Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews

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.

**MWHistorian**

Sqorgar wrote:
cygnnus wrote:

What an utterly silly way to try to define "balance".

My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. Warmachine has points, but the points do not balance the game. The game is balanced entirely around memorizing every available unit. You could learn every Cryx unit and Menoth unit and have great Cryx vs Menoth games, but if you then went up against a Retribution unit, you'd probably not have a particularly balanced game. Early on, when you are unfamiliar with units, you are more likely to be destroyed by forgetting one of the 10 special abilities on one of the 10 special units than actually making poor strategic decision. "Oh yeah, that guy has weapon master", "oh yeah, that guy ignores concealment". "Oh yeah, the Black 13th Gun Mage unit is a bunch of dicks".

And the thing is, Age of Sigmar does some of the same stuff. "Oh, that guy gets to roll ones". "Oh, the dragons on that scenery can come alive and eat models". "Oh, d3 MORTAL damage."

However, I don't think AoS is quite as bad about it because the majority of the skills and interaction are one sided. Conflict in AoS doesn't really require interaction between the units. The skills that affect my rolls only affect my rolls and the skills that affect your rolls only affect your rolls (exception is rend). Knowing that you reroll 1s only affects you, and there's not really a strategy your enemy can plan around it. It just means that your guy is a little bit tougher. While the stats do matter, the more general feel from them is that just make the unit tougher or weaker.

In Warmachine, you have a unit in melee, in cover, suffering from an enemy spell, creating three or four different modifiers to one's DEF, and another three or four modifiers to ARM. Oh you have a +2 shield that increases your ARM, but not if attacked in the back arc. And then the enemy has a spell which increases it's to hit roll +2, has a boosted hit roll, and just charged. The single mathematical equation of 2d6 + MAT > DEF is suddenly 2d6 + 1d6 + MAT + 2 >= DEF + 4 + 3 - 2. You have to be know what the hell is going on - forgetting even one of these factors when your opponent doesn't pretty much will cost you the game. That's why I consider Warmachine unbalanced (especially points) for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with every rule, unit, and synergy. Two inexperienced players won't even be playing with all the rules, or using them correctly. It's literally impossible for them to do. I've played with veterans who still have to consult the (95pg) rulebook.

So, I think Age of Sigmar is balanced more towards pick up games against unfamiliar units. The math is not as susceptible to minmaxing, few of the special abilities cross the table, and you can get by just knowing the general information about the units in order to make strategic decisions. No doubt at high levels of play, with players who have dedicated their lifes to eking out efficiency from every little minutiae, the experience will be a bit different. But two inexperienced players, knowing just a broad overview of the units, can experience a game in which they can win through planning and guile.

It's kinda absurd to insist that "Balance" means that either player has exactly the same chance to win no matter what.

Well, that's one type of balance, isn't it? I'm not suggesting it is the only type of balance. I'm suggesting that balance is simply the fulcrum around which play is designed. For some games, that fulcrum is one thing (having a good time? Having a chance to win?), and in other games it is something else (experience? Equivalent forces? Math degrees?). Obviously, different people prefer different types of balance - so any appeal to one specific type when suggesting AoS is unbalanced is a bit misleading.

What you are talking about is the learning curve required to figure out the game, not how balanced the game is. AoS definitely has a lower learning curve than infinity, Malifaux, or Warmahordes. But, hey, Chutes and Ladders has a pretty low learning curve too. Doesn't make it a game I'm interested in playing...

That's a pretty unfair comparison. Chutes and Ladders is a roll and move game - a game in which you can have no strategy and are completely at the mercy of the dice. In that situation, you really might as well just roll a dice to decide the winner. But Chutes and Ladders is a game made for kids, and the fulcrum of design is built around creating tension around the dice rolls. Ooh, if I get a 2, I win! Dagnabbit! A 1.

Age of Sigmar's design fulcrum is built around maneuvering. Arguably, nothing else in the game is as fundamental to one's ability to win, even the units you pick (so far, at least). The game is built in such a way as to provide a random battlefield and various threat zones to make the decisions made around maneuvering more interesting.

I think you're confusing the terms "simplicity" and "balance." Yes, AOS is more simple than Warmachine. No one's arguing that.
Is it more balanced? Inherently not at all. If you want balance, you have to make up your own way to do it.

