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

 Talys wrote:


2. "That Guy" just isn't drawn to the game. So the chance of running into "That Guy" is near zero.

I think 'competitive' tfg won't be drawn to the game. And good riddance. Thst said. He isnt the only class of tfg. I can imagine a lot of whiny 'casual at all costs' tfg's that will make your games in aos miserable as well.

No, they'll make one game miserable - and it'd be a short game, at that. Unless you decide to play them again, for some bizarre reason.

My group of friends and I LIKE to compete. We want a structure so we can outplan, outthink, and fine-tune our force to beat our opponents. AoS needs some guidelines for us competitive players. Everyone likes to win. Do you have to win every time? No. It's bad for you-builds a serious ego problem. But nobody likes to lose every time either. Builds low self esteem. But humanity has always been about competition. If you don't want to compete, you need to accept that YOU'RE the outlier. You're the odd man out. And yes, from all appearances, GW has opted to cater to you. I don't know why. It's not a slight, it's not an insult, it's just an odd business choice why you'd focus on 10% of the population, rather than 90%. And yes, I'd say about 10% of the population falls under the "non-competitive" title.
My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points. He's been making it a living system, tweaking it as he finds overpowered items like Necrosphynxes. You want living errata? He's doing it. You want units gaining points as soon as they come out? Right in his free rules.

I've played AoS with only putting a cap on # of wounds, due to time limitations. It works, but I still had a nightmare of a time dealing with a Bloodthirster in Game 1, and my opponent couldn't deal with summoning madness in Game 2. The rules in Azyr make it feel more like Warhammer in the Warmachine world. Every unit is useful, every unit can do some crazy stuff, it's all about army synergy. With a point structure. That's the necessary part. Structure. I LOVE the combat aspect of Sigmar. Blows away classic Warhammer. No "I'll do this combat first, finish, do that combat". No. Now, you pick individual units in combats and break down based on threat level. It's a tough choice at times, deciding what you can be willing to lose. So combat is far better now. And the hit/wound/kill is easier. Which is nice. Helps get new people in. Free warscrolls with all the rules right on them, books for fluff and scenario purposes? Yes please. The only thing ever missing was structure. So I'll enjoy my Azyr rules, the rules that were originally supposed to be AoS. You enjoy AoS as GW saw fit to unleash on us. To be honest, I'd have been happy if GW proper released Azyr for us competitive players and the casuals got the 4 page rules and scrolls only. Everyone would be happy. But what can you do? Just play the rules you like, really. We're gamers. We'll find a way.

You need to realise that the structure allowing for competition is there. Your maximum model allowance is based on deployment zone size, your attempt to out think your opponent's list happens as you put models on the table from your collection.

Tournaments would do well to simply limit the deployment zone size (say 3'x6") if they want a balanced game.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You need to realise that the structure allowing for competition is there. Your maximum model allowance is based on deployment zone size, your attempt to out think your opponent's list happens as you put models on the table from your collection.

Tournaments would do well to simply limit the deployment zone size (say 3'x6") if they want a balanced game.

Wrong. Deployment size has nothing to do with balance as it barely has any relation to actual unit strength on the battlefield, the intention certain unit types are taken for etc.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points.

Ok, I registered just to ask you:
1. Is this the Azyr compendium that you're referring to?

2. How do you now that he has had some part in the design of AoS? Has he stated so or is there another source that claims it? (I'm relly in the dark about this and it's very interesting to me)

 timetowaste85 wrote:
My group of friends and I LIKE to compete. We want a structure so we can outplan, outthink, and fine-tune our force to beat our opponents. AoS needs some guidelines for us competitive players. Everyone likes to win. Do you have to win every time? No. It's bad for you-builds a serious ego problem. But nobody likes to lose every time either. Builds low self esteem. But humanity has always been about competition. If you don't want to compete, you need to accept that YOU'RE the outlier. You're the odd man out. And yes, from all appearances, GW has opted to cater to you. I don't know why. It's not a slight, it's not an insult, it's just an odd business choice why you'd focus on 10% of the population, rather than 90%. And yes, I'd say about 10% of the population falls under the "non-competitive" title.
My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points. He's been making it a living system, tweaking it as he finds overpowered items like Necrosphynxes. You want living errata? He's doing it. You want units gaining points as soon as they come out? Right in his free rules.

