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.

But here's the thing... If "your" default position is a hardcore style gameplay (matched play), it might not be a bad thing to mention that to your opponent before hand? Matched play exists as a way of letting your opponent know that you aren't holding any punches... This needs to be communicated beforehand. A list without obvious combo play is going to get decimated against one that does attempt to get more than the sum of it's parts... That's what matched play is all about.... And the hardcore tournament goers are pretty much agreeing that the game functions quite well at that level.

I think most of the issues people have, is there not being a clear indication of what you want to play beforehand (which is kind of your own responsibility to communicate to your opponent in the new style of GW games).

If you get curbstomped in a matched play setting (assuming both you and your opponent actually thought beforehand that was the deal), maybe it's just a gak list? Just like in MtG (or any other nerd game) you could just have made a pretty bad deck yourself.

If that wasn't your intention (you just wanted a fluffy list or one that makes more sense from a narrative point of view, or just has a lot of variation in models because that what you like etc...), is it the dev's fault that you and your opponent misinterpreted the point of the battle in first place?

auticus wrote:
Someone on my region's facebook shared the ICv2 rating from last fall and AOS made #2 on the list, while xwing fell from #1 to #4. (40k regained its kingdom at #1)

As was commented on in my region's facebook group, despite any whining about balance problems, the overall wargaming playerbase has latched on and loves it.

It certainly has set an unarguable precedent. As Ninth said... bad balance is indeed a selling feature not a bug.

Or, you know, balance isn't the highest priority for most people, and having a game that's fun with cool models and balance that's "good enough" is a recipe for success. You keep saying people play the game because it's poorly balanced. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe they play it despite the balance issues?

I'm going to add another post to this, simply because I feel this is the most misunderstood bit about the game right now:

Matched play does NOT exist so that any combination of models you throw together has an equal shot at winning the game compare to any other random list!

Matched play exists so you can play the game on the cutting edge of competitive gameplay. List building is a big part of that. Somebody who put a lot of thought into that aspect of his army is going to have a major advantage compared to somebody who just made his list because of his collection, what's painted, what's fluffy, what fits his backstory,etc.

People with the same mindset (tournament players) seem to agree that the game functions quite well within those boundaries... I agree with it. There are very few factions right now, that seem to have a clear cut advantage over another when you consider the "maximum potential". The differences are within acceptable limits in that context.

 Elmir wrote:
You keep saying "bad balance" and then referring to "if a casual gamer fights a hardcore list, it's poorly balanced" to give your arguments any credence.


Maybe... Just maybe... Have you considered your line of thought here is a bit wonky and the community as a whole has figured out that there are three modes of play?

And when some d*ckheads use one mode of play (matched play style lists) to "compete" in another mode of play (open or narrative lists) it all goes tits up? The game is actually not doing that poorly around where I live either.... But we do have the self-policing I've already mentioned once or twice, to stop n*bheads from trying to feel like their e-peen grew bigger if they curbstomp through a narrative campaign with matched play lists.

I mean for God's sake... Even the main rulebook tells people this game has three different "tiers" of gameplay by now.

*edit* This was mostly a reply to Auticus

If I have to negotiate with my opponent before hand to tone down their list because the rules allow them to create monstrosities, thats bad balance. Thats poorly balanced. AOS and 40k are the only games that I have this issue with to this extent.

Playing narrative or open play does not really say "don't break the game" either. Hell the NEO group (Narrative Event Organizers) host narrative events at Adepticon and other places, and those events are also predominantly competitive with different scenarios and the liike. They put a hell of a lot of effort into what they do I went to the adepticon event last year and the lists facing off were not much different from across the hall at the tournament side.

So to answer your question, if a game requires this much poliicing to have a good game with then yes to me that is poorly balanced. The three modes of play do not differentiate between power level of lists. As a matter of fact, matched play is said by the dev staff themselves to be how you play a balanced competitive version of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

auticus wrote:
Someone on my region's facebook shared the ICv2 rating from last fall and AOS made #2 on the list, while xwing fell from #1 to #4. (40k regained its kingdom at #1)

As was commented on in my region's facebook group, despite any whining about balance problems, the overall wargaming playerbase has latched on and loves it.

It certainly has set an unarguable precedent. As Ninth said... bad balance is indeed a selling feature not a bug.

