So yes the 2.0 books are better than the ones before, but there are still loads of factions waiting to get out of trash tier, and there are 2.0 armies that will get demolished by other 2.0 armies.

But they are maintaining the design, just only for the current 2.0 version of the game. That's why we've had half a dozen battletomes released thus far this year alone and likely another half dozen or more to be released. They are copying exactly what they did with 40K only last year. Releasing ALL the Battletomes one after the other for all the armies. You're just looking at AoS right now basically in the middle of this move, hence why it appears bitty because some armies are done and some aren't.
Grand Alliance Death is finished - every army has a Battletome
Grand Alliance Chaos is nearly finished - Slaves to Darkness+Everchosen (GW has placed both on the same store tab so likely 1 batteltome will cover both - great for Everchosen as prior it only had 3 models in its force); possibly Tzeentch (I get mixed feedback on how up to date that Tome is)
Grand Alliance Destruction needs some attention and currently only has one Battletome for 2.0.
Grand Alliance Order - has the most in need of updates or getting Battletomes; though most armies are safe save for the Aelf ones which are a bit of a confusing point as to what GW's long term plans are for them.

Also you're overlooking that we had FAQ documents in the past -we've had them for decades. The only difference is that in the past we got them once in a while and heck I recall one edition we got the edition FAQ/Errata about a month or so before the edition ended and GW released a new one. The only difference now is that GW is far more pro-active in releasing these documents. And again its support material designed to aid the clarity and balance of the core material.

The game is very much still Battletome + Rule book for the core of the game.

They have been reasonably consistent in their battletome design IMO. The first battletomes had the same name but where just fluff--they weren't proper 'tomes as we know them. 0.5 if you will. 1.0 battletomes, starting with Sylvaneth and ending with Kharadron, are consistent with one another in their design direction. Even Kharadron, IMO, fit into this just fine with their difficulty being it was a totally new army with a lot of tricks and themes never touched before and so GW had a bit of trouble making it work.

Nurgle and LoN are the oddities, occupying a 1.5 spot that has a mesh of 1.0 and 2.0 design elements.

Everything else, including DoK and Idoneth, are 2.0 and have strong similarities.

What I personally see is a trend where they had one philosophy with 1.0, realized that they needed a new edition of AoS to really make the game work, and have now set to getting everything on-par with that system. I think Overread has a good point that in hindsight 1.0 AoS was really a beta/recovery period from Kirby ineptitude, and that 2.0 is it's 'true' launch. The point being that unless they announce a new edition the current design philosophy will likely stay as such.

Well, I will take your words for it. I am gonna hang on and see how the rest of the releases pan out. Maybe we are in the middle of something and the end result will be worthwhile. I really hope so, genuinely, because I would like to be able to easily find a game with strangers because right now that is gonna be my only way in.

IDK if you have a facebook and if you dont you dont need all your personal info on it, but Facebook at least in my area has groups for the area for warhammer (a couple groups of 500+ people each depending where you live). It is very easy to get people to play. I would check that out. Also there is Meet-up groups as well and some others.

With 10min of research you might be able to find a couple stable groups near you.

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, I will take your words for it. I am gonna hang on and see how the rest of the releases pan out. Maybe we are in the middle of something and the end result will be worthwhile. I really hope so, genuinely, because I would like to be able to easily find a game with strangers because right now that is gonna be my only way in.

My expectation is that we'll see more Battletomes released at a steady rate continuing for the rest of this year and into early next year.
One complicating aspect is that we don't know what, if any, combined armies GW might do. For example if they combined Beastclaw Raiders with Gutbusters into a single battletome then that cuts the number of tomes down. Destruction could be covered with just 2 tomes if they did a combined ogors and combined orruks tomes. In addition coming over to Order depending how they sort it out Aelves could be one tome or multiple or none at all (removed).

Combined tomes speeds things up, but it also makes smaller niche forces more viable as armies because now the yare bolted onto the side of another. That lets the player easily draft in more units if they wish without the allies penalty kicking it. It also means that updates to one "niche" of an army can count for all groups.


Eg for Skaven being in a single book means that the new Warlock Engineer model, whilst aimed at Clan Skyre, still counts as a new model for the whole range and a Skaven Pestilens player can draft that model in if they wish (though they'd have to field a general skaven force of course).


We've some hint that A battletome Ogors could be a thing since in the GW survey Ogors were mentioned as a single force. Though the store page hasn't been updated, but then again barring Tome updates the store hasn't changed since just before Christmas.

Combined Ogors I imagine will be a thing, they really need it to balance out their unit choices. A lot of destruction, them included, is stuck with grand alliance which is simply among the worst sets of allegiance abilities out there. Ogor units themselves are not bad at all for their cost but with such meager support from allegiance the army does badly.

If you got rid of allegiance abilities, would it make the game more balanced?

 Da Boss wrote:
If you got rid of allegiance abilities, would it make the game more balanced?

No because they are not at the core of all the balance issues. Even when they are its specific ones that could be adjusted rather than removed. They are important too because they give an army flavour outside of their warscroll unit descriptions. This both binds the army together; can provide a basic focus for the army building and use and also helps armies which share units, to have different styles of play even with similar unit types.

I also feel that, rather like spells, they are part of what makes factions unique beyond warscrolls.


Again its not a clear cut "just get rid of them" to improve balance.

 Da Boss wrote:
If you got rid of allegiance abilities, would it make the game more balanced?

There would probably be a net increase of balance. But I imagine I speak for many in saying it would make the game dramatically less fun. And there would still be plenty of issues. Something to remember is that the majority of units & allegiance abilities are reasonably well balanced, it's just that the outliers are frequent enough and severe enough to create the strong disparity we see.

Grand alliance Destruction, for example. Units? Not bad. Artifacts? Not bad. Command traits? Not bad. Allegiance ability? Absolutely terrible, so bad that it nerfs any faction using it into obscurity, which includes Ogors. For any group willing to house rule I would replace it with the version Ironjawz got, something that instantly would bring most Destruction armies to a level of viability.

 Da Boss wrote:
If you got rid of allegiance abilities, would it make the game more balanced?

Nah, it wouldnt change anything honestly, just less viable units for some players.

Allegiance abilities aren't by themselves unbalancing, they are the salt and pepper to the mix that adds flavor. They are good ideas to have. Mostly executed in a way that is acceptable.

The unbalancing is mostly the fault of poor points costs and some warscroll ineptness. When powergaming, one goes for the things that are underpointed, to give their 2000 point list the fighting power of a lot greater than 2000 points.

Warscroll rules that are either too strong like Flesh Eater Courts have, or flaming garbage like slaves to darkness.

