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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see it as a major benefit or failing of AoS. It is an aspect of human psychology rather than a specific game.

The long term ramification is whether the people who like cheesy armies will exist in sufficient numbers to play each other in a non-event setting.

In a point game system, there is always the excuse that "I'm allowed to play this because it's 1500 points". In a setting where you aren't assigned, but rather choose an opponent, if someone brings a cheesy army, they're either punished for it (by the non-cheese guy wanting to field more stuff) or they don't get a game. Of course, you get people in 40k who refuse to play Decurion, wave serpents, scatterbikes, gladius, etc. -- but I would say that this *rarely* happens. There is the sense that, "at 1850 points the army is okay", so in a pickup setting, people generally bring the best they can muster; you don't see that many people who bring just what they want to bring. If you bring a Decurion, chances are you'll have a play partner on a game night, and odds are, you'll fare well.

I don't think there are all that many people who like cheesy armies, and I don't think they are confined to playing in tournaments.

What on earth makes you think that?

The fact that reports of GTs, weekend campaigns and so on show that most of the players come with pretty mediocre lists.

The number of people with the latest ubber codex min-max list is usually relatively small, but it gets noticed because the ubber lists win more often than their proportion would justify, because they are ubber.

This is also my personal experience, for what that is worth.

So I don't believe the majority of players are out to win at all costs by min-maxing their army. Most people want a fair game with 'fluffy' armies that they picked because they liked the models or whatever.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

So I don't believe the majority of players are out to win at all costs by min-maxing their army. Most people want a fair game with 'fluffy' armies that they picked because they liked the models or whatever.

I'm backing this thought.

I'm playing a lot of other games outside of GW. It appears you have the same kind of diversity in players in those as well; some players who like to play "fluffy", other who rather like to paint and not thinking much about the rules and some as well who play competitive (with a small part of them being highly competitive, near "TFG" stereotype).

It's just a matter of human psychology. It has nothing to do with the rules or the company. Some games may favor some kind of players, but in the end a player play whatever he wants however he wants, as long as he find someone to play with or against and agree with that.

So, when GW fans say AoS is only played by "fun" players, this is just an illusion. Optimizers are still here, and the fact there are no points in the core rules doesn't mean they can't do that anymore. They just do it in another way.

Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

GraywarTS wrote:
I have more story’s or examples, and no I don’t need you quoting me and pointing out how great you are, or how much smarter you are.

Hilarious, thanks for the laugh.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

...
...

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

Hm, I would rather say it's a way to stigmatize those who regret WFB rules. That's the biggest "argument" so far from AoS White Knights; WFB players were all "TFG" players who only wanted to show their victory on the corpses of their hapless opponents. And point cost system was the root of all Evil in favor of that behavior.

Yeah, right. Last event in Nottingham showed that competition didn't stop in AoS. Rules may change, players stay the same. No reason an optimizer still faithful to GW games would stop optimizing with their GW armies in AoS as well.

That's certainly not an "argument" I've heard from anyone. No one has said competition would stop with AoS. Some people have said that AoS is less conducive to being TFG because lack of points means you can't hide behind a system, and thus stronger social contracts are required to play RAW. Which is true even if I personally don't think it matters much. TFG will always TFG, and I won't play him no matter the game. Luckily pick-up games don't exist here, so I don't have to worry about it. And who are these "white knights"? Are they simply people who enjoy AoS? If so, you should probably find another less derogatory label for them. No reason to lower ourselves to categorizing everyone as either a "white knight" or a "hater". How about the commonly accepted "fans"?

Gonna play devil's advocate here.

If GW had come out with a point system (instead of their no point system experiment) everyone would just be arguing instead with how such and such is overcosted, or cheesy, or whatever.

By putting the balance in the hands of the players, it is much more likely that a game will actually be balanced because both players are included in what they both believe is balanced.

When has the 40k point system actually led to balanced armies? Never

I played one game of AOS - we went with 75 wounds as a kind of balancer - and the game ended with me killing 95% of his models, and him killing 93% of mine - it was probobly the most balanced game I had ever played of any system.

Back in the day I used to play battletech mini game (early 90s / late 80s) and there was no such thing as points and you did the same thing, make somewhat balanced armies before you started and then just played it out.

Yep I played Battletech too (still do) and I remember when there were really no points. We used tonnage. But if you play BT you know that tonnage is not a good metric for balance because some mechs under or over perform.