**Kilkrazy**

Sqorgar wrote:
cygnnus wrote:

What an utterly silly way to try to define "balance".

My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...

That is merely your assertion.

**Sqorgar**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:
My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...
That is merely your assertion.

I feel pretty comfortable making it, but it should be easy enough to check. Ten people in this thread: Define balance.

Wikipedia can start: "In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform."

(That doesn't seem like how it is used in this thread. By this definition, WM has many ineffective and undesirable units when compared to their peers.)

**Talys**

@Kilkrazy, Sqorgar -

There aren't an infinite number of meanings to balance, but it CAN mean a few different things. To mention a few:

- It can mean that both people have armies that are squarely matched with each other, generally speaking, but not necessarily in a specific scenario.

- It can mean that both people have armies that are evenly matched in the specific scenario being played, accounting for advantages to one army or the other offered by the scenario.

- It can mean both people have an equal opportunity to build an evenly matched army, but the two armies need not be evenly matched at the time the game starts.

- It can mean that both people are equally challenged to win the game.

- It can mean that army options are assigned values and that the additive totals of the two armies are equal.

I'm sure there are more!

For me, personally, as I mentioned in the other thread, I desire an equal challenge for both players. If, given that both people are familiar with the game and know the rules, if they try their best, they should both have an equal chance to win the game, based on good decision making and a little bit of luck.

**MWHistorian**

Sqorgar wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:
My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...
That is merely your assertion.
I feel pretty comfortable making it, but it should be easy enough to check. Ten people in this thread: Define balance.

Wikipedia can start: "In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform."

(That doesn't seem like how it is used in this thread. By this definition, WM has many ineffective and undesirable units when compared to their peers.)

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.

**Sqorgar**

MWHistorian wrote:

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.

Didn't they just release errata which totally gimped Haley 2 and 3, and Gorman's blind abilityl - to the collective cheers of damn near everyone?

Also, two people in and 6 definitions of game balance.

**MWHistorian**

Sqorgar wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.
Didn't they just release errata which totally gimped Haley 2 and 3, and Gorman's blind abilityl - to the collective cheers of damn near everyone?

Also, two people in and 6 definitions of game balance.

Is the fact that PP did an errata that made the game more balanced supposed to be a criticism? They work to make the game balanced, unlike GW. Yes.

**Talys**

MWHistorian wrote:
Is the fact that PP did an errata that made the game more balanced supposed to be a criticism? They work to make the game balanced, unlike GW. Yes.

The opposite could be argued too: "I bought 7 wave serpents, and now they are useless."

I'm not really a fan of official game rebalancing between editions. Nor am I a fan of changing the balancing formula mid edition (like GW does).

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

A possible compromise would be to have official rules, and then experimental rules (like the Forge World new units). Then, the experimental rules could be "take it or leave it".

**Sqorgar**

I take back what I said. Balance isn't an illusion. It's a faith.

And that makes Age of Sigmar heretical.

**jonolikespie**

Sqorgar wrote:Didn't they just release errata which totally gimped Haley 2 and 3, and Gorman's blind abilityl - to the collective cheers of damn near everyone?

Talys wrote:The opposite could be argued too: "I bought 7 wave serpents, and now they are useless."

That is legitimately one of the most absurd things I have seen in regards to this whole 'balance' topic.

Haley2 was considered the most blatantly OP thing in the whole game, yet was far from unbeatable and was not sweeping tourneys. She was not totally gimped, she is not 'useless', she was lowered to in line or still only 'just' above average. And as you said, it was to the cheers of the community!

How the hell can you try and twist that into a bad thing???

By the way, that same errata buffed all of 3 units as well, all three of which were considered (almost) unplayable (in a tourney environment).

I haven't entirely been able to wrap my head around this errata myself honestly, because it still shocks me that they only nerfed OP units, and only buffed underpowered units. After so long with GW as the standard I simply never thought that could happen.

**argonak**

Talys wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Is the fact that PP did an errata that made the game more balanced supposed to be a criticism? They work to make the game balanced, unlike GW. Yes.

The opposite could be argued too: "I bought 7 wave serpents, and now they are useless."

I'm not really a fan of official game rebalancing between editions. Nor am I a fan of changing the balancing formula mid edition (like GW does).

