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.

I was talking about AoS with the owner of my FLGS and it seems a lot of people are interested in the game, and a lot of 40k players have been dusting off their Fantasy armies to try it out. I was asking him how they balance it and he said they typically play friendly games and balance it by saying "we'll field x warscrolls, and no more than y wounds". This seems a reasonable extension of the RAW, and I have no problem with a more casual rule system that allows people to get into the game without having to pour over 50 pages of rules. However I had this thought: has this system made a lot of units totally obsolete? I don't even mean under powered, or underused, but completely pointless.

As an example (I am only very familiar with Skaven so I will use them) in the old points system for WFB Stormvermin were more expensive per model than Clanrats, so when making a list it forced you to ask "are these more heavily armoured, more expensive troops going to be worth 2 of their weaker counter parts". Whichever way you felt was more viable, there was at least an argument for why the other choice might be made. In the current system Stormvermin and Clanrats both have 1 wound per model, and take up 1 warscroll. So why would anyone NOT take Stormvermin? They are superior in literally every way and take up no more space in a list than clanrats or skaven slaves would.

So I guess I'm just wondering how people feel about this. Does this discrepancy appear in many other armies? Do you think this is a huge issue that will have to be addressed eventually? Or will it just be left to fans homebrew rules to fix? Am I overlooking something that makes these weaker units actually worth taking?

P.S. For the record: I do love a lot about the new rule system, and the new AoS app is what 40k has needed for ages (fingers crossed) so I don't want to come across as a hater of change!

Too early to tell.

As AOS ramps up, existing army books will be replaced by the new battletomes, with probably more extensive use of formations and synergy between units using the Keywords system. We can see examples of this in the PDFs.

Right now, unless the Abilities and Formations in your PDF are particularly important, or if you want to fluff up, probably makes more sense to play the inherently stronger unit.

Well technically, due to the nature of the game, anything that that's worse than something else is automatically worse.

The only reason to take rubbish models from a competitive stand point is because you don't have enough good models.

Why take Saurus warriors when you can take temple warriors (for example)? Why take saurus when you can take all negash instead. Etc. Points no longer give lesser units a redeeming factor.

Technically, since everything is equal in the eyes of the rules, there is no reason not to take the best (from a competitive standpoint) meaning everything but the best models possible are sub par. Even in numbers because you can take the best units in great numbers too.

I think if anyone played this game competitively they will be maximizing wounds for space and looking at summoning. To go for the winning conditions will also involve making sure you have the most wounds as possible while still having less and being able to summon more.

This leaves the basic units a little left behind since their impact on the table compared to the space, wounds and numbers is very low.

Looking at the units, for the first time many look good on paper (can;t see many outright sucky units) but then its all for nothing because the better units are there with no reason to take the normal stuff.

So yes anything but the better units you only take if you are handicapping yourself or don't have the models for it.

I believe there is a formation that gives saurus warriors +1 attack to both melee weapons. This means a squad of 12 could assault nagash and hammer the hell out of him (he only has a 3+ save... dies just as easy as most other hero units). Lizardmen have crazy morale too... they wont be fleeing from battle.

Attack him with two celestial dragon guys... dragon breath him twice, then assault him (d3 more hammer attacks which are 3+ 2+ d3 wounds). Nagash will probably kill one but will die himself.

Remember that it is also a dice game/numbers game. One vs many usually loses. Nagash can raise troops but other magic users can deny his spells.

I agree there isn't a need for multiple basic troop choices, from what ive seen and experienced so far all units have their purpose and synergize differently. This is where the real strategy and list building comes in to play.

 455_PWR wrote:
I believe there is a formation that gives saurus warriors +1 attack to both melee weapons. This means a squad of 12 could assault nagash and hammer the hell out of him (he only has a 3+ save... dies just as easy as most other hero units). Lizardmen have crazy morale too... they wont be fleeing from battle.