Using tonnage is like AoS players using wounds for balance.

auticus wrote:
Yep I played Battletech too (still do) and I remember when there were really no points. We used tonnage. But if you play BT you know that tonnage is not a good metric for balance because some mechs under or over perform.

Using tonnage is like AoS players using wounds for balance.

True, I remember using tonnage also.

But even if the armies were completely and utterly equal (like chess) people would still argue that going first/second has the advantage (like they do in chess)

 chaosmarauder wrote:

By putting the balance in the hands of the players, it is much more likely that a game will actually be balanced because both players are included in what they both believe is balanced.

It requires social contract. And this stops the second I say 'no' to you. For any real, imagined, or arbitrary reasons. You might think x is perfectly fine, and I don't. Or vice versa.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

When has the 40k point system actually led to balanced armies? Never

Red herring. And you know it. Points systems are fine, when they're built right. Gw don't really care and are not a very good example to use if your argument is 'look, points don't work'. they're not the only company out there. See Corvus belli, wyrd and privateer press for examples. Far better use of points systems as part of their toolsets to create balanced armies and balanced games

 chaosmarauder wrote:


I played one game of AOS - we went with 75 wounds as a kind of balancer - and the game ended with me killing 95% of his models, and him killing 93% of mine - it was probobly the most balanced game I had ever played of any system.

Playing devils advocate for a moment - all you're just replacing a points limit with another arbitrary limit (essentially points by another name) that can be just as easily abused and mishandled. Take, for example seventy five peasants versus seventy five armoured cavalry Knights. You can make it work, but it requires a huge amount of extra input in scenario design etc to balance it out because the wound cap on its own simpky won't cut it.

For what it's worth I am sympathetic to aos. I play other games like flames of war in a similar fashion - no use of points, Us as players in the driving seat rather than 'official organised play', a focus on homebrew rather than 'out of the box' scenario etc. I just acknowledge its limitations. It's fine if you can eyeball things to a reasonable degree, and it's fine when you have likeminded opponents that you can communicate with and compromise with to make interesting games. But it's very easy to break down at the same time.

I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Noir wrote:
Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Magic the gathering - no 2 decks are balanced (yes even if both players have to have more than 60 cards and no more than 4 of any kind)
Hordes/Warmachine - 90% of any army is already made for you - if you go outside of what makes sense you will get stomped
Chess - whoever goes first has the advantage
Any mmorpg/moba - constant rebalancing of abilities

There will always be balancing issues - what needs to change is the attitudes of players

The WAAC players need to tone it down a little
The casual players need to read a little about tactics and up their game a little

A little competition is a good thing
No competition is boring and too much competitive spirit creates hostility

Like my wife - she is way way too competitive about everything

Noir wrote:


Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

EVERY game has these issues. Every single one. It really just comes down to whether you enjoy the game enough to overlook them.

chaosmarauder made a good post above. If you do not follow "standards" during list construction you can absolutely get destroyed in even a "casual" game purely because of what you brought to the table. 40k is ripe with examples of imbalance despite its point system, but if you want to shift gears away from GW: Malifaux and Warmachine crews are depressingly cookie-cutter (I mean, there is even a recommended SS cache for most Malifaux crews... come on now). Any deviation leads to lop-sided games. I spent far too long trying to be "unique" with my Viks before realizing, despite all the henchmen out there (e.g., Hans, Sue) I'm just going to use a pair of convict gunslingers. Don't even get me started on how much having oathkeeper changes games... let alone the other "auto-take" upgrades. (The notion of an anything being an "auto-take" in a balanced system exposes a rather large inherent flaw in that system...) That is not to say I don't have fun playing those games, but it is ludicrous to believe they are any more or less issue-free.

Point systems merely provide an illusion of choice and balance. As soon as you deviate from whatever has been optimized for that system you no longer are guaranteed "balanced" games. Edit, and frankly, in many cases even just playing optimized lists against each other you will have very one-sided games. Bottom-line, every system has issues, you (the reader) just overlook and/or are willing to accept and rationalize the ones in your favorite system.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Noir wrote:
Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Magic the gathering - no 2 decks are balanced (yes even if both players have to have more than 60 cards and no more than 4 of any kind)
...

The point of MtG is to create a deck that is better than your opponent's one. Why else trade for cards to get the best ones and so on?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

'One of those' being the operative word. There is no central consensus or anything resembling a 'standard' set of tourney comp systems. That is a huge barrier to organised play.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.

Define 'casual'. Define 'day to day play'.

