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.

So, as you likely already know, warhammer 40k has a new website:

https://warhammer40000.com/

And it even already has an FAQ:

https://warhammer40000.gw-hub.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/04/New-Edition-of-40K-FAQ.pdf

It's looking very much like Age of Sigmar.

We appear to be getting a movement stat. The core rules are going to be both greatly simplified/streamlined and free (the latter point is from the FAQ). The damage tables are going to be gone. AP values are being replaced with negative armor save values.

And happily, all of the current codices are about to be obsolete.

I'm sure that many of you are not looking forward to this. I very much am looking forward to this.

But none of this deserves its own thread, since you all are probably talking about this already.

I do feel, however, as though the following point deserves its own thread/line of discussion:

Some people are saying that 40k is being AOS'ed because...this has already happened to WFB.

For those of you who went from WFB 8th to AOS, what has the result been, specifically, in terms of balance?

In principle, this is a great opportunity for those of us who want a more simplified, balanced game. Since all of the codices and current rules are completely out of the window, this means that GW has, if not start from scratch, then at least to make new rules for EVERYTHING (and may I say, I sincerely hope that they seriously rethink grav).

In fact, they had to do the same thing when they switched from WFB to AoS.

My question: did AoS result in a more balanced game relative to WFB 8th?

In particular, is winning or losing in AoS primarily about in-game decisions, or is it, like 40k 7th edition, primarily about list building?

Are you asking WH40K fans this? Or are you asking AOS fans in a WH40K subforum in hopes a small handful will see and reply? Or are you try to send a "subtle" message to WH40K fans?

Also: I posted in a Traditio thread.

Welcome back

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Are you asking WH40K fans this? Or are you asking AOS fans in a WH40K subforum in hopes a small handful will see and reply? Or are you try to send a "subtle" message to WH40K fans?

Also: I posted in a Traditio thread.

Welcome back

The question is directed to people who have played AoS, though it's a question which is of relevance to 40k.

List building is important.

That said, there is no 'auto win' list.

The lists that placed high at SCGT just passed were based on a few strong units: Tzeentch Skyfires, Skyre Stormfiends, Bloodletter bombs, Sayl etc

But none of them were identikit. A Seraphon force also placed fourth, even though they are allegedly very weak, because they get a bonus against Daemons, and a lot of big lists are quite daemon heavy.

There is no autowin button, and thanks to feedback and the General's Handbook being an annual update, a ruling list may not rule for long. The new Handbook is set to come out in a few months that will likely change some things to reset the balance.

So no, it is not balanced (can a game ever be truly balanced?) and it needs its Shooting Phase rules perhaps slightly reworked. But, it's a living game, a constant work in progress, and as such it is unlikely that one list will ever remain entirely dominant.

Also, playing objectives can make it difficult to win the game on list alone: if you fail your objective but table your opponent, you have still failed.

I'll point out that I do not know these systems super well, but I have played some AoS and read a lot of AoS (I post a lot on TGA!) and the general consensus is that it's a pretty good game, but will never be as complex as 40k is aiming to be in GWs primary/secondary system hierarchy. That said I am incredibly excited for 40k to become accessible again.

 DynamicCalories wrote:
List building is important.

That said, there is no 'auto win' list.

The lists that placed high at SCGT just passed were based on a few strong units: Tzeentch Skyfires, Skyre Stormfiends, Bloodletter bombs, Sayl etc

But none of them were identikit. A Seraphon force also placed fourth, even though they are allegedly very weak, because they get a bonus against Daemons, and a lot of big lists are quite daemon heavy.

There is no autowin button, and thanks to feedback and the General's Handbook being an annual update, a ruling list may not rule for long. The new Handbook is set to come out in a few months that will likely change some things to reset the balance.

So no, it is not balanced (can a game ever be truly balanced?) and it needs its Shooting Phase rules perhaps slightly reworked. But, it's a living game, a constant work in progress, and as such it is unlikely that one list will ever remain entirely dominant.

Also, playing objectives can make it difficult to win the game on list alone: if you fail your objective but table your opponent, you have still failed.

How is the balance relative to 40k 7th ed?

Sorry I edited my post to state I do not know the relevancy that well, just giving my take on the current state of AoS's meta over the past year or so. I don't want to appear misleading!

From what I've seen of frontline 9th realm podcast they discuss how much it is more balanced. They do mention a few problem combos, but I think GW is going to be answering that with the generals handbook 2 if what I hear is correct. The most common thing I hear them complain about is abilities stacking. So with a Kharadron Overlords example I hear the Aether Khemist can stacks its ability to make the moratar weapons insanely powerful.

Since I don't play I can't say with any personal experience.