Attack him with two celestial dragon guys... dragon breath him twice, then assault him (d3 more hammer attacks which are 3+ 2+ d3 wounds). Nagash will probably kill one but will die himself.

Remember that it is also a dice game/numbers game. One vs many usually loses. Nagash can raise troops but other magic users can deny his spells.

I agree there isn't a need for multiple basic troop choices, from what ive seen and experienced so far all units have their purpose and synergize differently. This is where the real strategy and list building comes in to play.

Yes but when you can have as many Nagash and his buddies as you own/can fit plus summoning, it aint easy to set up these combos to take down scary units.

The point is, with no restrictions, the best unit is the only unit worth taking in many multiples (while keeping to win conditions or simply outright filling the board you can).

List building is spam the best unit.

As I said before, the only reason to take normal stuff is model limits or to make the game somewhat fun. This is unfortunate because I have never seen GW make a game where all the models look useful, however its wasted because there is no limiting factors (well sensible ones).

 Swastakowey wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
I believe there is a formation that gives saurus warriors +1 attack to both melee weapons. This means a squad of 12 could assault nagash and hammer the hell out of him (he only has a 3+ save... dies just as easy as most other hero units). Lizardmen have crazy morale too... they wont be fleeing from battle.

Attack him with two celestial dragon guys... dragon breath him twice, then assault him (d3 more hammer attacks which are 3+ 2+ d3 wounds). Nagash will probably kill one but will die himself.

Remember that it is also a dice game/numbers game. One vs many usually loses. Nagash can raise troops but other magic users can deny his spells.

I agree there isn't a need for multiple basic troop choices, from what ive seen and experienced so far all units have their purpose and synergize differently. This is where the real strategy and list building comes in to play.

Yes but when you can have as many Nagash and his buddies as you own/can fit plus summoning, it aint easy to set up these combos to take down scary units.

The point is, with no restrictions, the best unit is the only unit worth taking in many multiples (while keeping to win conditions or simply outright filling the board you can).

List building is spam the best unit.

As I said before, the only reason to take normal stuff is model limits or to make the game somewhat fun. This is unfortunate because I have never seen GW make a game where all the models look useful, however its wasted because there is no limiting factors (well sensible ones).

Not necessarily. I know this isn't RAW but if you're playing a game like I mentioned in my first post where you say "hey let's both bring 5 warscrolls and no more than 60 wounds" than you can only spam 5 Nagash which will probably not stack up to 60 wounds of other models. Again, I know that's not RAW, just a modification I hear fairly often.

I'm not sure how it is with Skaven, because I don't play them, but the Empire and Beastmen compendia have a way to balance it - some heroes buff particular type of units and the formations often refer to particular ones with their bonuses.

Again with this. The stormvermin vs clantats has been talked to death. Why take clanrats, why? Why not, why not take both. What bonuses to clanrats get that storm vermin dont. Its a synergy thing. Certain hero's may only buff certain units so instead of being that guy don't

Yes. Every fantasy unit produced before AoS is obsolete. It's pretty clear AoS is meant not as a reboot of Fantasy but as an entirely new game. They provided those Warscrolls of all the old units (a mistake in my opinion as it confuses what they are trying to do) to throw a bone to Fantasy players, but assuming AoS survives for a year or two (debateable) it will be pretty clear the way to play will be with all new models/units.

At least that's my guess.

Well, in a wounds cap, it may be more economical to take the more elite units, but when more numbers are available, base troops often get bonuses that take them to the standard of the more elite units or greater.
Using the example of Skeleton Warriors and Grave Guard from the Vampire Counts compendium, in 1v1 situation, the Grave Guard has the advantage, with more attacks, a better save, a better hit value and rend 1, along with Cursed Weapons, which on the roll of a 6 to wound inflicts two wounds over 1. Quite clearly superior.