I've played AoS with only putting a cap on # of wounds, due to time limitations. It works, but I still had a nightmare of a time dealing with a Bloodthirster in Game 1, and my opponent couldn't deal with summoning madness in Game 2. The rules in Azyr make it feel more like Warhammer in the Warmachine world. Every unit is useful, every unit can do some crazy stuff, it's all about army synergy. With a point structure. That's the necessary part. Structure. I LOVE the combat aspect of Sigmar. Blows away classic Warhammer. No "I'll do this combat first, finish, do that combat". No. Now, you pick individual units in combats and break down based on threat level. It's a tough choice at times, deciding what you can be willing to lose. So combat is far better now. And the hit/wound/kill is easier. Which is nice. Helps get new people in. Free warscrolls with all the rules right on them, books for fluff and scenario purposes? Yes please. The only thing ever missing was structure. So I'll enjoy my Azyr rules, the rules that were originally supposed to be AoS. You enjoy AoS as GW saw fit to unleash on us. To be honest, I'd have been happy if GW proper released Azyr for us competitive players and the casuals got the 4 page rules and scrolls only. Everyone would be happy. But what can you do? Just play the rules you like, really. We're gamers. We'll find a way.

Lol,..ok

First off can you site your source for 90% competitive vs 10% non-competitive statement?

Been wargaming for over 40 years...I think your source on that is a bit "off"

As for Azyr comp,our group tried it and found it to be a nice mild point system,still need lots of balancing work though.Its a system we will keep up on but currently will be moving to the leaked Laws of War system for competitive testing

CoreCommander wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points.

Ok, I registered just to ask you:
1. Is this the Azyr compendium that you're referring to?

2. How do you now that he has had some part in the design of AoS? Has he stated so or is there another source that claims it? (I'm relly in the dark about this and it's very interesting to me)

There isn't any proof for the document truly coming from a GW employee and there never will be, since as soon as who wrote it gets released, said person will be fired. As far as I can recall, the current iteration is community-developed anyway.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You need to realise that the structure allowing for competition is there. Your maximum model allowance is based on deployment zone size, your attempt to out think your opponent's list happens as you put models on the table from your collection.

Tournaments would do well to simply limit the deployment zone size (say 3'x6") if they want a balanced game.

Wrong. Deployment size has nothing to do with balance as it barely has any relation to actual unit strength on the battlefield, the intention certain unit types are taken for etc.

Not wrong. If both players have the same space available, and a varied collection of models to choose from, then deployment will allow the unit to unit balance you are looking for. They place heavy cavalry, you place a block of spearmen. They place archers, you place light cavalry or a chariot team. They place a big monsters, you place a long range artillery unit. The counters are intuitive, if you follow the "rules" for most fantasy literature.

Also, the best infantry units are still able to be taken down by a similar footprint of weaker infantry, especialy when you field them in space saving blocks/ trays.

The entire premise would work (to a low degree) if units were balanced among each other. When several units of the same type are balanced differently, the system cannot hold up. Worse, what you described is about the worst pay-to-win system any tabletop developer...or model producing company, if talking GW, as it would require each participant to have a sizeable collection of miniatures with representatives of the best selection for each possible slot. If you don't, you'd have zero chance.

Last but not least - what happened to all the praise for the "freedom" AoS is supposed to offer according to its apologists, if, assuming your theory was true, you would be absolutely required to have an immense model collection?

Bonus points for PUGs where you'd have to either get lucky and have the right counter-parts ready or heave your entire model collection around.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The entire premise would work (to a low degree) if units were balanced among each other. When several units of the same type are balanced differently, the system cannot hold up. Worse, what you described is about the worst pay-to-win system any tabletop developer...or model producing company, if talking GW, as it would require each participant to have a sizeable collection of miniatures with representatives of the best selection for each possible slot. If you don't, you'd have zero chance.

Last but not least - what happened to all the praise for the "freedom" AoS is supposed to offer according to its apologists, if, assuming your theory was true, you would be absolutely required to have an immense model collection?

Bonus points for PUGs where you'd have to either get lucky and have the right counter-parts ready or heave your entire model collection around.

"Just buy all our models and you'll have a fair game!" - GW
Seems legit.