 Gamgee wrote:
From what I've seen of frontline 9th realm podcast they discuss how much it is more balanced. They do mention a few problem combos, but I think GW is going to be answering that with the generals handbook 2 if what I hear is correct. The most common thing I hear them complain about is abilities stacking. So with a Kharadron Overlords example I hear the Aether Khemist can stacks its ability to make the moratar weapons insanely powerful.

Since I don't play I can't say with any personal experience.

There have been strong implications that same instance stacking may be getting adjusted in GHB2. Such is the nature of a living rulebook!

Well some things are becoming known as they do their daily updates.
YYour flaming marines will now have a chance to hurt everything.
This also means grots and IG can too....
Templates are gone. This may or may not be a good thing for blobs.
First attack goes to the unit who charges.
So a bunch of grots/cultist can throw stones at marines all with a chance to hurt them then rush in to mop up with sticks before the Marines have a chance to hit back.
Pretty cool. No wait you wanted stuff for marines. Looks like they'll be bigger and harder for them to hide behi....no wait.
Uhmmm.....Roboute Guillemon?

From my experience no AoS is not any better balanced than 8th, its just as broken in its own little ways.

I never felt like I won or lost because of army choice, though I did win or loose a few based on my list compared to my opponents. There was never a feeling like in 40k where your opponent plops down some riptides and a wraith knight, and you know it's just going to be a beating. With that said a player in my store had an ever chosen army and I caught a few beatings from that, mostly because archaeon was insanely difficult to kill when he was eating my heroes.

AoS has the tactical depth of two children smashing toy armymen together and making "pew pew" noises. It is fething awful.

But, one can only hope that GW will learn from their mistakes, and so I retain an open mind.

 master of ordinance wrote:
AoS has the tactical depth of two children smashing toy armymen together and making "pew pew" noises. It is fething awful.

Just like 7th?
The existing 40K player base should eat it up then!

Let's be real here: this is still GW. Whether we're talking about 7th 40k, AoS, WFB (rip), or the upcoming 8th ed of 40k.... it's still GW.

AoS certainly has fewer useless units than 7th ed 40k, but there are absolutely still tiers of power and blatantly powerful units/combos.

The fact that there isn't much going on in AoS besides the units stats themselves actually helps, because it means fewer broken combos. Magic is fairly tame, the lack of characters in units, and terrain doesn't really do anything for example. The really broken stuff in 40k doesn't happen because of this.

I'll say that in the most most most OP tier you have 2-3 combos that are cheese.

But the high-mid tier is much bigger and more balanced that 7th edition and even WHFB in 7 and 8 edition. So, much more armies are viable.

The living rulebook is a sing that no army is gonna be useless or broken 5-6 years or when they receive a new Codex. Examples: Kurnouth Hunters and Tomb Kings being nerfed, and Fyreslayers being buffed.

 Galas wrote:
I'll say that in the most most most OP tier you have 2-3 combos that are cheese.

But the high-mid tier is much bigger and more balanced that 7th edition and even WHFB in 7 and 8 edition. So, much more armies are viable.

The living rulebook is a sing that no army is gonna be useless or broken 5-6 years or when they receive a new Codex. Examples: Kurnouth Hunters and Tomb Kings being nerfed, and Fyreslayers being buffed.

But how does the most most OP tier in AoS compare to the most most OP tier in 40k 7th ed?

And in AoS, what does the gulf between "trash tier" and "mid tier" look like when you compare it to the gulf between "trash tier" and "mid tier" in 40k 7th ed?

Spoken differently:

I get that we're talking about GW. I also get that we're talking about a very diverse game and complete balance is probably not feasible.

But we ultimately have to compare it to what we have now.

Would you say that AoS is basically an improvement, if our goal is a more balanced game, about the same, or more imbalanced?

But how does the most most OP tier in AoS compare to the most most OP tier in 40k 7th ed?

The most OP tier list in AoS still has a chance to be beaten by lower tier armies (With well prepared lists)

The Most OP tier lists in 40k will utterly trash low tier lists regardless of how well built the list is.

I had to point out that yes there will be a difference in well built list building. In some armies one can infact waste your points by not synergizing well enough or not taking advantage of things you have.

And in AoS, what does the gulf between "trash tier" and "mid tier" look like when you compare it to the gulf between "trash tier" and "mid tier" in 40k 7th ed?

AoS is alot closer in terms of power.

I have a lot to say on this and I'm sure I won't get it out as eloquently as I'd like so let me say just start by saying that this is going to be very good for 40k.

The balance is much better. Your play matters, your list matters. Nearly every faction has access to the tools to be competitive. Some have more than other sure, some units are over costed, some under. That is the beauty of the Generals handbook. Someone already mentioned it but to spell it out, take Tomb Kings for example. Recently won the UK masters (by a great player lets not forget, but I suppose they all were) with a 2k list, In GHB 2 that list would now be something closer to 2.5-2.6k points.