Or, you know, balance isn't the highest priority for most people, and having a game that's fun with cool models and balance that's "good enough" is a recipe for success. You keep saying people play the game because it's poorly balanced. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe they play it despite the balance issues?

I hear that a lot too but when I look around and people are actively choosing to keep up with the meta, that indicates to me they are concerned about balance. They just have no emotional tie to any faction or models and are more interested in the game-game. If they werent' concerned about the meta then I would expect a wider smattering of army types, but the army types I see in the wild are predominantly competitive style builds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Per GW's AOS page on Matched Play:

In matched play, balance and the competetive aspect takes center stage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matched play does NOT exist so that any combination of models you throw together has an equal shot at winning the game compare to any other random list!

A proper points system implemented correctly does slide the reality more towards this quote.

2000 points should mean 2000 points. GW 2000 points means 1000 points. Or 3000 points. Or in extreme cases 4000-5000 points.

It will never be random list has chance against random list, nor should it.

But it should also not be any of these X factions better not bother showing up. Don't bother selling those models if thats going to be the case. *EVERY* faction should be viable. If I like bloodbound mortals, I should have a chance to play a good game against any other faction using them. If I like sky dwarves, then I should have a chance to play a good game against any other faction using them. If I play Flesh Eater Courts, I shouldn't be able to be running on easy mode against most other factions by virtue of me playing that faction.

That's proper balance. At the faction level.

IIn Warlords of Nowhere I can't just pick a faction and randomly throw a list together and win either, I have to be smart about what I take. But all ten or so factions are equally viable against each other, because the game was created to be playable with any faction.

Sounds like your group needs to find a game that's properly designed for cutthroat play. Have they considered chess or checkers?

And GW games are the only games I have ever found where its fan base defends its bad balance.

Again, no one is making you stay here. The vast majority of players are perfectly fine with the state of the game. We know it isn't perfect, but it's good enough for us, and getting better all the time. You're a casual player in a competitive meta, and for that I'm sorry. I wish you could find like-minded players so you could get the same enjoyment out of the I do. Now, for the love of god, stop projecting your meta on to the rest of the world, or create a better meta.

Personally speaking, I couldn't care less about balance but more to the fun had at the table. If i'm underpowered, whatever. Have my opponent and I had some fun and shared a laugh or two? Does my army look good and give my opponent satisfaction to look at and play against? If yes then all good, everyone's had a good time and that's all that matters.

 Elmir wrote:
But here's the thing... If "your" default position is a hardcore style gameplay (matched play), it might not be a bad thing to mention that to your opponent before hand? Matched play exists as a way of letting your opponent know that you aren't holding any punches... This needs to be communicated beforehand. A list without obvious combo play is going to get decimated against one that does attempt to get more than the sum of it's parts... That's what matched play is all about.... And the hardcore tournament goers are pretty much agreeing that the game functions quite well at that level.

By that logic 3/4 of the armies/units in matched play should not even have points, because they are just going to get curb-stomped by the strongest ones.

I think most of the issues people have, is there not being a clear indication of what you want to play beforehand (which is kind of your own responsibility to communicate to your opponent in the new style of GW games).

Matched play is literally stated that balance is the point.

If you get curbstomped in a matched play setting (assuming both you and your opponent actually thought beforehand that was the deal), maybe it's just a gak list? Just like in MtG (or any other nerd game) you could just have made a pretty bad deck yourself.

To the contrary; against all but my two tourney buddies I need to know how much I am going to weaken my list. And I have still mistakenly showed up and rolled over opponents. I hate that. I also hate that the fluffy/thematic list I WANT to run is too strong just by virtue of what I am up against; is it suddenly my responsibility to help my opponent make are stronger list just so I can play with what I actually want to?

If that wasn't your intention (you just wanted a fluffy list or one that makes more sense from a narrative point of view, or just has a lot of variation in models because that what you like etc...), is it the dev's fault that you and your opponent misinterpreted the point of the battle in first place?

My intention is that I can show up and play without needing to go through the discussion and self-balancing act that exists in narrative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elmir wrote:
Matched play does NOT exist so that any combination of models you throw together has an equal shot at winning the game compare to any other random list

Straw man. No one has suggested this, ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Again, no one is making you stay here.