Actually, no. I'm not buying it. If all infantry were the same power level or all units had similar abilities, then sure. That might have something. I I don't see how "eyeballing" it is better than a well thought out point system. (Not GW's points where no thought was put into them.)

@timetowaste85 - I think the 90% competitive thing is a bit off We all tend to think that our group is really important, I think -- in the way that I believe that a huge number of people who play 40k do so at home rather than at a store or games night, but have absolutely no way to prove it. And I could be totally wrong; it just makes sense to me, because I happen to like the game that way.

@MWHistorian - Well, it's more supposed to be: "Just buy whatever models you want, and figure out a fair game with the other guy who buys whatever models they want!"

Eyeballing it works if both people have very random, unplanned armies and didn't plan on competing. If two people want to compete in AoS, using RAW, the only way to do so is to agree prior to the game that the armies are fair.

You have to look at it like this, if skaven clan rats were the same power level all the time as the skaven storm vermin, you would never buy the storm vermin because they are $10 us more expensive.

Everyone used to compare the points to price ratio, this isn't any different. You'll also note that when the two reach the same price point, they are literally equal to one another in every way.

 Talys wrote:


@MWHistorian - Well, it's more supposed to be: "Just buy whatever models you want, and figure out a fair game with the other guy who buys whatever models they want!"

Eyeballing it works if both people have very random, unplanned armies and didn't plan on competing. If two people want to compete in AoS, using RAW, the only way to do so is to agree prior to the game that the armies are fair.

So, as long as you don't care about lopsided games with predetermined winners it's alright?
No thanks.
And we're assuming we're having a lot of models to choose from instead of smaller well thought out armies. Again "Buy more stuff edition."

MongooseMatt wrote:
Points-based games mean competition. They encourage it. When you put together a Fantasy Battle force (or 40k, just as guilty), you are trying to put together an army, you will have a tendency to avoid certain units because, for whatever reason, they are not going to work out for you. I am not talking about sub-optimal units (we all include those in our forces) but the ones that you think are just plain bad. You want to put together a decent army that has a reasonable chance of winning, so you want to pick units that will help you do that.

And then (and this is crucial) when you play and lose with such an army, there is a feeling of disappointment, perhaps even failure - the sides were perfectly (yeah, I know) matched and you lost. You got it wrong. You cocked it up.

I can't say I've ever experienced that.

I mean, sure, it's disappointing to lose... But in a game that is so heavily influenced by luck, it's hard to take it all that seriously.

Removing the points costs isn't going to change how much I want to win a game, or how heartbroken (or not) I'll be when I lose. The whole point of playing a game against other people is for one of you to win.

With no points-based gaming, that does not matter. You want a wing of Warhawk Riders because you think they look stunning? Bring them along, there really is no downside.

I don't follow this reasoning.

If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.


This, though:

Do Scenarios, Not Points

...I think, is ultimately the key.


GW's biggest failing with AoS was marketing. It was sprung on the community out of the blue, with no real warning or time to prepare for just how big a departure it was from WHFB. That was always going to result in a certain amount of backlash.


But then, when they did unveil it, they just kind of put it out there and said 'Here you go!' (Anyone remember how well that worked for Inquisitor?)


The strength of AoS is, as far as I can see, as a vessel for scenario games. So that's exactly how GW should have been billing it. Along with all of the revised rules that went online when the game was released, there should have been scenario packs to create launching points for campaigns for each army. Or at the very least, some sort of mention of those scenario packs that are coming down the pipe. At every opportunity, GW should have been mentioning scenario-based play, and showcasing their awesome studio campaigns, and running story events in stores...

Instead - here's a game! Your old stuff is now invalid! Buy new stuff!

That was always going to end well...

The strength of AoS is, as far as I can see, as a vessel for scenario games. So that's exactly how GW should have been billing it. Along with all of the revised rules that went online when the game was released, there should have been scenario packs to create launching points for campaigns for each army. Or at the very least, some sort of mention of those scenario packs that are coming down the pipe. At every opportunity, GW should have been mentioning scenario-based play, and showcasing their awesome studio campaigns, and running story events in stores...

Why do people use scenarios as a strength of a game? ANY GAME CAN USE SCENARIOS. AoS does nothing special that makes it more able to use scenarios than any other game. Any game allows to determine sides by eye and creativity if your opponent wants to also.