I know they joke about this "new GW" but from someone who left the 40k scene when AOS came out let me tell you it's actually a valid statement. They engage the community. They play test, work on scenarios and points with community leaders. They listen to feedback.

And while I don't think this is the thread for it, comments like "AOS is a kids game" just shows who has and who hasn't actually played the game at a high level. Playing a few games with other people that either aren't convinced, aren't playing scenarios, or just learning the game doesn't show you the true depth of the game.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
AoS has the tactical depth of two children smashing toy armymen together and making "pew pew" noises. It is fething awful.

Just like 7th?
The existing 40K player base should eat it up then!

Convoluted rules does not make a game more mature. We are all just playing with toys.

From what I understand AoS players are pretty happy overall with balance. Few stupid things here and there but that's apparently it.

I don't entirely trust the people bashing it at this point simply because of that happiness factor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
From what I understand AoS players are pretty happy overall with balance. Few stupid things here and there but that's apparently it.

I don't entirely trust the people bashing it at this point simply because of that happiness factor.

The real reason AoS players are happy with it because we are just blind GW fanboys willing to excuse all problems with the company. Haven't you heard this?

But yeah there's issues, not going to say there isn't but overall the balance is far better then 7th edition 40k.

Related:

How is the magic vs. mundane balance in AoS?

Are psykers a legitimate (though unnecessary) option, are they terrible, or are they must take?

 Traditio wrote:
Related:

How is the magic vs. mundane balance in AoS?

Are psykers a legitimate (though unnecessary) option, are they terrible, or are they must take?

Magic tends to be helpful utility, but with the rule of one (Only one spell can be cast) you don't tend to take more then one.

Of course this depends on army mostly.

Interesting.

I also like the fact that GW has said that they are doing extensive playtesting for 40k 8th ed, and one of the things they are playtesting for is balance.

We might actually get a more balanced game this edition.

As far as trash-tier armies are concerned, AoS doesn't really have any. It definitely has its power curve, and there armies that are on top and those that are certainly weaker, but nothing really sticks out as being completely unviable like a lot of 40k armies.

Army composition definitely plays a big part in Sigmar, especially with the way unit abilities synergize and build off of one another. However, there are far less 'dead weight' units compared to 40k. It feels as though most units were designed with a specific roll in mind, giving even the most esoteric units niches where they can be built to function. 40k, on the other hand, just has a lot of pointless units that really serve no purpose. Bad composition can definitely cost you in AoS, but there's definitely a lot more to work with.

All in all, while AoS is not as ridiculously complex as 40k, it's a much more tactically and strategically deep and diverse game, as list building allows for a wider range of customization and expression of playstyles, while also encouraging more intimate unit interactions on the tabletop. You spend a lot more time playing against your opponent, as opposed to fighting with the rulebook, and your consideration of your opponent's plans and actions on the tabletop mean a lot more than those of 40k, which is pretty much a mindless mash forward with intermissions for arguing about rules and rolling excessive quantities of dice.

The issue might be more along the lines of whether the rule of 1 is going for 40k.

It would harm several armies such as Thousand Sons who are led by Aspiring Sorcerers.. But probably not Horrors who they'll probably return to ranged with the ability to cast rather then relying on warp charge to deal damage.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The issue might be more along the lines of whether the rule of 1 is going for 40k.

It would harm several armies such as Thousand Sons who are led by Aspiring Sorcerers.. But probably not Horrors who they'll probably return to ranged with the ability to cast rather then relying on warp charge to deal damage.

Unless, of course, the redesigned 40k encouraged less spam and more unique units. The Tzeentch book also let sorcerers pick from its own lore, so that might also be an option.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
The issue might be more along the lines of whether the rule of 1 is going for 40k.

It would harm several armies such as Thousand Sons who are led by Aspiring Sorcerers.. But probably not Horrors who they'll probably return to ranged with the ability to cast rather then relying on warp charge to deal damage.

Doesn't AoS have magic heavy tzeentch chaos armies (e.g., tzeentch demons)?

How do those work in AoS?

In truth, behind all the snark, I'm pretty hopeful. If it's balanced enough that orks have a chance if played right then I'll be very happy. I might even travel to an event or two.

 ProwlerPC wrote:
In truth, behind all the snark, I'm pretty hopeful. If it's balanced enough that orks have a chance if played right then I'll be very happy. I might even travel to an event or two.

If it's balanced enough, you'll stop seeing Traditio complaint threads.

Do you really want to live in a world without Traditio complaint threads?