His community and mountain of pre-existing models he put a ton of work into, on the other hand...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
Again, no one is making you stay here. The vast majority of players are perfectly fine with the state of the game. We know it isn't perfect, but it's good enough for us, and getting better all the time. You're a casual player in a competitive meta, and for that I'm sorry. I wish you could find like-minded players so you could get the same enjoyment out of the I do. Now, for the love of god, stop projecting your meta on to the rest of the world, or create a better meta.

You just projected your meta and asked that he stop projecting his.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Personally speaking, I couldn't care less about balance but more to the fun had at the table. If i'm underpowered, whatever. Have my opponent and I had some fun and shared a laugh or two? Does my army look good and give my opponent satisfaction to look at and play against? If yes then all good, everyone's had a good time and that's all that matters.

And if it is not fun due to imbalance?

The issue with the balance or lack thereof is that it's all over the place and random. Do you not understand what that means? If it's a game you're supposed to play with cool models, then what happens when Bob wants to play Kharadron Overlords (arguably the worst faction in the game currently) because he thinks the models are awesome, and Steve wants to play Gristlegore FEC with 5 Terrorgheists because he likes big monsters?

Both players are picking what they think is cool, but Steve's army is going to curb stomp Bob's every single time they play. What's the solution? "Hey Bob I know you really like steampunk sky pirate dwarves but they suck in the game, you should pick a better army so you don't always get your teeth kicked in"?

You cannot be realistically defending that as a "feature" and not a bug when the game itself besides all its talk about Matched Play being balanced and fair, if you take two players and they each pick an army they like and units they like, there's a 50% chance one of them is going to be head and shoulders better than the other just because GW decided that Tome A needed some broken whizzbang feature and Tome B they decided did not.

As to other styles let's not kid ourselves here: Matched Play is the default mode of play, full stop. Going into a game store and asking if anyone is interested in Open or Narrative play is either going to get you laughed at, told emphatically to shut the feth up and play Matched since it's balanced, or worst find TFG who will agree and then play a list with 10 Nagashes or some gak like that because "hurr durr it's Open Play so it's allowed". That's the reality in the "vast majority" of games such that the other two styles may as well not even exist or take up space in publications. Ergo, the style of play that touts "balance" as its feature is the one that we discuss, and the one that fails to live up to that.

It is a fundamental problem of the game when one person can like steampunk sky pirate dwarfs and one person can like delusional cannibals and there is a vast power gap between them for no discernable reason. Nobody is arguing you should be able to pick models at random and do well, but don't you think that you shouldn't be told when you walk into a game store and say you're interested in starting up AOS (or 40k for that matter) and you really like steampunk sky pirate dwarfs that the army sucks and if you pick them you're going to lose constantly and you should pick something better?

Do you really think that is going to retain or bring in new players, when they are told sure you can play what you want, but if you don't pick a good army you're going to get the gak kicked out of you game after game after game until you either pick an army that's good, or get fed up and stop playing entirely.

Not even talking about whether or not GW cares about balance, do you honestly think that is a good scenario for anything, let alone a hobby you plan to spend a lot of money on?

So no other game system has AoS levels of "bad balance"?

So people are saying that I can throw together a random army in a different game system (using its points limit or equivalent) and then play someone who is set towards top tier tournament play, and it won't be a massacre?

Nearly every game system I know of that is based on miniatures has different levels as such, all within their balanced mode of play.
This isn't something special or unique to AoS or even GW.

Yes, GW has wonky balqnce issues, I really don't deny that.
My issue is that people claim other games are much better balanced, yet I can still see a huge power imbalance with those games.


As I stated a while back, apart from games like chess, achieving a perfect or even solid balance is near impossible.


The other thing that makes me laugh is some of the comparisons people try to bring up.
Most of which are an entirely different thing altogether, be it army scale or how the game plays.
The only thing I think that can really compare is mantic (to a degree)
No other company comes close to the scale of balance that is needed to work around this many armies.

Mantic players here?
Yea, balance isn't too hot in that game either.
There are alot of insta-take units or characters and just as many useless ones.



We also then have how each person views balance.
A group of 20 hardcore gamers could come together and make a set of rules to be viewed by another 20, they would then alter it as they wouldn't agree with everything.
Being human means we can all think for our selves and all have differing opinions.
Trying to get everyone to agree on something? Won't happen.
Best case is that the majority agree.

Imbalance is not binary; just because it exists in other games just not make the severity the same.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Imbalance is not binary; just because it exists in other games just not make the severity the same.