But my seventy five knights on horses are all very well painted and I spent hours converting each and every one. Why shouldn't I be allowed to play it? Who are you to say thst I'm not being 'reasonable'? As far as I'm concerned it's just as 'fair', just as 'reasonable' and I am just as justified in fielding it as anyone else fielding any other army. You are essentially trying to dictate to me 'how I should be playing' based on your subjective standards of what is 'fair' and 'reasonable'. Unless your goal is enforcement of subjective standards by social pressure, and social exclusion, plus passive aggressive name calling - I call this bullying. This does not work. All it does is breed in resentment and ultimately fracture the community.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

And this falls down the second the guy answers with 'Where I'm from we play completely differently'. So you're essentially saying 'play my way or get out'.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Hordes/Warmachine - 90% of any army is already made for you - if you go outside of what makes sense you will get stomped

Until someone like Jamie p wins a masters with kossites in his army. Oh wait - he already did that. Saying 90% of the army is already made for you tells me one thing - the player is uncreative. Nothing more. Warmahordes isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's nothing like you claim. Good use of points and other structural components like multiple lists, character restrictions, time restrictions, character limits, adr, steamroller scenarios go a long way towards opening up the playing field.

The most enjoyable games I have had - and this goes for many different competative games and systems - is when I can plainly see that my opponent has a worse team/army/deck than me and I tone down mine to match.

It is even sweeter, if I know I am running an underdog army and manage to still give my opponent a bloody nose or beat them.

And games like that with like minded opponents are the best, and honestly the majority of gamers I have come across think the same way.

A yes the WM/H is netlisting or you lose. Despite results saying different.

And no not every game has this problem, I don't have to decide if my list or the others guy list is OP, then have to take about what is allowed. We can take what we want knowing no one will curb stomp the other guy, except for the player skill factor or bad luck. You know games where if I buy a model for it I can use it. Without you know house rules.

Most games have a points based system which allows anyone to turn up with what is a reasonable army and play against the same points value. This should lead to a fair game based then on the comparative skills of the players involved. The obvious problem that AoS has is that now Player A can turn up with a Stormcast Eternals army using just what he got in the starter box and supposedly have a fair game against Player B whose list is equivalent to 1850pts under old WFB. Player B could just choose not to use most of his stuff but he doesn't have/want to and Player A is left with an unwinnable game. There in lies the only real issue with AoS.

I know that and you all know that. So why is it so difficult to understand that AoS needs a balance mechanic? Locally I am pushing for a 60-100 wound cap in our organised games. I have also had to try and balance other issues which has been difficult with differing points of view. In the end I've had to go with the best of both worlds and if some players don't like it, well yes, tough. You aren't going to please everyone. But that is just our organised play leagues or day events. If someone was to come from out of town to play a friendly they can play how they want with their opponent.

I've played a few games borrowing a friend's Wood Aelf's while I get my Undead sorted. Mainly against Ogres utilizing different builds and a 60 wounds cap coupled with a 2 limit on monsters does seem to work. Other groups are finding that a wound limit doesn't work for them. I find that the fan created competition points that some have invented don't work for me. GW won't be putting out any balancing systems and it's down to us the players to do it for them based upon our individual needs.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Gonna play devil's advocate here.

If GW had come out with a point system (instead of their no point system experiment) everyone would just be arguing instead with how such and such is overcosted, or cheesy, or whatever.

By putting the balance in the hands of the players, it is much more likely that a game will actually be balanced because both players are included in what they both believe is balanced.

When has the 40k point system actually led to balanced armies? Never

I played one game of AOS - we went with 75 wounds as a kind of balancer - and the game ended with me killing 95% of his models, and him killing 93% of mine - it was probobly the most balanced game I had ever played of any system.

Back in the day I used to play battletech mini game (early 90s / late 80s) and there was no such thing as points and you did the same thing, make somewhat balanced armies before you started and then just played it out.

40k, a game where point costs are not adjusted even with an edition change, used as an example of point system not working.

Then a percentage of kills from a single game used as proof that it was balanced.

You are on fire.

The people who haven't played AoS make it sound so complicated. It's not difficult to balance. It's not difficult to figure out tournament rules. Fine if you don't like the game, but the theory-ing is irrelevant.