Actually, allegeance (and factions, and artifacts, and spells that are part of the army rules as well as the iconic terrain...) abilities are a big part of the unbalance you're talking so much. That's where a lot of summoning rules are, as well as some problematic command abilities like the possibility of Flesh Eater Courts to attack twice in a row in the combat phase immediately.

Yes, that's what makes it possible to "personnalize" more your miniatures. Well here's the truth - unbalance come naturally from characterization. The more you try to give a unique flavour to something, the more you risk to set the balance off. Perfect balance is symetry, which is why games like Kings of War are so easy to balance because their rules and profiles are using the same base for all armies. Even army special rules are actually variants of core rules that can be found in other armies in one way or another, including the core spells.

If you used only the Great Alliance allegeance rules, I'm sure GW's design team would have a much easier job to get the points right for all the warscrolls. A lot of warscroll rules would also be less powerful with all the shenanigan combos coming from army rules/allegeance. Give less options to gamers and suddenly, they will have less ways to abuse the system. That's the reality of games.

Summoning by itself doesnt break the game. Its certain armies bent way of doing it that does.

So removing all allegiance abilities because two or three factions version of summoning would be overkill.

The same as removing all points would be overkill because some units are criminally under or overcost.

The allgeiance abilities just struck me as being more "CCG" and "Gamist" than I was used to in a wargame. I am not against them, but then I am not the sort of person who needs dramatic differences between my units to enjoy using them.

Why not just make every summoning point be dependent on a 3+ roll of a D6? I generated 30+ DPs in my first turn of a game. If each required a 3+ to get, I’d only have gotten around 20. Makes each point more valuable and not guaranteed. That’ll work for blood tithe, Tzeentch casting dependent summoning, etc.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Why not just make every summoning point be dependent on a 3+ roll of a D6? I generated 30+ DPs in my first turn of a game. If each required a 3+ to get, I’d only have gotten around 20. Makes each point more valuable and not guaranteed. That’ll work for blood tithe, Tzeentch casting dependent summoning, etc.

The problem is that you've not actually resolved the issue, just made it more random. So some games the Slaanesh army might get utterly crushed because the summoning dice rolls failed more than they should and the army wound up underpowered. Then in the very next game you make all the summoning roles every time and now you're back to being overpowered. It's not actually addressed the problem and has instead just muddied the waters by making it a touch more random. I think a better adjustment is to review how depravity is generated and spent.

Personally I'd be a fan of them shifting some depravity generation off the leaders and into some/all regular models as well and upping the cost to summon things at the same time. Right now slaanesh has a very odd way of going to battle because the best way is to take a LOT of leaders and almost no troops and then to use depravity to summon more leaders to generate more depravity. It's an army that almost doesn't want its troops and winds up appearing very top-heavy in terms of leaders (for points used).

 Da Boss wrote:
The allgeiance abilities just struck me as being more "CCG" and "Gamist" than I was used to in a wargame. I am not against them, but then I am not the sort of person who needs dramatic differences between my units to enjoy using them.

I agree with you for sure. But ccg mechanics pay the bills these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Why not just make every summoning point be dependent on a 3+ roll of a D6? I generated 30+ DPs in my first turn of a game. If each required a 3+ to get, I’d only have gotten around 20. Makes each point more valuable and not guaranteed. That’ll work for blood tithe, Tzeentch casting dependent summoning, etc.

I prefer the system i use. Not restricted but if you generate too many you give your opponent a sudden death victory condition they can achieve to win.

Ideally all summoning would be like Khorne; a trick you can use but that takes away from other stuff rather than being a free upgrade. Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Nurgle, FEC, all of these armies pay nothing or effectively nothing to summon, so if one plays them but does not summon they are handicapping themselves. A player that shows up to a 2000 point game with just a 2000 point army of them is holding themselves back for no benefit. I am unsure if the short term benefit to sales is really worth losing the players it drives away.

But in terms of fixing what we have right now, I prefer bringing back summoning for points but with a better ratio. Points are reserved, but summoned units come in for half cost. A simple change that brings summoning into line without nerfing it into oblivion. Not perfect, but easy to implement.

For players (not GW) any player driven away by that mechanic is a loss. Who cares about GW sales as long as they are making some bit of profit to keep going.

But I wonder if a lot of people like the unrestricted summoning. It certainly seems like AoS is popular, more popular than WFB at the end (though not as popular as WFB during 6th and 7th edition) so maybe people like that.

I hate the idea of it along with Double Turn, but I am an observer rather than a player. But those two things put me off, mechanically. I feel like summoning new units was cool when it was an undead only thing and the units you were summoning were mostly pretty weak. Now that you can summon whatever you like in some armies, whereas other armies get no summoning at all (!) I think auticus suggestion of sudden death objectives is a good one.

If a player is driven off who would otherwise have bought an army that is a sales hit for GW. Free summons undoubtedly brings in sales, but does it make up for that? I personally don't think so. Another factor is that it will not generate sales for every player of a summoning army; when Nurgle got free summoning that generated no extra sales from me because I already have WAY more than 2000 points, plenty enough to have units ready to bring in.

I would say out of the collective fantasy player base (all players into fantasy wargaming period) both the double turn and free summoning are off putting to a large portion. Is it the majority? We will never know.

However the aos community largely white knights the hell out of both the double turn being some great tacticians dream and free summoning being off the chains rawsome.

The double turn i dont understand the love for at all.

Free summoning i totally get because its a ccg mechanic in a game that pushes and is marketed for ccg style players.

Here's the thing, player A has an army that is alright, player B has an army that is optimized and crushes the army of player A. Player A knows that if he can get a good double turn, he at least has a chance to beat player B. In this manner the double-turn serves as a solution to and a masking of the problem of imbalance.

Like treating alcoholism with cocaine!

Yeah i get that. However if Powergaming Player B gets the double turn he doubly crushes player A.

So people clinging to a double turn like its a cure for powergaming lists is daft IMO.

You're right, it is like treating alcoholism with cocaine. Dr. Roxxo style.

I'd argue double turn is worse than summoning. The problem is anyone can get the double turn and in my experience those who are against it tend to only get there once they've been doubled turned a good few times. Ergo they've experienced that 2 turn period where they do nothing but roll for saves and remove their models from the table.

Balance aside that point alone should be why double turn is removed.

On the balance side double turns generally mean whoever gets it has won the game; or at the very least they've taken such big strides toward winning that their opponent has to pull a miracle out of the bag to win - unless, as noted above, the play who got the double turn is running a really bad army poorly. Ergo the double turn is masking a skill difference and the worse player got to have two turns.