I never said it was.
My issue is that others bring up these games and state they are about as balanced as possible, yet in reality, they have their own issues with wonky rules etc.

As I stated a while back, apart from games like chess, achieving a perfect or even solid balance is near impossible.

Except that some of the fan comps before GHB dropped did a great job at the balance and it was pretty solid to the point that I got about 650 gmail messages over the course of three months stating that I broke AOS with Azyr (my Azyr) because the game was now boring because it was too balanced and that listbuilding was vital for the game to thrive and too much balance was bad.

Thats how I know, if I and other members of the community could make a more balanced game (not perfect, no one is statiing perfect) then the guys that get paid to write games for a living should also be able to match or even exceed our efforts.

I had a guy all caps scream at me in public, almost flip a table and storm out of the store because for our publiic campaign we were still using Azyr iinstead of GHB (this was 2016 a few months after GHB released theiir first attempt at points) and his stormcast were designed to be busted per GHB and listbuildiing was a lot less of a deal in Azyr and that incensed him. Because he spent money and time assembliing and painting a force he knew was bent and by making the game more balanced I effectively robbed him of money and time because the intent of listbuilding was and is to break the game.

I play Kings of War. I don't have the issue over there where whole factions are unplayable. Of course there are tourney builds. But I can pick most of the factions over there and have at least a good game. In my hyped up competitive meta. No thats not me saying I can randomly throw a list together and go win with it. Thats saying I can find a faction that speaks to me and it has a fighting chance to have a liist or three that can put up a fight.

Warlords doesn't have that issue eiither. I'm bettiing Conquest does not have that issue. Battletech doesn't have that issue. Just AOS and 40k have that issue to that extreme.

Also to be clear, as Ninth points out, this is not a binary issue. Its not "its either unbalanced or its not at all" and nor am I stating that. Its about acceptable balance, which as has been made obvious the past couple years the community's threshold for imbalance is quite high to the point where they don't care, or chase the meta happily (in my region's case) to obtain remaining balanced.

If one enjoys driving 45 min to their game store to get stomped and all they care about is laughing and throwing dice, then sure the game is a blast. Thats not somethiing that I enjoy though so I'm not going to take any console in that direction. The sudden death rules I have baked iinto our campaign is working for the most part ok in that it at least lets you have a fiighting chance to win. For right now that is working for my campaign group and doesn't enrage people that don't want to be told you can't take those models because they are OP.

No, other games do not have anywhere near the level of imbalance as GW games have. That's not to say they are "perfectly balanced" because we all know that is a fallacy. But every other wargame company except the big dog can seemingly write well-written rules and at least attempt something resembling balance. Sure, if you play Bolt Action and you want to use Poland or France against 1944-era Germany you're probably going to be in for a bad time, but things like that are the exception.

Games like Warmahordes has its share of balance issues but it's nowhere near the level of GW's. Same with Kings of War, Infinity, Star Wars Legion, the umpteen historical wargames out there, and basically any other game that isn't Warhammer.

You only see these extreme levels of imbalance, where you can be fethed over ONLY because of being attracted to Faction A which is weak at that point because of reasons, in Warhammer games. There's always going to be "tournament lists" and optimal builds, but the goal should be to make the gap as small as possible. Warhammer seems to pride itself on the opposite, having huge gulfs in power between armies.

I wonder if we need to move on beyond balance and open the thread for more general AoS chatter or change the title an split off general and balance discussion - only I feel for the general thread for AoS we've got a lot of balance chatter that's mostly going in a lot of circles. It's likely worth its own space

Barring anyone respondiing directly to me, the next tiime I discuss balance will be the next battle tome release.

As an Overlord Player, this really speaks to me. Thank you.

I yearn for balance. I just want any faction to have a reasonable chance at defeating another one. We don’t have that. How good you are at the game should be a mixture of your tactical skill and a little bit of luck. Not simply because your force just destroys your opppnents through overwhelming power.

It’s doable. It’s absolutely doable, I’m sure it is.

Sort of back on AOS general talk (but not fully) do we think the Blades of Khorne tome will get a significant boost? Apparently, it's coming with the same sort of stormhost/grand court stuff so you can put all your guys under say The Goretide and get some bonuses just for that.

Also yes I absolutely think we need a separate balance thread, the issue is they always go around in circles.