Edit: Back to pickup basketball analogy. People have different sized basketball nets. Some are taller. Some are in driveways. Some you have a full court. Some courts have cracks in the ground. How can you ever figure out how to play with all these differing factors! Even on the tournament level, the NBA has a different ruleset to other professional leagues. How ever can we keep everything straight.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Most games have a points based system which allows anyone to turn up with what is a reasonable army and play against the same points value. This should lead to a fair game based then on the comparative skills of the players involved. The obvious problem that AoS has is that now Player A can turn up with a Stormcast Eternals army using just what he got in the starter box and supposedly have a fair game against Player B whose list is equivalent to 1850pts under old WFB. Player B could just choose not to use most of his stuff but he doesn't have/want to and Player A is left with an unwinnable game. There in lies the only real issue with AoS.

I know that and you all know that. So why is it so difficult to understand that AoS needs a balance mechanic? Locally I am pushing for a 60-100 wound cap in our organised games. I have also had to try and balance other issues which has been difficult with differing points of view. In the end I've had to go with the best of both worlds and if some players don't like it, well yes, tough. You aren't going to please everyone. But that is just our organised play leagues or day events. If someone was to come from out of town to play a friendly they can play how they want with their opponent.

I've played a few games borrowing a friend's Wood Aelf's while I get my Undead sorted. Mainly against Ogres utilizing different builds and a 60 wounds cap coupled with a 2 limit on monsters does seem to work. Other groups are finding that a wound limit doesn't work for them. I find that the fan created competition points that some have invented don't work for me. GW won't be putting out any balancing systems and it's down to us the players to do it for them based upon our individual needs.

Sure they do but we are responding to someone saying 40k point and using wound in AOS is just as balanced.

Then goes on to talk about having to in 40k decide if flyers and etc. Are allowed. Then claiming every game has this problem. Which is just wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

...
...

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that was the argument, that the points system facilitated the use of cheesy lists by creating a false impression of fairness and validated the cheesemonger who could say he was simply playing by the rules.

Thus the absence of points in AoS would have the opposite effect, however it hasn't.

My own view, expressed at the time, is that a non-balanced system can be gamed if people want to game it.

To be clear, most of the people at the AoS Weekend apparently did not bring cheesy armies, so obviously people did not want to game the system all that much. However, that is largely true in 40K as well.

I'll respond to your current post as well as the post from the other thread at the same time if that's ok.

You are very clearly missing the point of what people were getting at, which Mymearan pretty much just covered. The issue that happens with 40k which is less likely to happen with AoS, is two people hearing a point number, both making lists, and then one list severely outperforms the other because they are either totally different power levels or are fundamentally incompatible.

You say that people bringing highly competitive lists to casual games doesn't happen often and I don't disagree, the bigger problem is when two people think they're bringing two even lists that absolutely aren't. This happened to two of my friends who play casual Imperial vs Tau games often. The first couple of games they played (they started just before AdMech) were incredibly one-sided in the favor of the Tau against Space Marines. After that the SM bought some newly released AdMech which did significantly better against the Tau, after which the Tau player added a riptide (he likes mech suits and wanted a riptide since he started) which pushed it back into his favor. Thus as a result the Admech player bought a Knight to match the Tau player's overall higher point (he removed stuff to field the riptide) army, and tabled him by turn 3 two games in a row. This led two the Tau player asking permission to proxy a Y'varnah which together with his riptide let him shoot the Admech player off the table by turn 3. Neither was happy with the other.

The problem with 40k is not just some instances of spotty pointing, but the massive diversity present within the rules. You can run infantry hordes, tank companies, all walker forces, "spellcasters", elite MSU, shooting focused armies, melee focused armies, the list goes on... It is basically impossible to balance all of these different units and play styles while still allowing flexibility in army building. If GW did balance an entire codex on one or two play styles then it would force everything into cookie cutter builds or leading to certain units not even being made because they don't fit the archetype. This is one of the reasons that 30k is viewed as being so much better balanced, because how can it not be when outside of 2-3 special units and a few commander variants, everyone is pulling from the same pool of units.

AoS, rules as written, asks that rather than just shuffling together X number of points you instead take a look at what each of you brought and decide on an appropriate game from there. Sure you can do that in any game but AoS asks you to do this from the start, so if someone does bring something ludicrously good then that dialogue of "hey I only have this stuff, I feel this might be a little one sided because of X" is already open.

All the situations that people keep inventing of how some guy can still absolutely staunchly refuse to change his list are manufactured arguments, and it reflects more poorly on the community than it does AoS. If I ask someone to play a game and he asks me to take something out but I disagree, I'd politely and briefly explain why I disagree. If he still disagrees then I'll take it out and play. If it makes for a balanced game then I'll have gathered a better grasp of the system. If its totally one-sided and I play them with the same lists again, then I'll use that as a case to field what I originally wanted. If for whatever reason they refuse, in spite of last game, I simply won't play them and cite them crushing me last time if I ask why.