However, in a 30v30 situation, for example, which while rare, could happen, the disparity is a bit less clear. The Grave Guard still has a much better save (4+ if using crypt shields against (-) due to Wight Blade rend), a point better to hit and Cursed Weapons, but the Skeleton Warriors, from their "Skeleton Legion" rule now have the upper hand on attacks, having 3 each; 60 attack against 90 is quite a sizeable difference.

If these same 30 Skeleton Warriors and 30 Grave Guard are in 18" of a Death Hero, the Grave Guard are still as they were previously, while the Skeleton Warriors are now also hitting on 3+. Essentially, they are now on a relatively level field, with the Grave Guard having a better save and Cursed Weapons, but the Skeletons having a healthy number more attacks.

Now the bit that really sells Skeleton Warriors as viable compared to Grave Guard, which may be exclusive to these guys, can't say I've compared any other basic/elite units for armies, is that Skeletons resurrect D6 models per turn, whereas Grave Guard resurrect D3, and Summon Skeletons, while having the same casting value as Summon Grave Guard, summons double the number of dudes.

So, TL;DR, it is, I feel, as others have said, synergies certainly help, such as the Death Hero business, and numbers wise, 1v1, elites often have the advantage, but 20v20 or 30v30, it is a far more equal situation.

Well, considering that the old Skaven are going to just "go away" eventually, in all likelyhood, AoS has made everything on the 8.Sigmar lists obsolete.

As for viability, yes, if that's the formula you wanna use, there's no crunchy reason except model availability to take a lesser unit with equal wounds. That being said, why be crunchy? Stormvermin, for example, are elite soldiers. Yeah, if you have a bunch of Stormvermin you could throw them on the table, but why? What are they doing there, and why so many elites for this mission? That's sort of like deciding that you wanted to do a Ulthwe army and loading up on Aspect Warriors, or doing a Middenheim army with no Knights of the White Wolf. You can, certainly, but it doesn't fit the lore.

If you're more of the type for playing a pure game of numbers, moreso than you are a storyteller, that's great! It's not WAAC, just another way to enjoy the game, and if you're having fun, you're doing it right. It just seems to me that AoS is more appropriate for narrative games than straight up fights, so it sorta makes sense to take the inferior unit that fits the story. Sort of like when one makes a fighter in DnD and takes an odd weapon like a half pike or a gladius even though there are better options, even in the same weapon class, or hangs onto an old sword, because it fits the character.

 3AcresAndATau wrote:
Well, considering that the old Skaven are going to just "go away" eventually, in all likelyhood, AoS has made everything on the 8.Sigmar lists obsolete.

As for viability, yes, if that's the formula you wanna use, there's no crunchy reason except model availability to take a lesser unit with equal wounds. That being said, why be crunchy? Stormvermin, for example, are elite soldiers. Yeah, if you have a bunch of Stormvermin you could throw them on the table, but why? What are they doing there, and why so many elites for this mission? That's sort of like deciding that you wanted to do a Ulthwe army and loading up on Aspect Warriors, or doing a Middenheim army with no Knights of the White Wolf. You can, certainly, but it doesn't fit the lore.

If you're more of the type for playing a pure game of numbers, moreso than you are a storyteller, that's great! It's not WAAC, just another way to enjoy the game, and if you're having fun, you're doing it right. It just seems to me that AoS is more appropriate for narrative games than straight up fights, so it sorta makes sense to take the inferior unit that fits the story. Sort of like when one makes a fighter in DnD and takes an odd weapon like a half pike or a gladius even though there are better options, even in the same weapon class, or hangs onto an old sword, because it fits the character.

I totally agree! I am not at all a WAAC gamer. My 40k armies are almost entirely comprised of what units I like and surround them with units that make them fluffy. I guess the point I was trying to make is that in 40k even if I take a model that is not competitively viable there is still something it does that others units do not, whether that is a unique ability/weapon or maybe it's less points to field etc. In AoS now, we have these strange cases where even if I want to field Clanrats, there isn't that distinction that makes them unique. They are quite literally less good Stormvermin. I'm not trying to argue against gaming for fun, I am by no means a power gamer. I guess I just wish they had put more effort into making the units feel unique!