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

A possible compromise would be to have official rules, and then experimental rules (like the Forge World new units). Then, the experimental rules could be "take it or leave it".

Certainly that wave serpent thing could happen. And you could pick another straw man to use as well if you like. Straw men are straw men, you set them up so you can knock them down. The actual situation referenced was specific and popular, and a real attempt at balance and not just nerfing. So your alternate example is irrelevant and a poor method of debate.

I also do not see why you're against living rulebooks and army lists, its certainly a far easier method of balance than with static editions. Why should people have to live with poorly balanced codex for years? (12 months my green butt, maybe if you're space marines). Why is that fun or good game design? Ask Bretonians what its like to not get a codex for a decade.

But as a matter of fact, AoS is in prime position to BE a living rulebook with regular balance changes and updates. As the rules are all free and online, the warscrolls are free and online, GW has the option of regularly updating them to improve the game as it develops. This would be a brilliant feature. Of course, GW has shown zero inclination into doing something of that sort, so I doubt they will. But they have the option, and I must admit that is a positive feature of AoS. It remains to be seen if they'll take advantage of it.

**JohnHwangDD**

MWHistorian wrote:
You have a twisted and inaccurate view of warmachine. All I was saying was that you cant slap any models together but if you put some thought into your list you can make anything work. Im a guy that uses man o' wars and mariners. If you dont put effort into your list, you're going to have a hard time. That said, a bad player with a good list will lose to a good player with a bad list. Player skill is by far the largest factor in determining the winner. Id say that's a good indicator of balance.

Actually, it's an indicator of the extent to which skill matters. Being a skill-based game has little to do with overall balance, though.

If we were equally skilled WMH players, and I selected my list randomly, whereas you curated your list:
a) it'd be a toss-up (strict internal and external balance);
b) you'd be at a strong advantage (limited balance among "competitive" units, only); or
c) I wouldn't have any chance of winning (unbalanced).

Which is it?

**argonak**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
You have a twisted and inaccurate view of warmachine. All I was saying was that you cant slap any models together but if you put some thought into your list you can make anything work. Im a guy that uses man o' wars and mariners. If you dont put effort into your list, you're going to have a hard time. That said, a bad player with a good list will lose to a good player with a bad list. Player skill is by far the largest factor in determining the winner. Id say that's a good indicator of balance.

Actually, it's an indicator of the extent to which skill matters. Being a skill-based game has little to do with overall balance, though.

If we were equally skilled WMH players, and I selected my list randomly, whereas you curated your list:
a) it'd be a toss-up (strict internal and external balance);
b) you'd be at a strong advantage (limited balance among "competitive" units, only); or
c) I wouldn't have any chance of winning (unbalanced).

Which is it?

As you are generating the list randomly, its impossible for him to answer with those options. The game has far too much variety for him to say anything but what he said. A good player with a less competitive list will beat a bad player with a more competitive list. While I'm only a beginner at warmachine, I've been playing it long enough to see that its not just the individual units that matter, but the way you have them work together. Warmachine both has a strong tactical skill game, and a strong list building game. 40k and WFB are the same way, but to different degrees.

Many chess players will spot their opponent pieces at the beginning of a game to balance out their skill levels, and yet still win. It is not really much different. The standard chess "army list" is just identical for each player under normal circumstances.

**JohnHwangDD**

I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".
____

Edit 8/24, as to not add new WM posts, per Manchu's warning...

It is telling that ever WM player dances around answering the question that I originally posited, with bland platitudes:
- WM requires "more" skill, and
- WM has "better" internal & external balance.
Those are both subjective and relative statements, comparing against a game that they openly vilify. They are, quite frankly worthless in assessing whether WM is objectively balanced, as I originally requested

All of them know, but none are willing to admit publicly that WM is NOT balanced. WM clearly has internal and external balance issues, like any other points-based system. For a game that says "Play like you got a pair", it is beyond pathetic that WM players can't simply admit that their game isn't (and will never be) perfect, that the fundamental balance isn't really any different than 40k or WFB8, aside from degree. I'd respect WM a lot more if their community wouldn't be so defensive about its warts and faults. But then, my persona and identity isn't wrapped around rejecting and vilifying GW in every single post and forum.