If GW really wants to keep it have it resigned to open play as an optional mechanic and let matched play avoid it. Which is what I suspect will happen because that lets GW answer the issue for the matched play gamers, whilst getting to not actually remove it as a feature from the game. They just discourage it in "matched" and move it out into the optional realm of open play.

I really cannot understand why a mechanic like that would make it into a game at all. It brings the entire game down to luck.

and in my experience those who are against it tend to only get there once they've been doubled turned a good few times.

I was against the double turn the first moment I read the rules and noted it existed. I disliked it when it first hit my first AOS games regardless of what side of the table I was on. Winning via the double turn felt hollow. I "won" because I got to go twice in a row and teabag my opponent.

I also am against the double turn because it forces one of the players to be a casual observer that does nothing but remove models from the table for two turns in a row.

It is the worst rule I have ever encountered in any game ever spanning back to my first foray into tabletop gaming in 1988 because it forcibly removes player agency, forces players to be observers with no interaction, and loads the game down to who gets lucky to have a double turn.

The protagonists of the double turn that white knight it say that it forces some layer of strategic depth where you have to account for the double turn. To this day, four years later, no one has ever given a good example of what exactly that means.

Because this is a game where you can get locked into combat on turn 1. I don't see how you mitigate the double turn at all when the game supports units that can cross the entire table and engage in combat in turn 1 and where units can shoot freely into combats with no penalty. Other than screening.

You have to have screens and place them correctly. This is a most unappetizing pillar of play because it means whatever army you play has to have a slave-caste that gets set forward to screen against a gamist mechanic. That works for some armies, like skaven or even goblins.

Playing an elite style army, you have no screen. And if you have no screen you have no way to protect yourself from offensive starting on turn 1, and potentially being back to back.

An easy way to houserule it is push objective control to the end of the round and just alternate. For endless spells roll a d6; on a 2+ the person going second picks one to move first, on a 1 the person going first does.

I have to agree with Auticus on this one. I really don't get double turn except that it is a wildcard. Who wants double LoN spellcasting or a double Feeding Frenzy?

My FLGS has stopped using the turn priority for tourneys and it has, if anything, increased AoS interest in my community as a lot of players stayed away due to TP.

Double Turn is indeed a wild card. It is completely random, depending if you have luck with dice or not. People who like control on their games will tend to hate it for that reason.

You can indeed get locked in combat turn one, but unless you have an ability to hit first with a lot of units before your opponent can choose, it is mitigated by the way combat plays in AoS. It is much more important to have a double turn if you have lots of shootings/damage magic, since the opponent can't usually "interrupt" your chain of damage that way.

Dice always had a special place in GW designers' heart. "Rolling dice is fun !" is one of their mantra. The best way to counter optimization is randomisation : you can't optimize what you can't control. This is why the Double Turn is so hated or loved - it depends how you see the game should be, and with which point of view you're sided.

Some will certainly summarize it as "lazy" or "sign of incompetence". I'll say it's a design choice on purpose.

The best way to counter optimization is randomisation : you can't optimize what you can't control. This is why the Double Turn is so hated or loved - it depends how you see the game should be, and with which point of view you're sided.

Couple things with this line that I'd like to point out:

1) it doesn't address hating it because having a player stand there for two turns straight doing nothing is bad design.

2) optimization has not been curbed at all by double turn, the competitive community optimizes the living hell out of the easy to find undercost units, and optimized armies still crush non optimized armies regardless of double turn.

It's not even hating it for the lack of control, its the fact that you can randomly end up being left out of the game for two whole turns and you've nothing you can do about it.

You can't contest it nor even predict it appearing. Furthermore you can't really play with it much in mind as about the only thing you can do to prepare is hold back from letting the enemy get too close to engage. So basically that might work if you're not having to push forward for objectives and if your army is a tough shooty force; but most close combat armies want to advance forward.

You don't have to be a control freak for that to be a huge problem. Beginners, casual players - anyone is going to get huge issues with it.
It honestly strikes me as something that was in the supercasual joke rules at launch and which some how retained a core of enough fans to convince GW to keep the feature within the rules of the game. It might even be that, at launch, it was one of the "defining features" (since at launch AoS didn't have endless spells nor really any rules features as such).

I like Summoning. I don’t like the double turn.

 auticus wrote:

The best way to counter optimization is randomisation : you can't optimize what you can't control. This is why the Double Turn is so hated or loved - it depends how you see the game should be, and with which point of view you're sided.

Couple things with this line that I'd like to point out:

1) it doesn't address hating it because having a player stand there for two turns straight doing nothing is bad design.

2) optimization has not been curbed at all by double turn, the competitive community optimizes the living hell out of the easy to find undercost units, and optimized armies still crush non optimized armies regardless of double turn.

You say it's a bad design, and there are indeed a few people here saying they don't like Double Turn. To you/them, it is a bad design. However, it is a fact that players in AoS have learned to deal with it and with the small change in second edition (tie are won by the player who started first last turn), it adds something more fair to the random side.

Reasons of the "hate" can indeed vary, but they are tied to how you see the game should be and on which side you are.

As for optimization, yes the competitive players keeps doing it - on their lists only. Because they know Double Turn can't be controlled and so they just have to take it into account and optimize elsewhere. All of the competitive players always play while having to think about the possibility of having a Double Turn or not. That's the main reason a lot of players try to play second on first turn.

Some people like the random side, others clearly not. I think there's a big part about control, actually. It's the same with random advances / charges, if you remember it at the times Warhammer Battle was around and where those movements were not decided by dice, but were set in the stone with their move range (simply doubling it, and making it thus very predictable). Some players were really angry when they randomized charges, because it removed their control about that part of the game. Most people finally rolled with it in the end, though. I think it's the same here with Double Turn.

 Sarouan wrote:

However, it is a fact that players in AoS have learned to deal with it and with the small change in second edition (tie are won by the player who started first last turn), it adds something more fair to the random side.

If I'm not wrong it adds about 8% in favour of the player who started the last turn. If it is indeed so it seems to me that people bit in GW's videos explaining that it was somehow a huge improvement in favour of the one that got bit hard the first time.
1. It is only 8% (if I'm right)
2. You already got hit hard first.

 Sarouan wrote:

All of the competitive players always play while having to think about the possibility of having a Double Turn or not. That's the main reason a lot of players try to play second on first turn.

What about the following: if you prepare for a double turn in your favour you aren't prepared for a double turn in your opponent's favour. If you're not preparing for a double turn and your opponent isn't as well then the status quo stays, but if he is preparing then you are in disadvantage. Shouldn't you always prepare for the double turn then and aren't lists made so they can capitalize on bringing high burst damage so doing it twice in a row decides the game? IMO there is no thinking here - a double turn will allow you to close with the opponent and deal your damage first or simply deal your damage twice. At the level of competitive damage output that is being commented here this is a GG.