P.S. what do you mean Skaven are "going away"? D:

This logic is flawed, though. Terribly flawed.

I'm not disagreeing with you both - I think that you should make cool armies that you like rather than pump out the most min/maxed super-competitive forces... but.

But imagine a situation in which player A makes his dream "regular" skaven army, including slaves, clanrats and whatnot.

And then imagine player B with an awesome idea for his dream skaven army that he even has fluffy background written for - an exceptionally cunning and mighty skaven warlord captured a huge human city and used it's riches to strengthen his army and create his own dominion - he sold all the gold and gems and reforged all the armour and weapons into stormvermin equipment and promoted all his clanrats to stormvermin as a reward for sacking the city and letting him establish this new empire of his. By further conquest he got even more riches and was able to afford buying service of Clan Skryre and others, giving his stormvermin host the support of rat ogres and warplock tech.

So on one hand you have a fluffy player A with nice Skaven army and a fluffy player B with about twice as powerful army.

For this example let's assume that Player B didn't make that army for competitive reasons and it's really what he always dreamed of. Just like I always wanted a playable Black Orcs force or imperial Greatswords company supporting an Elector Count and his Demigryph Knights retinue, maybe even a Steam Tank as it's the Count himself going to war.

Now tell me how do they balance it, if stormvermin are 1 wound infantry just like the clanrats? Even in the tournament comp that leaked you still get 1:1 ratio between clanrats/slaves and stormvermin.

It's obvious that player B has an advantage here and it'd be nice if they could decide how to make his force more balanced to player A's army for it to be even remotely fun for him. How can they decide how many stormvermin or support units he should drop? How do they know how many are enough and how many are too much?

It's not the 15 bloodthirsters that are the problem here, but actually trying to balance "similar" forces. Or even fluffy forces that both players like.

As for Skaven going away - none of the End Times kits should be going away, most likely just the old kits. Just look at the dryads and treemen - they have a proper AoS formation rather than the old armies' pdf warscroll compendia.

This is one of those situations where everyone is right and nobody is wrong

GW, in their infinite wisdom, decided that people didn't need a way to balance a game or any help when it came to army composition. This is probably in reaction to the fact that tournaments came up with their own composition rules for the game anyway, so just leave them to it so they can craft the competitive game they want (I'm not saying this is sound logic or was the right way to go).

Klerych is correct, with RAW, there is no real point to taking slaves or clanrats if you can take stormvermin instead. The only reason to do so would be if you are going for a theme and you want it to be focused on slaves or clanrats. If you do so, then you better have 40 of them to maximize bonuses and will probably want a couple of units of 10 slaves with slings so you get some extra shooting out of the army. And add in a Grey Seer so they have a 50% chance of not fleeing on Battleshock tests. But, if you go up against someone whose theme is to take the hardest list possible, you will invariably end up getting smashed, because you didn't optimize your choices.

The synergies and special rules on each warscroll go a long way in protecting things that you want to take for thematic reasons as opposed to power reasons, but that only goes so far.

The only thing you can really do (until there is some sort of army comp/balancing mechanic) is to have an agreement before you start a game or campaign against other people is to figure out how you guys want to approach the game. That is the only way to prevent someone who went for theme getting curbstomped by the person who came out with all out filth. Or whose theme was a Clan Moulder army, so he/she is playing with 20 Rat Ogres and 10 Stormfiends and a bunch of Master Engineers...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mazik765 wrote:

P.S. what do you mean Skaven are "going away"? D:

I think what he meant is that the warscrolls were only put out there so people could play with what they currently have. None of the old armies are going to exist as they were moving forward into AoS. It was the best way for GW to allow people to play with that stuff before it transitions over to new factions and learn the new game.