These are not unique attributes to AoS. Why do people list them as positives?

You have misread my post.

I wasn't saying that AoS is special because it allows scenario play.

I was saying that if you're designing a game that only works properly with scenarios, you need to be really, really clear about that when you release it, and preferably make sure you actually release scenarios for people to play.

 insaniak wrote:
GW's biggest failing with AoS was marketing. It was sprung on the community out of the blue, with no real warning or time to prepare for just how big a departure it was from WHFB. That was always going to result in a certain amount of backlash.

But then, when they did unveil it, they just kind of put it out there and said 'Here you go!' (Anyone remember how well that worked for Inquisitor?)

The strength of AoS is, as far as I can see, as a vessel for scenario games. So that's exactly how GW should have been billing it. Along with all of the revised rules that went online when the game was released, there should have been scenario packs to create launching points for campaigns for each army. Or at the very least, some sort of mention of those scenario packs that are coming down the pipe. At every opportunity, GW should have been mentioning scenario-based play, and showcasing their awesome studio campaigns, and running story events in stores...

Instead - here's a game! Your old stuff is now invalid! Buy new stuff!

That was always going to end well...

could not agree more...

 insaniak wrote:
You have misread my post.

I wasn't saying that AoS is special because it allows scenario play.

I was saying that if you're designing a game that only works properly with scenarios, you need to be really, really clear about that when you release it, and preferably make sure you actually release scenarios for people to play.

Indeed. It also doesn't help that GW's idea of "scenario" play, traditionally, has been extremely loose, largely just being alternate styles of pickup missions, with little or no guidelines on what factions should be present, in what size, and what form & composition.


It really feels like GW is simply wanting to make relatively minimal rules covering largely just model interaction and setup, leaving everything up to the players, so they can then say "well you're playing it wrong" when people have poor experiences

 insaniak wrote:
If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.

1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time

I could go on.

I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.

Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.

That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.

AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.

1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time

I could go on.

I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.

Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.

That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.

AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.

What if one thinks the really strong models are the coolest? So, now he's a bleep because he likes different models than you?
Sounds fair.
Points would let him use his favorite models and be limited in doing so.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.

1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time

I could go on.

I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.

Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.

That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.

AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.

What if one thinks the really strong models are the coolest? So, now he's a bleep because he likes different models than you?
Sounds fair.
Points would let him use his favorite models and be limited in doing so.

No, mostly because some of the coolest are the best, but am I a Scrub for liking Orgyns and my Rough Minis?

 Anpu42 wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.

1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time

I could go on.

I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.

Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.

That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.

AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.

What if one thinks the really strong models are the coolest? So, now he's a bleep because he likes different models than you?
Sounds fair.
Points would let him use his favorite models and be limited in doing so.

No, mostly because some of the coolest are the best, but am I a Scrub for liking Orgyns and my Rough Minis?

I don't understand what you just said.

For everyone else's sanity, it is to late for me

Ok lets try this.
If you think Unit A is the coolest looking and like to play them and they also happen to be the most powerful I am cool with that.
If I think a different Unit it the coolest, but it is one of the worst unit in the game would you be cool with it.
I know a lot out there that would call me a "Scrub" or other things because I normally in 40k do not take the most powerful/Efficient Units.

OP, glad you're having fun. The game isn't to my taste but YFMV (your fun may vary). I've gotten over my initial violent reaction and now am pleasantly apathetic about the whole thing. I'll eventually use my piles upon piles of ogres and vampire counts in some other system as soon as I can find people around here that play one.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.

1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time.

All of those would apply to a system with points costs as well.

The specific point I was responding to, though, was the idea that by removing points costs you remove any reason to not use those weaker units. And that doesn't make any sense... removing points costs makes it a worse idea to include those weaker units, since they're now direct competition for the strong units, rather than being balanced out (however badly) by their cost.

 insaniak wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.

1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time.

All of those would apply to a system with points costs as well.

The specific point I was responding to, though, was the idea that by removing points costs you remove any reason to not use those weaker units. And that doesn't make any sense... removing points costs makes it a worse idea to include those weaker units, since they're now direct competition for the strong units, rather than being balanced out (however badly) by their cost.