I have a strong feeling that this isn't the first time I've participated in the same discussion here

Sarouan the thing is a lot of events and groups just straight up don't use the double turn. Also your point regarding some liking it or not still doesn't get around the fact that if a double turn happens one person isn't playing the game nor doing anything for a long period.

In a game where you activate whole armies in alternate that's a massive advantage you've just handed to one player. Indeed most of the time I talk to players I very rarely hear of anyone who lost a game when they got a double turn. Similarly I hear of very few instances where someone wins a game when a double turn happens to their opponent.

There's a few niche situations where a double turn doesn't have a dramatic effect on the outcome of hte game, but by and large if it happens whoever gets it is almost guaranteed a win.

That's a really bad idea. It's one thing to have dice influence game outcome, its another to have the dice decide the outcome of a game. Plus who wants to play a game which might take two, three, four hours of their life if almost the entire win/loss hinges on a single roll of the dice. It's not even an epic moment like the last leader making a defiant last stand or such its just who goes next.

For many armies tho, you CANT prepare for a double turn, if you are vs FeC, Skaven, DoK, IDK, HoS, they can all move fast enough, hit hard enough, and have units that can stand in front to take a hit. Many armies cant do that. Some armies if you sit out and "prepare to be double turned" you straight up lose the game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
For many armies tho, you CANT prepare for a double turn, if you are vs FeC, Skaven, DoK, IDK, HoS, they can all move fast enough, hit hard enough, and have units that can stand in front to take a hit. Many armies cant do that. Some armies if you sit out and "prepare to be double turned" you straight up lose the game.

That's another issue - sitting back and staying out of range of your opponent is about the only way you can specifically prepare for the double turn. That's a disaster in a game which only has 6 turns of action! Furthermore its a tactic only ranged armies can really do and even then its leaving you at a higher chance of being left not holding objectives.

You can argue that putting up screens to protect weaker units is preparing, but that's just normal gameplay you'd be doing anyway if you've got an army which functions like that and, as noted, some armies just don't have screens as part of their structure.

 Overread wrote:
Sarouan the thing is a lot of events and groups just straight up don't use the double turn.

Sources ? Because where I am playing, I don't see large numbers of groups/events not using the double turn specifically. Yes, people like Auticus use their own rules because they're better suited to how he think the game should be, but that doesn't mean the majority of players does it.

Also your point regarding some liking it or not still doesn't get around the fact that if a double turn happens one person isn't playing the game nor doing anything for a long period.

That's another problem entirely, that comes with the "I go you go" game system. It was always present in those games, be it Warhammer Battle, 40k or Age of Sigmar. It has his advantages and disadvantages as well - but waiting time is indeed part of the negatives.

AoS has the particularity to alternate during the combat phase and since it's a heavy melee focus game, the interactivity happens a lot there.

In a game where you activate whole armies in alternate that's a massive advantage you've just handed to one player. Indeed most of the time I talk to players I very rarely hear of anyone who lost a game when they got a double turn. Similarly I hear of very few instances where someone wins a game when a double turn happens to their opponent. There's a few niche situations where a double turn doesn't have a dramatic effect on the outcome of hte game, but by and large if it happens whoever gets it is almost guaranteed a win.

And that's the point of the Double Turn : you can't predict it and you can't control it. This is indeed a part of unbalance, but that also makes the game unpredictable. A sure victory can become a close defeat. Yes, it is decided by dice, and this is, I think, why some people don't like it. The same way people didn't like it when their sure charge suddenly becomes the prey of rolling random dice, some people don't like when their careful planning fell apart because of a simple dice roll not in their favor and resulting into a Double Turn.

But you can plan your strategy with it into account, and Double Turn is in no way an assurance of victory as well. Battleplans are also made with it into account, and the reason why you have objectives scored at the end of turn is, I believe, one of the reasons.

It is a game design choice, but I wouldn't say it's universally bad. It just has a specific vision behind, that some people don't share/understand here IMHO - and that is perfectly fine.

That's a really bad idea. It's one thing to have dice influence game outcome, its another to have the dice decide the outcome of a game. Plus who wants to play a game which might take two, three, four hours of their life if almost the entire win/loss hinges on a single roll of the dice. It's not even an epic moment like the last leader making a defiant last stand or such its just who goes next.

Dice rolls have always been playing a big part in GW games, not because they're bad but because that's a design choice. You can't control the dice, they are the avatar of everything you, as the general of your army, don't have control on - all the things that go bad during a battle despite your master plan.

Dice rolls aren't balanced - but they are impartial. The dice decide, not the players. I believe that's the main part you dislike here. When I read other players not in favor of it, they are often the ones believing only the skills should be rewarded. They want luck plays the smallest part as possible, because luck can't be controlled or optimized, so that games show only the skills of the players. That's one point of view amongst many.

Players accepting the dictature of dice in GW games don't see what's the big deal here. GW games have always been dice games. Accepting a dice roll is accepting that no matter the skills or how good your list is, things can simply just go wrong. That can give incredible turns of events instead of something that is boringly predictable from the start. That's why I believe balance isn't that important in the end in a game (it's mostly a question about player perception on what is fair and what is not, but that's another topic). We're having fun rolling dice while pushing our painted miniatures on the board, in the end.

About the value of "wasting hours playing an uninteresting game", that's really depending from your point of view. Besides...you are aware that all epic actions in GW games are actually decided by dice rolls, right ? If your warlord fails all his hit and wound rolls because he can't get anything higher than a 2 and need 3+ on his dice, that's the same feeling if I take your argument.

Its not about making it unpredictable, make it Random turn lengths like in 40k then if you want that "unpredictability", Having to watch my opponent take 2 turns and i get to do nothing is awful.

I went against a SCE player that had LOADS of shooting and could spend CP to shoot in hero phase, having him shoot me 4x from the same units WAS NOT FUN b.c he got the double turn.

PS: Units attack may miss some times sure, but its not 1 dice for my Warlord to kill my opponents, i get many dice and many attempts, even re-rolls at times. 1 dice to say if someone gets to play twice IS NOT THE SAME as a unit rolling 30-50 dice. That might defeat 1 other unit, we are talking about full army swings, not 1 unit vs 1 unit.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not about making it unpredictable, make it Random turn lengths like in 40k then if you want that "unpredictability", Having to watch my opponent take 2 turns and i get to do nothing is awful.

I went against a SCE player that had LOADS of shooting and could spend CP to shoot in hero phase, having him shoot me 4x from the same units WAS NOT FUN b.c he got the double turn.