So, Skaven aren't "going away" in the definitive sense. There will be a Skaven release that will come out showing them attacking one of the realms (my guess is Beasts). And when that happens, similar to what they did with the Sylvaneth, it will give you a battalion or two saying that these are the main forces fighting for Skaven and then release new, fancy warscrolls for them, along with possibly some new rules and units. This release will purposefully leave out portions of the range. The ones in the release will be put in fancy new AoS boxes to be sold and then the old units in the Warhammer boxes will sell out and never be replaced.

So portions of the existing range will phase out over time and there will be a new focused group of Skaven that will be the AoS faction. My guess is it will focus a lot more on the steampunky nature of them, but only time will tell. But you can easily guess that Stormfriends, Thanquol/Boneripper, Grey Seers, Warlords and Verminlords will be key components, because they were released with the End Times

The only reason to take weak units like slaves or goblins or whatever... is because that's what you already own. If you already have plenty of the better stuff (enough Orc rather than gobbos or plenty of Stormvermin) then the weaker stuff will probably not see the table.

It's one of the biggest problems with the "legacy" armies. I think the newer stuff will be better balanced through synergy and abilities, but as of now..... eh.... it sucks.

In regards to the original question: yes. With the removal of templates, Goblin Rock Lobbaz, for example, are the best war machine by a landslide. Rock Lobbaz / Stone Throwers can now 360noscope everything including characters...which is just stupid. A Stone Thrower is an area weapon, not a sniper weapon.

 Motograter wrote:
Again with this. The stormvermin vs clantats has been talked to death. Why take clanrats, why? Why not, why not take both. What bonuses to clanrats get that storm vermin dont. Its a synergy thing. Certain hero's may only buff certain units so instead of being that guy don't

There is nothing in the skaven army list that will effect Clan Rats that does not also effect Storm Vermin. There is one single, solitary reason to take clan rats right now:

Because the Verminus Clawpack forces you to take 3 units for the Formation

Basically if you aren't using the Verminus Clawpack, there is no in-game reason or benefit for taking Clan Rats over Stormvermin.

Which is poor design, imo. Aside from the minimum 30 clan rats for Vermins Clawpack, my rats basically divide into "Stormvermin" and "Skavenslaves". At least slaves get slings..

Oh dear, I caused a bit of a Skaven scare there, hope there wasn't a run on the War Store. Yeah, I simply meant that Clanrats won't be officially supported in their current form a few years down the road, Skaven are gonna get a makeover.

And Kleyrych, you're totally right. A creative player could have a fluffy list with rich skaven. It probably would have been more succinct for me to say, "yes, Clanrats are totally outclassed, they're really just around for flavor and because the model exists". I'm damn good at making things more complex than they need to be.

That being said, Clanrats are better if you want a swarm, they get access to the "strength in numbers" rule, which gives them bonuses to wound at 20 models, and to hit at 30 models. The thought of owning and painting 30 models for a 28mm army makes a skirmish player like me cringe, but, they do have *something* Stormvermin don't.

It all depends on what you mean by "worse". Since there isn't a points system, better and worse are all relative, so presumably, your opponent would recognize that your units which are crappy are of lesser value and let you take more of then, or take off some of their stuff.

That's the intent of AoS, anyways. We'll see in practice how that translates to the tabletop as bloodthirsty gamers have at it

Philosophically, I don't have a problem with the approach, as I strive for balance, anyways. However, I don't play AoS much, and don't plan to, so I probably wouldn't be a very good judge of such things on the rare occasion that we do play -- except by iteration. So, in other words, "DAMN those guys sucked." <make adjustments, try again>. Which isn't really the best or most fun way to play your first game with an opponent.

This didn't happen when *none* of us knew what we were doing, but I suspect it might be an issue when you players of different experience levels on the same table playing with each other -- should one wish to take advantage, or even if the experienced player just isn't familiar with the other player's warscrolls.