Yes, but from what I have seen most of the same type of units are balanced with each other.
Example: Clan Rats vs. Slave Rats
The Clan Rats are a much better unit at first glance and everyone ask why take the Slaves.
Because the Slave rats perform a different role on the field. They can fight, but they also have slings making them a double threat. Maybe not as strong at the Clan Rats, but they give you two different ways to fight. That same can be said for the Stormvermin vs Slave Rats.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:


@MWHistorian - Well, it's more supposed to be: "Just buy whatever models you want, and figure out a fair game with the other guy who buys whatever models they want!"

Eyeballing it works if both people have very random, unplanned armies and didn't plan on competing. If two people want to compete in AoS, using RAW, the only way to do so is to agree prior to the game that the armies are fair.

So, as long as you don't care about lopsided games with predetermined winners it's alright?
No thanks.
And we're assuming we're having a lot of models to choose from instead of smaller well thought out armies. Again "Buy more stuff edition."

I don't think you're understanding my premise correctly.

Scenario 1: two casual players who just randomly buy whatever models they like based on the look of the model, without ever having read the warscroll. You're actually looking at the people in my wife's group. They buy the model, build and paint it, and 5 minutes before playing it read the warscroll for the first time. So, when they each eyeball each others' armies, yeah, they generally are pretty balanced. None of the armies are really optimized in any way for synergy. When there's a disparity, it happens once, they correct it, and it never happens again. Joy and teddy bears.

Scenario 2: two competitive players who want to play must look at each others battle forces, and compromise on a common denominator of equivalence. It assumes that the two players WANT a fair game, and breaks down if the two players do not want a fair game (the game will never start, or one player must allow a lopsided battle).

Since Scenario 2 really sucks unless you have 2 players who want a fair game, the game does not attract people who DON'T want a fair game (abuse generosity/trust, and you'll be unlikely to get many more games). Which was partly what the OP was saying.

Basically, the game is looking for players, both of which would rather err on the side of caution and play the inferior army; or at a minimum are not looking to field an army superior to their opponent. In this case, the game will run very smoothly in terms of fairness, because at worst, you just adjust it for the next game.

Keep in mind that SKILL is often a comp in such designs too. When we play 40k, a couple of our players are significantly less aggressive / skilled and generally field armies that are pretty suboptimal -- after, like, 15 years of sticking with us (boy they are awesome paintjobs, though, I tell you). We would like to have the to still have fun too and win games, too, so generally, there's a "skill comp" and we simply allow them more models. It's not unlike making the computer game fun by giving the computer twice as many units as you with twice as much HP so that you don't just slaughter the AI every game.

The way we comp it is to simply state (accurately) that their 40k army is kind of sucky, through no fault of theirs, but GW's point system and rules. So some take more stuff, please. It also helps make up for some of the silly things they tend to do every game

While I can't say I agree with the direction GW is taking with either of its games right now I can commend the original poster for a well written post. I have to agree that I may have been blinded by the awesome stupidity of GW at first, but this post brings up some good points.

1: We can play whatever game we want. And yes, toy soldiers. We definitely can't bellow too loud about games aimed at kids when we are imagining names for our toys.

2: AoS is still new. GW could possibly not screw this up and AoS could turn out to be the breath of fresh air the design studio needs. I know I was somewhat underwhelmed by the ET releases, though this current raft of repackaged units is kind of scaring me.

3: There is the potential for a ruleset that doesn't require updates periodically as new units or armies push the boundaries of the rules. Power creep could be a thing of the past, but as we see with WMH this problem can also be solved by turning all the dials to 11...

Good write up! Cheers.

I still maintain the clanrats/stormvermin - type issues will disappear over time.
Reason being the Stormcasts are (I believe) the model for future armies.
Yes, there are things in that army that are objectively good/better than other things in isolation, but that all falls to bits with your opponent's choices.
Have they but down huge blocks 'chaff' infantry? Then you want Decimators out the wazoo.
Warmachines? Protectors and Prosecutors.
Elite or multi-wound infantry? Retributors.
Beasties? Liberators and protectors.
As the opposition, you want to be trying to reverse those matchups.

The legacy armies will continue to have these 'issues' because the units were created under a system where picking 50 skavenslaves over 20 storm vermin wasn't straightforward.

I'm not saying that's forgiveable, but on the evidence so far it will become less of an issue over time as more AoS designed forces come forward.