PS: Units attack may miss some times sure, but its not 1 dice for my Warlord to kill my opponents, i get many dice and many attempts, even re-rolls at times. 1 dice to say if someone gets to play twice IS NOT THE SAME as a unit rolling 30-50 dice. That might defeat 1 other unit, we are talking about full army swings, not 1 unit vs 1 unit.

AoS is not 40k...why do you think the shooting units are way more restricted in range and firepower in comparison to their future counterpart ? Double Turn works in AoS because it's a melee focus game. It wouldn't work in 40k because it's mainly a shooting game (you know it is). Besides, while a shooting army in AoS is happy to have a Double Turn, they're not so happy when the melee opponent army gets his own. It goes both ways, and that's where it's unpredictable. You can call it random if you want, it's the same result.

And yes, the Double Turn's dice roll use only one dice. So what ? You still roll dice to hit and wound, and while a shooting army can do a lot of damage in a Double Turn, it's still not guaranted. You had a bad time in your game, doesn't mean it will be the same with every other game with the same lists.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not about making it unpredictable, make it Random turn lengths like in 40k then if you want that "unpredictability", Having to watch my opponent take 2 turns and i get to do nothing is awful.

I went against a SCE player that had LOADS of shooting and could spend CP to shoot in hero phase, having him shoot me 4x from the same units WAS NOT FUN b.c he got the double turn.

PS: Units attack may miss some times sure, but its not 1 dice for my Warlord to kill my opponents, i get many dice and many attempts, even re-rolls at times. 1 dice to say if someone gets to play twice IS NOT THE SAME as a unit rolling 30-50 dice. That might defeat 1 other unit, we are talking about full army swings, not 1 unit vs 1 unit.

AoS is not 40k...why do you think the shooting units are way more restricted in range and firepower in comparison to their future counterpart ? Double Turn works in AoS because it's a melee focus game. It wouldn't work in 40k because it's mainly a shooting game (you know it is). Besides, while a shooting army in AoS is happy to have a Double Turn, they're not so happy when the melee opponent army gets his own. It goes both ways, and that's where it's unpredictable. You can call it random if you want, it's the same result.

After a shooty army has had two turns to fully unload their shots into a close combat army the close combat army is going to be crippled. Seriously crippled, whilst that shooty army is still at full strength. Sure it doesn't like being in close combat, bu its still operating at 100% whilst the close combat army could be down to 50% or worse after two full turns against it. That's the issue, even getting a return double turn one army is critically weaker. Their units are not at full strength and far more likely to lose in close combat or even break and run.


And as said above by several others, its not the same to compare the dice rolls for one unit to a dice roll for a whole army. One unit failing a charge on a dice roll is a problem, your whole army standing still and taking a whole second round of fire/close combat/attacks/spells is a disaster. Any magic or shooty army gets a field day because they can attack with impunity; close combat armies also get to move right into combat how they want too. It's not the same thing at all to compare it to one unit's performance on the dice.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not about making it unpredictable, make it Random turn lengths like in 40k then if you want that "unpredictability", Having to watch my opponent take 2 turns and i get to do nothing is awful.

I went against a SCE player that had LOADS of shooting and could spend CP to shoot in hero phase, having him shoot me 4x from the same units WAS NOT FUN b.c he got the double turn.

PS: Units attack may miss some times sure, but its not 1 dice for my Warlord to kill my opponents, i get many dice and many attempts, even re-rolls at times. 1 dice to say if someone gets to play twice IS NOT THE SAME as a unit rolling 30-50 dice. That might defeat 1 other unit, we are talking about full army swings, not 1 unit vs 1 unit.

AoS is not 40k...why do you think the shooting units are way more restricted in range and firepower in comparison to their future counterpart ? Double Turn works in AoS because it's a melee focus game. It wouldn't work in 40k because it's mainly a shooting game (you know it is). Besides, while a shooting army in AoS is happy to have a Double Turn, they're not so happy when the melee opponent army gets his own. It goes both ways, and that's where it's unpredictable. You can call it random if you want, it's the same result.

And yes, the Double Turn's dice roll use only one dice. So what ? You still roll dice to hit and wound, and while a shooting army can do a lot of damage in a Double Turn, it's still not guaranted. You had a bad time in your game, doesn't mean it will be the same with every other game with the same lists.

Never said 40k and aos was the same, i gave an example to a better turn dice roll mechanic so you couldnt predict the outcome. Shooting has nothing to do with it, we all know players take shooting focus lists time to time and we all know you can have full armies that shoot, that has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. I dont see why you went on this big rant. I showed a better system to "unpredictability of turns" than to someone getting 2 turns in a row. Its even more fluffy to have it like 40k anyways, you dont know when the realm magic will fluctuate, when reinforcements are coming, etc... compare to a double turn.

It seems to be important to be playing like "the majority of everyone else". I don't think thats important to be honest. And there is no way to validate one way or the other if you are playing like the majority of everyone else because there is no global poll where you can get that data.

Now I've been a part of several online polls about the double turn over the past couple years and it usually turns out to be about 60% use it, 40% do not when the poll is taken in an AOS friendly forum (meaning the players all play AOS). The exception was a TGA poll, which has the highest concentration of extremely pro AOS players who will all defend everything AOS no matter what, and that as I recall was about 85% for it, 15% against it.

Additionally when that same poll is taken in a forum that is open to all games, so the players are a mix of every game, the disparity is about 80-85% would never use the double turn and 15% are in favor of it.

For whatever thats worth. Obviously those are just numbers from polls that I've been a part of on several fb groups, forums, and twitter polls and are not representative of the world, but I've been in enough of them to draw my own conclusions.

In my city, the competitive guys play it rules as written because adepticon and other big tournaments use it and they want to play by the standard, and the narrative and casual guys hate it and at the very least just play straight turns. Its about a 50/50 split.

For my money if I had no choice but to use the double turn, I would not be playing AOS at all.

It is simply a fact that a single roll of a D6 is much more swingy than a handful of D6. The phenomenon is called regression to the mean. The larger the number of dice you throw, the more likely you are to achieve the average result.

This is easily shown by looking at the probability space of a 2d6 roll. You will find that the most common score by miles is a 7, which is why GW used 2d6 for leadership tests for decades (it is less swingy than a single dice, and Leadership tests are the ones that used to have the biggest impact on the game) and why the average leadership score used to be 7. When they wanted morale to have less impact on the game, they increased leadership. This logic applies to any number of dice thrown - there will be a mean outcome that gets more and more likely the more dice you throw and at the same time extremes at either end become less likely. Whereas a single dice throw means all outcomes are equally likely at 16.66..%.