3AcresAndATau wrote:That being said, Clanrats are better if you want a swarm, they get access to the "strength in numbers" rule, which gives them bonuses to wound at 20 models, and to hit at 30 models. The thought of owning and painting 30 models for a 28mm army makes a skirmish player like me cringe, but, they do have *something* Stormvermin don't.

They don't though, not really.

For base stats, Stormvermin have superior Save and Bravery, as well as identical Move and Wounds. Edge: Stormvermin
For weapon stats, Stormvermin Halberds are equal or better than EITHER clan rat weapon in all categories. Edge: Stormvermin
For special rules, minimum squad size is the same (10), leader bonus is identical (+1A), and the Standard Bearer, Musician and Clanshields rules are identical. So it all comes down to "Strength in Numbers vs. Murderous Ferocity".

The 20 clan rat bonus of Strength in Numbers (+1 to wound) improves Clan Rats to the 3+ that Stormvermin already have. The 30 clan rat bonus (a further +1 to hit) is identical to the bonus that Stormvermin get for simply outnumbering their foe. With many units (read; Heroes) always being units of 1, I personally give that edge to Stormvermin. Not to mention that if you have units of 30 for either (since I'm suggesting replacing Clan Rats with Stormvermin), you're pretty likely to outnumber your foe anyway, and thus give the Stormvermin their bonus. It's also worth noting that Spears are 5+ To-Hit, so the +1 puts them at the same 4+ that Stormvermin Rusty Halberds innately have.

Essentially, the ONLY time that the Clan Rat "Strength in Numbers" is superior to "Murderous Ferocity", is when you have 30 Clan Rats, but do not outnumber your opponent. Even then, their weapons are STILL either identical or worse in all/most stats.

Weapon R A H W R D Spear 2" 1 5+ 4+ - 1 Blade 1" 1 4+ 4+ - 1 -- - - - - - - Halberd 2" 2 4+ 3+ -1 1

That's base. You can see the Halberd has the range of a spear, more attacks than either, the To-Hit of a Blade (4+) and a better To-Wound than either weapon. It also has -1 Rend, which neither Clan Rat weapon option has.

With the +1 To-Wound for 20 rats you get:
Weapon R A H W R D Spear 2" 1 5+ 3+ - 1 Blade 1" 1 4+ 3+ - 1 -- - - - - - - Halberd 2" 2 4+ 3+ -1 1
Which still gives the Halberd stats as-good-as or better than either other weapon.

With the +1 To-Hit AND +1 To-Wound for 30 rats you get:
Weapon R A H W R D Spear 2" 1 4+ 3+ - 1 Blade 1" 1 3+ 3+ - 1 -- - - - - - - Halberd 2" 2 4+ 3+ -1 1
Which is the first time one of the Clan Rat options exceeds the Stormvermin, and then only in a single category. The Blade still has less reach, less attacks and no Rend. The spear still has less attacks and no Rend.

And neither of those tables factor if the Stormvermin outnumber their opponents, at which point their To-Hit drops to 3+.

By the numbers, Clan Rats just can't compete with Stormvermin. In 8e that was offset by cost (7ppm for Stormvermin vs 4ppm for Clan Rats). Now?
/shrug

Strength in Numbers gives a (cumulative) +1 to-hit and +2 to-wound? Stat mods are cumulative. That should make a 2+ Wound roll for large clanrat units shouldn't it?

My son and I have been playing this flawed game a bit at the local GW. They are balancing on wounds, so you just take elites. Think Swordmasters, not Witch Elves (mega bad). The whole thing is so badly balanced you have to have a gentleman's agreement before the game on how many units each side can take to be vaguely fair.

At my local club we're finding 'mid ground' units are being left off the table.

Cheap rank and file have enough boosts at high numbers that they remain useful, and elites are really powerful, the troops in between just don't make it worthwhile

We haven't seen many monsters yet as everyone tries to get to grips with the rules before then.