**CoreCommander**

argonak wrote:
Talys wrote:

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

I also do not see why you're against living rulebooks and army lists, its certainly a far easier method of balance than with static editions. Why should people have to live with poorly balanced codex for years? (12 months my green butt, maybe if you're space marines). Why is that fun or good game design? Ask Bretonians what its like to not get a codex for a decade.

It may have something to do with the pressure of everyday life, how often a person plays etc. I remember as if it was yesterday when I bought the 6th ed SM codex and this year the new one just drops in and I'm all like "Whaaat? But it just came out gurl!!! Oh it's been 2 years already...". All in all I don't remember having even 5 games with it so It still felt very new. In a real world scenario, I guess there wouldn't be frequent updates, but for some people, that dedicate most of their time to painting, army composition etc. it could be frustrating to go to the club for their annual game and find that the game has changed.

argonak wrote:

But as a matter of fact, AoS is in prime position to BE a living rulebook with regular balance changes and updates. As the rules are all free and online, the warscrolls are free and online, GW has the option of regularly updating them to improve the game as it develops. This would be a brilliant feature. Of course, GW has shown zero inclination into doing something of that sort, so I doubt they will.

To tell you the truth, while I appreciate FAQs and errata's it is very bothersome especially when the changes concern a big rule book or multiple units with already printed rules. Such things tend to bring down the value and usefulness of printed books. GW may be coming from that point of view.

**argonak**

CoreCommander wrote:
argonak wrote:
Talys wrote:

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

I also do not see why you're against living rulebooks and army lists, its certainly a far easier method of balance than with static editions. Why should people have to live with poorly balanced codex for years? (12 months my green butt, maybe if you're space marines). Why is that fun or good game design? Ask Bretonians what its like to not get a codex for a decade.

It may have something to do with the pressure of everyday life, how often a person plays etc. I remember as if it was yesterday when I bought the 6th ed SM codex and this year the new one just drops in and I'm all like "Whaaat? But it just came out gurl!!! Oh it's been 2 years already...". All in all I don't remember having even 5 games with it so It still felt very new. In a real world scenario, I guess there wouldn't be frequent updates, but for some people, that dedicate most of their time to painting, army composition etc. it could be frustrating to go to the club for their annual game and find that the game has changed.

argonak wrote:

But as a matter of fact, AoS is in prime position to BE a living rulebook with regular balance changes and updates. As the rules are all free and online, the warscrolls are free and online, GW has the option of regularly updating them to improve the game as it develops. This would be a brilliant feature. Of course, GW has shown zero inclination into doing something of that sort, so I doubt they will.

To tell you the truth, while I appreciate FAQs and errata's it is very bothersome especially when the changes concern a big rule book or multiple units with already printed rules. Such things tend to bring down the value and usefulness of printed books. GW may be coming from that point of view.

But see, that's where GW is in the perfect position. You already have to download warscrolls, and the rules are only four pages. Not bothersome at all! Just print them out again, and you're done.

Tomorrow GW could put points on all their warscrolls, and include an army building mechanic in the four page rules, and silence about 1/3 of the criticism AoS gets. And then they could promise to continually update those points to try and bring the game into further balance, silencing even MORE critics.

They wouldn't get rid of them all, because AoS is far too simplistic in comparison to WFB and that made a lot of people mad, but it would be definite improvements!

**CoreCommander**

argonak wrote:

But see, that's where GW is in the perfect position. You already have to download warscrolls, and the rules are only four pages. Not bothersome at all! Just print them out again, and you're done.

Tomorrow GW could put points on all their warscrolls, and include an army building mechanic in the four page rules, and silence about 1/3 of the criticism AoS gets. And then they could promise to continually update those points to try and bring the game into further balance, silencing even MORE critics.

They wouldn't get rid of them all, because AoS is far too simplistic in comparison to WFB and that made a lot of people mad, but it would be definite improvements!

The problem is that the four pages of rules are already included in multiple books along with more and more warscrolls with each new release. Eventually when all the ranges are renewed, all units will be presented both online and in some book or another. Any update in the online resources will result in discrepancy.

**argonak**

CoreCommander wrote:
argonak wrote:

But see, that's where GW is in the perfect position. You already have to download warscrolls, and the rules are only four pages. Not bothersome at all! Just print them out again, and you're done.

Tomorrow GW could put points on all their warscrolls, and include an army building mechanic in the four page rules, and silence about 1/3 of the criticism AoS gets. And then they could promise to continually update those points to try and bring the game into further balance, silencing even MORE critics.