Rolling for turn is not like rolling to hit with a single attack or even a group of attacks. It is much more significant as it impacts the entire army. An easy fix would be to have alternating unit activation, so each priority roll only impacts one unit. That is how most games with a roll for priority work and it is fine. The fact that GW half assed it here is a sign of incompetent game design.

My impression is that TGA is changing and even there many are coming round to not liking the double turn. I honestly think a lot of it is player experience. Those who get double turns or never encounter them tend to think the issue is overblown through to loving them. It's those who get on the receiving end who realise what a painful experience it is. That its two whole turns of a game they are playing where they do nothing; that they couldn't prepare for it and play to the objectives of the game and that the game itself doesn't even really build itself around the feature to make it practical to try.

Once you've seen most of your army destroyed or crippled its darn hard to recover the game from that state.


About the only time it feels like a good thing is when one person has already been crippled and gets a double turn to rally around and have a chance at winning. But in that case its a niche and there's nothing in the game that makes double turns more likely to happen in such a case.

Yeah I haven't been on TGA in a long time now, so my data from there is pretty dated. When I was on there it was a "no negative comments about AOS are allowed, this is the AOS happy place" and everyone was pretty pro everything in AOS.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah I haven't been on TGA in a long time now, so my data from there is pretty dated. When I was on there it was a "no negative comments about AOS are allowed, this is the AOS happy place" and everyone was pretty pro everything in AOS.

Yeah its not so much that any more - I think that was more a kneejerk reaction to the very early days of AoS when there was a LOT of aggression against it on a lot of sites and TGA was mostly tying to buck the trend and so came down a little harder. ESp since a lot of people can't express dissatisfaction without getting hostile toward other members of the community.

Glad to see they grew up then and enabled actual discussion. It is possible to criticize something without others taking it a personal attack on them.

Though you are correct and that does make online discussions very difficult today - there is a lot of open venom and hostility towards those that disagree with one's point of view and that can make forums a bad place to be on.

I think summoning needs to have a tradeoff. Like Nurgle you need to get contagion points, Khorne you need blood tithe. FEC can do it for free, and multiple times which is BS (and I played FEC as my main army).

I’ve had the double turn come up in all the games I’ve played 1v1. I haven’t personally had it make much difference.

I dislike the double turn. Not hate it, since it's an interesting concept, but an entire second turn of sitting there doing gak is not fun. If AOS had alternating activation rather than full turns, then the double turn would be more interesting as it would only be one unit.

Instead of going back to a bigger scale, GW should have gone with the Warmahordes approach: Each unit moves/shoots/attacks independently, then the next unit, rather than "movement phase", "shooting phase", etc. They could have still kept Hero Phase. Hell, they could have even kept charging the way it is rather than make it be part of the movement phase.

Would have made the game more interesting IMHO. Throw in alternating unit activations, and suddenly you have a way more tactically interesting game than what we got.

For Double Turn to kinda not be so swingy you would have to rework some aspects of the game. Even then it would not be enough to justify the mechanic itself. It's just not fun in general imo. Only time I've enjoyed it is when I get the double turn, but then I see the abysmal dismay in my opponent and remember how frustrating it is to be on the receiving end.

Changes would be:
- Magic needs to be scaled back considerably. Nobody wants FEC animation double turn or a LoN casting phase two times in a row.
- Scale back shooting.

Those two things enjoy a considerable force multiplier in Double Turns.

I'm a big fan of the double turn since I play to see what happens and it really helps to introduce unpredictability. I get though that the same randomness can cause people who want to make things happen to not be able to. Sometimes a double turn can drastically swing the game and that can be really frustrating.

My personal preference would be for a Bolt Action style dice pull unit by unit activation.

I would be interested in the mechanic if it were more like the new Apocalypse ruleset: Models are only to die at the end of the turn. This would give the priority holder some advantage, but such advantage that they can wipe out the entire enemy army before it gets to do anything.

It is my hope that the new apoc model becomes the 40k and aos model period if they are going to continue down the IGOUGO path.

 Overread wrote:
If GW really wants to keep it have it resigned to open play as an optional mechanic and let matched play avoid it. Which is what I suspect will happen because that lets GW answer the issue for the matched play gamers, whilst getting to not actually remove it as a feature from the game. They just discourage it in "matched" and move it out into the optional realm of open play.

I wholeheartedly agree.
Double turn would be much more fitting for Open Play or Narrative Play.
Especially for the latter, where the Double Turn can represent the tide of battle turning miraculously in the favour of beleaguered, outnumbered army.
However large number of people I have seen online were very adamant on keeping the double turn as the immutable, unique trait of AoS even in Matched Play.

As for me, I am always prepared to deal with double turn in my opponent's favour.
I just do not find it tactically rewarding.

As many of the posters have pointed out, keeping as much distance as possible between my units and the opposing units is all I can do.
If the opponent gets the double turn, I might prevent the worst outcome - having my army crippled irreversibly.
This however will allow my opponent to have greater board control due to my passive deployment.
It gives significant advantage to my opponent, as I need to regain board control I gave up in order to prepare against the double turn.

If I am not on the receiving end of the double turn it is simply "status quo", meaning that we retain traditional "IGOUGO" mechanic.
And I practically earn no tactical reward despite the massive effort I have put in the previous battle round to prevent double turn from ruining my army.
Meanwhile, my opponent loses nothing as the game turn order is "status quo".

At best, preparing hard against the opposing player's double turn only ensures that my force is not critically impaired at the ensuing battle round.
This gives no tactical advantage to me, and also means that I need to prepare for another chance that my opponent will get double turn next battle round: a vicious cycle of passive manoeuvre I would say.
At worst, I give up significant amount of board to my opponent.
And seizing board control at this point is extremely difficult unless I take the double turn: but that relies on a single dice roll, which I find to be the furthest thing from tactical finesse.

 auticus wrote:
It is my hope that the new apoc model becomes the 40k and aos model period if they are going to continue down the IGOUGO path.

I must admit that I would love a similar game system for Legendary Battles in AoS. Their new version of Apocalypse is really good from what I have tried. That, and using the unit bases for big infantry hordes. Those sold for Apocalypse are fine enough.

I grabbed some of the movement rings for AOS play.

I did as well, my Fyreslayers look great put on it. Sadly, the distance between the holes meant for miniature bases can mess with the range distance of their melee weapons. It's not that optimal the way AoS is playing - but if you make a homemade rule to make it work by using the bases, it's really a great tool indeed. Makes movement much easier for big infantry units.

I use the GW Movement Trays for MSU units. Otherwise I am just using some 3D printed stuff I bought off ebay that is specifically created for pile-ins.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I use the GW Movement Trays for MSU units. Otherwise I am just using some 3D printed stuff I bought off ebay that is specifically created for pile-ins.