In reality its really no different from two people showing up to play a casual 1000pt game, and one of them bringing a bare bones Tau commander, two bare firewarrior squads, and a Taun'ar Supremacy Armor. Most people would seriously question the fairness of that army, and if the player refused to use something else then they likely wouldn't see many games. Again, the one advantage of no points is it stops people from using them as a shield for refusing to actually evaluate armies, making the "2015 Eldar" issue nonexistant. It is absolutely much easier to convince someone to remove something on the basis of it being unfair when there's no illusion of points to obscure the issue.

Sarouan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

Hm, I would rather say it's a way to stigmatize those who regret WFB rules. That's the biggest "argument" so far from AoS White Knights; WFB players were all "TFG" players who only wanted to show their victory on the corpses of their hapless opponents. And point cost system was the root of all Evil in favor of that behavior.

Yeah, right. Last event in Nottingham showed that competition didn't stop in AoS. Rules may change, players stay the same. No reason an optimizer still faithful to GW games would stop optimizing with their GW armies in AoS as well.

Oh so because people enjoy AoS and defend the reasons why they like it, they're "White Knights"? Do you even know what white knight means? I've never denied that GW makes mistakes or could do things better, just because my or other fans' list of grievances is different than yours doesn't make us some sort of shills. Also, I don't defend AoS or 40k because they are GW games, I defend them because I find them enjoyable to play.

By your definition of the term then shouldn't every jilted GW-ex who posts comments about how others should switch to Malifaux/WMH/Infinity/etc also be called a White Knight? Because honestly I find their insistence that I should drop a system I enjoy simply because of a few issues that rarely effect me to be pretty obnoxious.

Noir wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Other games aren't AoS or 40k. Other games don't have the same amount of unit diversity or probably misguided adherence to some bizarre caricature of the lore that AoS and 40k have. And that's why me and my friends don't play those other games. I field Electro Priests despite how garbage they are because I enjoy the fluff, adore the models, and have fun watching them try to do things regardless.

If you want tight balance, cheaper models, or a more consistent combat scale then those games exist for you to play.

Games Workshop doesn't have to make them, and I find it hilarious how many people think they should.

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Seriously 40k. Could you people stop using it as an example, it's backwards.

Yes you can balance a massively diverse game, especialy when core ruleset is a simpleton like 40k. You can add spam taxes, terrain guidelines or a price for adding/ removing terrain. Yes there will be problems but nothing close to what we have now, all it would take is point cost for everything released separately as a sheet with each codex or when there's a need and utilising community feedback. Or AoS, you have free warscrolls that you download, it just begs for a balancing attempt on GW side.

It wouldn't be perfect but it's not about achieving perfection. It's about units being viable in given contexts. That a unit will be better in one list than the other comes from rps nature of the game and is natural, it's not imbalance. Imbalance is when the unit is never taken or an auto take just because of skewed point cost.

Also just like you can pretend that it's all ok because you are within points limit in 40k, you can use the grey area when eyeballing armies to gain advantage in AoS.

Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because once upon a time I did trust their judgement, didn't hate their business model, and loved their games.
And as a customer I feel entitled to post my opinion of anything or anything they do on the appropriate online forums.

I think very few people are so naive or unperceptive as to imagine that 40K points offer a truly balanced game. GW haven't said this themselves since 5th edition, and you certainly can't play many games before you see examples of complete lack of balance.

The same obviously applies to AoS, since it does not have an identifiable balance mechanism other than wounds or model count, both of which clearly are at best crude.

Re why people spend so much time "antagonizing fans" (? just discussing/ voicing opinions maybe?) here. It doesn't help that the company hilariously fails on so many fronts, no wonder it attracts attention imo. A clown on the street attracts attention too.

But I love their plastics, I drool over them tbh when getting the sprues out of the box. The problem is, there are no anouncments, release dates anything from this crap company also some things are limited ie campaign boxes and I have to hang around the forums and blogs to keep up, especialy now when models can be discontinued and I want to finish my armies or maybe buy into LotR before it's gone. It's only natural that reading the stuff you want to comment on it so no matter how much one would like to paint me as some Gargamel esque villain, it will be bs as it's the company itself creating those situations.

Great to see that attempts on pushing the blame on critics are going strong btw. Somehow other games don't attract that much disdain, must be something wrong with people. Logic ftw.