They wouldn't get rid of them all, because AoS is far too simplistic in comparison to WFB and that made a lot of people mad, but it would be definite improvements!

The problem is that the four pages of rules are already included in multiple books along with more and more warscrolls with each new release. Eventually when all the ranges are renewed, all units will be presented both online and in some book or another. Any update in the online resources will result in discrepancy.

I don't see why that's a big problem? I have wfb 6th edition on my shelf, but I knew I needed 8th to play at the local store. If the store says, "hey, make sure to download the free rules and warscroll updates to stay current!" people will. or they won't if they don't want to, but hell i can go play 3rd edition if i can find an opponent.

And for the rules seriously, its four pages. Who cares if they're already in a book? Print them out. it takes like a minute. hell if we were playing I'd print you out a copy. What's the big deal?

Maybe I'm wrong though, are they not putting the new unit warscrolls on the web page? I haven't been paying attention, but I thought all warscrolls were going to be free from now on, and the books were just fluff. I didn't think they were going to be selling army lists anymore. If that's the case, then I'm off base.

**CoreCommander**

argonak wrote:

I don't see why that's a big problem? I have wfb 6th edition on my shelf, but I knew I needed 8th to play at the local store. If the store says, "hey, make sure to download the free rules and warscroll updates to stay current!" people will. or they won't if they don't want to, but hell i can go play 3rd edition if i can find an opponent. And for the rules seriously, its four pages. Who cares if they're already in a book? Print them out. it takes like a minute. hell if we were playing I'd print you out a copy. What's the big deal?

Your example is not quite accurate as the previous editions came with an approximately identifiable line of books which, while not updated en masse, were still consistently intended to be used with the same core book and as such were largely self-sufficient functional branches of their own. If you're doing a massive update consistency would demand that it would be done for everything - a new edition. When you're doing multiple small fixes for the same "edition" every printed book in the same edition suffers from it. Ofcourse it doesn't affect free users, but for those that shelled the 45 pounds, just to stick page after page of updated material, it may be frustrating...

P.S. I want to be sure that we're on the same page here. I am addressing patches to the game, addressing a current glaring issue, that is too early to be included in a new iteration of the tules, similar to what Privateer Press did a couple of days ago. The thing a "living rulebook", as you said, is meant to do.

Maybe I'm wrong though, are they not putting the new unit warscrolls on the web page? I haven't been paying attention, but I thought all warscrolls were going to be free from now on, and the books were just fluff. I didn't think they were going to be selling army lists anymore. If that's the case, then I'm off base.

They're mostly putting the new warcsrolls online as far as I know. Even the formations.

**Makumba**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".

But you can't talk about army balance without skill in warmachine. Some armies are good, but require high skill to use. There is no scatter eldar or 7th demons in warmachine. Plus even the most skew match ups can end up with a draw or win, because of scenario or caster kill. Match ups like IG vs dual skyhammer don't realy exist in WM. And if something is too good, it gets changed like pHaley just did.

What's the big deal?

Not all stores let people play with printed rules and not all people trust other enough for them to use rules in printed or digital form as those are too easy to change.

**PhantomViper**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".

You're reading the wrong things then.

**Sqorgar**

I think Warmachine is starting to take over the topic (which was entirely my fault). My point in bringing it up was to underscore the idea that balance is an illusion and that rather than representing any sort of fairness, balance is more like the fulcrum around which the game design is focused. The fulcrum of design in both AoS and WM could not be any more different, and it is obvious that their respective game designers have very different visions for how they want to further develop the games.

The fact is, Warmachine is a different game than Age of Sigmar, and that's okay. Some people like one or the other; some people like both. Despite the miniature market being so tiny, I still think there's enough room for diversity in gaming experiences. You don't have to like or play Age of Sigmar, but if you don't, its players and popularity are really none of your concern.

I do proclaim, loudly and often, that there is a lot to like about Age of Sigmar. I personally love what it is, what it does, and especially what it doesn't. It's frustrating to be insulted frequently through ham-fisted insinuation that I must be simpled minded, but that doesn't change how I feel about the game - just my opinion of the people saying such cruel and infantile things.

Also, I think the Celestant Prime looks pretty sweet.