Do you happen to have a link for those?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I use the GW Movement Trays for MSU units. Otherwise I am just using some 3D printed stuff I bought off ebay that is specifically created for pile-ins.

Do you happen to have a link for those?

Check out this guys options. They look pretty sweet! https://www.ebay.com/usr/uberjisha?_trksid=p2047675.l2559

 mokoshkana wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I use the GW Movement Trays for MSU units. Otherwise I am just using some 3D printed stuff I bought off ebay that is specifically created for pile-ins.

Do you happen to have a link for those?

Check out this guys options. They look pretty sweet! https://www.ebay.com/usr/uberjisha?_trksid=p2047675.l2559

These are the ones I bought.

Used them in a tourney yesterday and they worked really well.

Awesome, thanks for the info!

I have lost entire games due to being double turned. Ones that, had it followed a more normal sequence, I might have actually won. I just don’t like all your strategies and plans going out the window on account of a single dice roll.

Well look at that my prediction that the free peoples book would mix humans and dwarves was spot on. And elves too.

 auticus wrote:
Well look at that my prediction that the free peoples book would mix humans and dwarves was spot on. And elves too.

I think that's a good thing honestly. Less tome bloat, and it makes sense that your "normal" races would be able to be together (like Chris Peach's amazing mixed-race army)

I think a lot of people made that prediction.

Maybe. But ive sure taken a fair amount of heat suggesting it over the past few months.

You take heat for suggesting anything reasonable.

Kind of makes you wonder what he's actually taking heat for, doesn't it?

 EnTyme wrote:
Kind of makes you wonder what he's actually taking heat for, doesn't it?

Not really. If you follow what he says its all reasonable things, just it doesn't lend to the "combo CCG" or "must be competitive with world championships" or "must not encourage broken combos so powergamers and min/maxers get their fix" mindsets which have infested gaming the past decade or so.

People seem to get really heated at the idea that they can't game a system.

Yeah kind of makes you wonder, what am I really taking heat for? Im all ears! What content exactly riles you up and irritates you so?

Wayniac wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Kind of makes you wonder what he's actually taking heat for, doesn't it?

Not really. If you follow what he says its all reasonable things, just it doesn't lend to the "combo CCG" or "must be competitive with world championships" or "must not encourage broken combos so powergamers and min/maxers get their fix" mindsets which have infested gaming the past decade or so.

People seem to get really heated at the idea that they can't game a system.

Frankly, it also seems to have everything to do with where the suggestions are made.

Where are those suggestions made that are inappropriate?

 auticus wrote:
Where are those suggestions made that are inappropriate?

I suspect this is the "pissing in the wind" concept, that you're arguing against people who WANT that stuff and disliked the old 80/early 90s style of gaming. So here, TGA (although that site has its own issues) etc.

Sometimes it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Many, many people have suggested a combined Free Peoples battletome. You're the only one I've ever seen who claims to have taken flak for it. Maybe it's not the suggestion that's causing the flak.

Maybe not though the people goving flak were strangers that i didnt know.

Not even people with whom ive shared a disagreement with causing them to quip back negatively.

If the statement “im betting that the free peoples book mixes dwarves in as well” involves some kind of trigger words, im unaware of what those could be.

The flak seemed to be centered around the concept of non pure battletomes, which were undesirable to the commentor.

As to HOW i say things, this is a text-only medium. The only thing we have to communicate is precisely WHAT we type.

Connotation, inflection, voice, etc do not exist, though are often inferred how the perceiver wishes based on the agreeableness of the content of the presentor in such a medium.

Ie if you dont agree or even strongly dislike what i have to say, you apply the comic book guy snide tone to my writing.

If you agree with what i say, then my voice in your head is level headed and rational.

Naw text can convey emotions and attitudes, though it can fall flat when trying to use things like sarcasm unless you're very overt with it or support it heavily. If text couldn't then novels and stories would have no real meaning nor emotional content.


Also you're overlooking the other two voices. One is the voice of the avatar which can colour a persons impression of how things are said (this can also combine with the user name too). And the other is - well - currently half the text I read has the voice of Lucifer from Lucifer because its what's been playing for the last 2 or so hours as I'm slowly building Slaanesh models.




Wait is it bad that I just said that?!

Well for years my avatar was emperor palpatine so...

Well, I had my first truly bad balance experience as a filthy casual. Trolls in a smaller point games. Against multiple opponents my trolls just eat everything most games. I think part of it is that I'm facing so many minimum and 2x minimum units. They just don't put out enough wounds to take trolls down when there are only 10 attacks being resolved. And the flat 3 damage and -2 rend is pretty reliable.

Incidentally if there's ever a Meeting Engagement event, as many minimum size rock chucking troll units as you can fit split pretty evenly amount the three groups should be great.

In terms of my casual group I guess I'll take 750ish against their 1000 and see how it goes.

The filthy casual arena is where pretty much all of the negative play experiences are rooted. In the tournament scene if both players are rocking meta lists, the game is a lot more even.

Especially in small games with elite units. You take the wrong one and it'll massively skew the power of the list just in terms of proportions.

IMO fellwater & especially rock trolls are solidly OP now. Stats compared to point costs are just too good.

I wish you could see my shocked face.

Had some more games and 750 of trolls was fine against a non tuned 1000 points of Nighthaunt and against 1000 of Stormcast (both primarily Soul Wars models)

The Stormcast still had a rougher go of it because they're not ethereal.

That's worse than I thought. 750 vs 1000 is already a significant handicap, and Nighthaunt are a hard counter to trolls (ignore rend, reduce bravery). Starter set stormcast are universally good if not OP depending on the unit, bar castigators. That they had a tough go despite a third more points is a pretty bad sign.

I think part of it is that it's casual people playing starter set stuff largely at minimum unit sizes and trolls being pretty brainless in their way to play. A 10 model unit of sequitors rather than 2 x 5 or 20 chain rasps rather than 2x 10 and things would have been a lot harder. My opponents have all sorts of tactical options so that means more opportunities for mistakes. Whereas I'm going to basically head towards the objectives and kill what's there.

5-man sequitor units are generally ideal since you get three special weapons per 5 that way (the champion's doesn't count towards the limit, and he gets an extra attack). Also, we are looking at a significant handicap for the troll player already. All other context aside the army with 33% more points should probably be doing better, a lot better.

The issue is that the 5 sequitors get rocks chucked at them, get charged and then the trolls fight and -2 rend 3 damage reduces the unit (or totally removes it) and the sequitors remaining can't kill a single troll in response.

I think if the Stormcast player used their ability to deploy in the heavens and got the charge things would turn out differently, but I'm not sure how different. I think that's happened at least once during a game and a troll dies but even two hitting back removes way more Stormcast.