I can't imagine they won't boost it in some way. The Bloodletter got a small nerf in Wrath & Rapture, so we know they're going to be changing warscrolls up. Hopefully Blood Warriors will get a damage boost in some way. Right now, I just don't see much reason to take them over Bloodreavers. Warriors aren't durable enough to make up for their low damage output. Bloodreavers at least have a niche as an all-or-nothing berserker unit.

I think that it will get a boost. I do not think it will be a considerable boost. My expectation iis that my preferred way of playing khorne, that beiing the mortal units, will still be kicked in the balls and that you'll have to play with multiple blood thirsters and some formation that boosts demons exponentially.

Now that is just my expectation based on the past incarnations of khorne in AOS. They've been solidly an enhancement talent made to make billy the stormcast player look powerful and awesome.

My HOPE is that they are given actual teeth and that my force led by a chaos lord of khorne and followed into combat by a wall of blood warriors and juggernaut cavalry and khorgoraths can actually make someone do somethiing other than lol uncontrollably as they make me scoop piles of my models off per turn.

 EnTyme wrote:
I can't imagine they won't boost it in some way. The Bloodletter got a small nerf in Wrath & Rapture, so we know they're going to be changing warscrolls up. Hopefully Blood Warriors will get a damage boost in some way. Right now, I just don't see much reason to take them over Bloodreavers. Warriors aren't durable enough to make up for their low damage output. Bloodreavers at least have a niche as an all-or-nothing berserker unit.

The basic reavers and blood warriors are not terrible but are noticeably sub-par, when that is supposed to be the core of a mortal khorne army it causes serious problems. I think if that alone were addressed a lot of khorne players would be quite happy. Sidenote; bloodletters got a buff as while their bomb build is gone they are now useful outside of that and in 10-man units since hit penalties do not neuter them anymore and because the MW is in addition rather than instead of. I am surprised the massive buff to bloodcrushers went under the radar as well. GW did a good job updating the warscrolls in Wrath & Wrapture, IMO.

That's good to know. And I fully agree on Mortal battlelines. Both are seriously underwhelming, but you can at least make Bloodreavers into a massive blob of 4+ attacks per model. Blood Warriors are just inferior IMO. Their only real appeal is that the models attack after death, and if you have to die to be useful, you're not a good viable option, you're a modern artist.

 EnTyme wrote:
That's good to know. And I fully agree on Mortal battlelines. Both are seriously underwhelming, but you can at least make Bloodreavers into a massive blob of 4+ attacks per model. Blood Warriors are just inferior IMO. Their only real appeal is that the models attack after death, and if you have to die to be useful, you're not a good viable option, you're a modern artist.

You get an exalt for that one good sir.

I’ll be curious to see what they do with Blood Warriors too. They need a little boost. Just a little one. Personally, I think they should get the same blood soaked banner ability that mighty skull crushers have, and that’s just for starters. Another idea could be a bonus for having 15+ models in the unit.

If it was up to me, I'd give them some sort of "on a hit roll of 6" ability. Maybe a hit roll of six results in two hits, or hit roll of 6 is -2 rend (MW on the Goreglaive). Something like that (with an appropriate points increase, of course). There just aren't many ways to make Blood Warriors exciting right now. Low number of attacks, low rend, low damage. Everything about them is just so "Meh".

For reavers I would bake the +1 attack for being in totem range into their profile by default as I feel that little change would make them worthwhile. For blood warriors just give them rend -1 (and make the gorefists deal a mw back on unmodified saves of 6 to make them consistent with modern rule design).

I like the idea of reavers getting an extra boost from being in totem range, though. It's like they're so psychotic that just the sight of a Brass Skull sends them into a frenzy. Not that I would complain too loudly if you didn't have to have a Bloodsecrator in every army. I just don't know why you wouldn't want one. As I've mentioned, though, I already feel Bloodreavers are worth taking in a Mortal Khorne army.

Why not both? Give reavers 2 attacks basic, and this becomes 3 whilst under the influence of a totem. I think that is perfectly fair on account of how ‘weedy’ they are overall (1 wound, crap save, basic to hit & wound stats).

I think it should be baked in because right now they must be supported to be worthwhile; a bloodsecrator triples their output (+1 from their ability, +1 from his). Just giving them an extra attack on top of current buffs means they go to 4 with a bloodsecrator and still need one to perform since he doubles their output. Making them 2 normally/3 when 'secrated means they still have most of their punch on their own and can stay dirt cheap points wise or even go to 60/10.