**MWHistorian**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".

Check your sources then, because you're very wrong.
Internally and externally WMH's balance is much better than anything done by GW.
No unit is useless or seen in every list and no one gets punished or rewarded for playing an army like in 40k. (CSM vs Eldar? LOL!)

**Makumba**

MWHistorian wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Sqorgar wrote:
My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...
That is merely your assertion.
I feel pretty comfortable making it, but it should be easy enough to check. Ten people in this thread: Define balance.

Wikipedia can start: "In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform."

(That doesn't seem like how it is used in this thread. By this definition, WM has many ineffective and undesirable units when compared to their peers.)

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.

So true . Remember how unplayable trenchers were. Haley3 pops out and they are suddenly ok.

**Manchu**

While it is on-topic to compare AoS with WMH in terms of game design, please don't get too far afield discussing WMH or other games. Thanks!

**Shadowstrife**

(Newbie bravely posting in a slightly off-topic discussion, so play nice)

I think GW made a mistake by just focusing on just two factions over the course of this summer.

It leads to player fatigue and people will just get bored of the constant gold-pseudo-marines and move off to other systems.

Come on, GW. After the Tau release, roll out some big guns like the re-vamped Aelfs/ Duardin.

I'm eager to see how the Dwrafs have changed. 'Fyyre' Slayers taking gold from Chaos armies? Blasphemy. I hope this is not true and they are more traditional Dwarfs in AOS.

And hopefully, Druchii are a separate, Asur-hating army again. I'm still having whiplash when they joined up with High Elves during End Times and all sang Kumbaya around the campfire.

(*Shudder*).

**Sqorgar**

Shadowstrife wrote:

I think GW made a mistake by just focusing on just two factions over the course of this summer.

They seem to be following a specific narrative, and central to the narrative is Sigmar and his followers taking back the mortal realms from the legions of Chaos. Judging by the campaign books that are being released, old units are being repackaged simultaneously with becoming important to the story. Nurgle units are repackaged and suddenly, there's a Nurgle campaign.

What this means is that, initially, there will be a slow transition into the full AoS world. However, it also means that when the new factions are revealed, it will likely coincide with an epic story in the fluff and associated, playable campaign. So it won't just be a release. It will be an event.

Since I'm new to the GW fold (and like the Stormcast), it's all fresh to me and I find it exciting. Introducing the fluff alongside the releases is very useful to me, as I don't find myself as lost like the time I decided to read a Gotrek and Felix story without knowing anything about the WFB world.

**Shadowstrife**

^^ When you explain it like this, I totally get GW taking the narrative angle.

But It would have been nice if they shook things up a bit within the narrative itself- it's nice to see the Sylvaneth holding out against Nurgle, which I guess is just a bookmark for a lager plot in one of the upcoming books.
(The new Wild Riders minis were great- hopefully they make a re-appearance.)

**Ensis Ferrae**

Shadowstrife wrote:

And hopefully, Druchii are a separate, Asur-hating army again. I'm still having whiplash when they joined up with High Elves during End Times and all sang Kumbaya around the campfire.

The way it was explained to me, it makes perfect sense that all is "right" in the Elven world.

as for the topic at hand, I am actually enjoying it a lot. There's not a ton of wasted space in rule books with tables to hit and wound, and what shooting attack hits on what, etc. So long as you keep your scrolls in some semblance of order while playing, it all goes pretty smoothly, even with the first couple games.

**Talys**

So, polling 3 local stores:

- One store says it has sold more starter boxes than it expected, a healthy number of sigmarites, and way more books than it expected. There is no organized play there, but the store owner is very happy with the sales.

- One store has a couple of groups playing it now, with its sales described by the manager as "so-so". When I asked about relative sales to other games, not as well as WMH (I assume, not as well as 40k), much better than any anything else, including XWing and Malifaux.

- One store's manager described it as "it's not where we'd like it to be." The manager told me there's essentially one guy who's bought a huge chunk of all their AoS sales -- a WMH convertee who has decided to go nuts and basically buy every box of Warhammer Fantasy miniature he can get his hands on. Tepid sales other than Stormcast Eternals and Starter Boxes. When I asked about compared to WHFB, he said that basically their FB sales were close to zero, so ANYTHING was an improvement.

I have not gone to the local GW store since AoS launch (it's not near my area, and I buy almost nothing there anyhow).