I don't know if we got the points right, but at even, it was ridiculous. At 850 to 1000 it still didn't feel close and at 750 it felt like I had to actually think about what I was doing. But again, because I have a few models and they are so straightforward I just went to objectives, did some fighting.

This is also one time where the general feeling of "we as the players can fix this by taking different points levels" isn't holding. The blowout games were bad enough that everyone seriously lost enthusiasm and their trust that the game will work within reason.

This is another area where balance issues hits the casuals the hardest. The most dejected gamer isn't looking to win, but just to do something. Not just take models off the table. Things are a bit better with the points difference but it still just feels crappy to have a unit basically wiped after you ponly get a save on a 6+ and take 6-12 wounds or whatever.

In our local chat group we were all enthusiastically post pictures of our next AoS models as we painted them. Now it's just sort of about Blackstone Fortress and Gaslands. We had two more months in our campaign but like no one is talking about scheduling games.

We've had no problems in the past tweaking points when things felt off, but I think the degree to which this felt bad might be just too much. I think I'm going to announce that I'm shelving my trolls and will be switching armies for the remainder of the campaign. Everyone has always had a blast playing against my mixed order so I'll probably pull them back out.

I think you should take what you just wrote then cut & paste it into an email to GW. Because it is something they need to hear.

How many games did you play? Could it have just been one of those games where you rolled super hot and everything just went your way? You could play a few more games and see if it keeps ending up the same if it was only 1. Otherwise, yeah that sounds rough.

At 140 points, Rockgut trolls are incredibly good, but lets not pretend that anecdotal evidence is everything here. Before we get all bent out of shape, lets gather more information on the lists being used. Is Frozenwastes exclusively using trolls? There are lots of ways to break the game at 1k points.

From what's being said, it sounds like they're playing against MSU lists...which frankly, deserve to do poorly in all respects.

Why would MSU lists deserve to do poorly?

 Da Boss wrote:
Why would MSU lists deserve to do poorly?

Why should they be able to do well?

You shouldn't be rewarded for spamming units of 5 Sequitors with 3x Greatmaces or units of 10 Thralls or whatever other MSU nonsense is happening of late.

It's a problem in both AoS and 40k that needs a solution, and currently the solution seems to be these weird off-kilter lists. Want to MSU? Cool, Trolls are gonna MSU you a hell of a lot better.

MSU is in my opinion way better than hordes.

Depends on the unit style. Daemonettes and Marauders in a Hedonite army are far better at max size than they are at minimum. 40 marauders seem like nothing until they explode for 3 hits on 6’s, re-roll 1s to hit and wound. Meanwhile 20 swing a lot less. I would definitely agree that minimum sized ELITE units are better than max sized elite units. Wherein max sized hordes are better than min sized hordes.

Please don't interpret my post as an argument that the balance is bad for all peoples. It is just a handful of games among a very casual crowd. The only reason I'm remarking on it at all is that I am an advocate of players fixing the issue themselves by taking less points when their stuff is OP. In this case however things were so one sided it just felt bad for all involved. Usually after a day of gaming if something feels OP the person will just take 7-10% less points next club day and it's cool. I had to do that to 20-25% and gave a lot of negative play experiences on the way down.

As for the dice, they were about average but the times I got a double turn it was devestating but the times I got a double turn against me were no big deal. I lost an extra troll here or there.

It's definitely an MSU issue. If my opponents took 2xmin units instead of minimum sizes then they wouldn't lose out on fighting back after trolls do 8+ wounds to a unit. 9-12 wounds worth of models can still hit back, but 0-2 does nothing.

The other thing that definitely was a contributing factor is that in smaller games there can be less models (or units) involved in combat. So when I pick things to fight and render an opponent unable to fight back by killing so much stuff, it means they did very little in that fight phase. And if they go first and it's like 10 attacks at 4+ 3+ 1 damage I can often not lose a troll at all. If they weren't MSUing it and that gets bumped up to 15-20 attacks I'll definitely lose a troll, sometimes two.

I'm also going to change my painting plan and get some variety into the army for going to 2K. It'll still be trolls at the core but variety of gitz for the other 1k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
From what's being said, it sounds like they're playing against MSU lists...which frankly, deserve to do poorly in all respects.

I agree that MSU is the main issue here.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Please don't interpret my post as an argument that the balance is bad for all peoples. It is just a handful of games among a very casual crowd. The only reason I'm remarking on it at all is that I am an advocate of players fixing the issue themselves by taking less points when their stuff is OP. In this case however things were so one sided it just felt bad for all involved. Usually after a day of gaming if something feels OP the person will just take 7-10% less points next club day and it's cool. I had to do that to 20-25% and gave a lot of negative play experiences on the way down.

As for the dice, they were about average but the times I got a double turn it was devestating but the times I got a double turn against me were no big deal. I lost an extra troll here or there.

It's definitely an MSU issue. If my opponents took 2xmin units instead of minimum sizes then they wouldn't lose out on fighting back after trolls do 8+ wounds to a unit. 9-12 wounds worth of models can still hit back, but 0-2 does nothing.

The other thing that definitely was a contributing factor is that in smaller games there can be less models (or units) involved in combat. So when I pick things to fight and render an opponent unable to fight back by killing so much stuff, it means they did very little in that fight phase. And if they go first and it's like 10 attacks at 4+ 3+ 1 damage I can often not lose a troll at all. If they weren't MSUing it and that gets bumped up to 15-20 attacks I'll definitely lose a troll, sometimes two.

I'm also going to change my painting plan and get some variety into the army for going to 2K. It'll still be trolls at the core but variety of gitz for the other 1k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
From what's being said, it sounds like they're playing against MSU lists...which frankly, deserve to do poorly in all respects.

I agree that MSU is the main issue here.

What is your 1k army build? What were your opponents builds?

I have never played an MSU army but surely it is a legitimate style of play? Is it generally over powered and needs to be powered down to be equal to hordes?

 Da Boss wrote:
I have never played an MSU army but surely it is a legitimate style of play? Is it generally over powered and needs to be powered down to be equal to hordes?

Every army is different. The units themselves can be the problem. All MSU is not created equally. For instance, if I play Sylvaneth, with Spite-Revenants I can get 10x Units of 5 for 600 points, where as with Kurnoth Hunters, I could only get 3x Units of 3 for 600 points. Neither of those units get inherently better as they are taken in bigger units, but if you were to take a min unit of dryads and compare it to a make unit of dryads, there are bonuses for being bigger.

Also note, that MSU can be more problematic to your opponents spells/shooting/melee, because your opponent has to target multiple units instead of putting everything into one big unit.