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.

Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.

FWIW I played WFB from 1st-6th edition, and stopped at 7th because lack of players and honestly boredom with WFB. I have played a few games of AoS, and its a better system in many ways with a few "agreed upon rules" between players.

despite my personal opinion that WFB sales had been bad for so long, and AoS sales are good currently means it was not a bad decision.

The worst decision GW made in 2015 was the idea of detachments with formations within them. The first codex, non-supplement, release in 2015 was Necrons which was the first to see such an army layout. The 'decurion' change the way people wanted army layouts, and brought a new level of power into the game effectively dividing 7th into 7.5 where 5 codexes and 5 more supplements were made using different rules and powerlevels in mind for generating an army and existed in 7th, and everything Necrons and beyond exists in 7.5. This midway change in powerlevel hast hurt army sells for all factions with 7th edition codexes released before 2015 (5 factions, with 5 supplements = 10 armies) because fewer people are going to invest time and money into an army that is inherently worse than the other factions in the current edition. That was a bad decision business wise.

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.

You're allowed to think AOS is a good idea from GW's perspective, you're not allowed to make sweeping assertions about how many new players it has brought in, neither is saying it's different to 40K when WHFB was already different to 40K. Besides, mechanically it isn't that different to what has gone before it, they've just taken to writing it down differently.

FWIW I played WFB from 1st-6th edition, and stopped at 7th because lack of players and honestly boredom with WFB. I have played a few games of AoS, and its a better system in many ways with a few "agreed upon rules" between players.

despite my personal opinion that WFB sales had been bad for so long, and AoS sales are good currently means it was not a bad decision.

Again, to say AOS sales are good is utterly without any sort of foundation, there hasn't been a single financial report since it was released, and even then, the reports don't distinguish sales across systems to allow any sort of conclusion to be drawn. This sort of thing cannot be a matter of opinion, one cannot simply take hold of the elephants tail and declare it is a piece of rope. Equally, a few "agreed upon rules" to you is my reminder that GW have apparently abandoned all pretence at making any attempt to produce a solid gaming product. My one hope is that this is the last big project of the Kirby era and things start to change in the next year or so.

All ways up, it isn't important, in the context of this thread, why people think it is the worst decision of the year, that they do, and apparently in fairly decent numbers, speaks for itself.

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

LOL! What? Have you not been reading? There are pages of reasons why people think AOS was a mistake by GW.

 MWHistorian wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

LOL! What? Have you not been reading? There are pages of reasons why people think AOS was a mistake by GW.

I wouldn't even call it a mistake. Its delivery was a mistake. I've played AOS and had a blast.

~10 people posting on a forum that represents less than 1% of the gaming population itself is not decent numbers.


Although GW has yet to release financials for June2015-May2016 because of course that would be time traveling, and when they do like always it will not include a breakdown of sales of their different product lines.

My observation from the 5 different gaming stores I frequent between two states in the U.S. on two different sides of the country throughout the year since AoS has been released and before.

I have not seen anyone at any of the 5 stores purchase WFB items, nor play WFB in the stores in a period of two years prior to AoS. I often looked at certain packages of Tomb Kings/VK/Orc/Skaven/Dark Elf boxes for conversion bits to order off ebay later and they never moved over those years. I have seen people play and purchase AoS and older WFB models since AoS. Whether these two gaming areas are showing that no one plays WFB, or no one is buying new models/starting WFB is not certain- however what is certain is that no one was buying any significant amount of WFB models in these areas prior to AoS, and now people are to some extent.

WFB was dead. There were a few people here and there into necromancy of it, but it was a dead system. There were no real influx of new players and people were leaving it for other systems. I observed this on my own, and I am going to make the radical assertion that GW as a company knew it based on sales over years. In case you missed it their sales have been bad for the past 4 years compared to 5-6 years ago. 5-6 years ago was around the time WFB pretty much died. I am guessing they made that decision based on actual decent numbers and not a few people who loved WFB and are whining on a gaming forum that makes up a small fraction of that games marketbase.

Other than making a statement based on my real life observations, ant not personal opinion, I actually am allowed to make any assertion I want. That I chose to make one based on studied evidence as well as my opinion is also my choice. The title of the thread does not imply the decision GW made should be considered a mistake by only the poster, but as a company. As a company AoS was not a mistake, continuing WFB would have been. As individual players, to some killing the WFB was a mistake, but that is a different answer than as a company.

blaktoof wrote:
~10 people posting on a forum that represents less than 1% of the gaming population itself is not decent numbers.


Although GW has yet to release financials for June2015-May2016 because of course that would be time traveling, and when they do like always it will not include a breakdown of sales of their different product lines.

My observation from the 5 different gaming stores I frequent between two states in the U.S. on two different sides of the country throughout the year since AoS has been released and before.

I have not seen anyone at any of the 5 stores purchase WFB items, nor play WFB in the stores in a period of two years prior to AoS. I often looked at certain packages of Tomb Kings/VK/Orc/Skaven/Dark Elf boxes for conversion bits to order off ebay later and they never moved over those years. I have seen people play and purchase AoS and older WFB models since AoS. Whether these two gaming areas are showing that no one plays WFB, or no one is buying new models/starting WFB is not certain- however what is certain is that no one was buying any significant amount of WFB models in these areas prior to AoS, and now people are to some extent.

WFB was dead. There were a few people here and there into necromancy of it, but it was a dead system. There were no real influx of new players and people were leaving it for other systems. I observed this on my own, and I am going to make the radical assertion that GW as a company knew it based on sales over years. In case you missed it their sales have been bad for the past 4 years compared to 5-6 years ago. 5-6 years ago was around the time WFB pretty much died. I am guessing they made that decision based on actual decent numbers and not a few people who loved WFB and are whining on a gaming forum that makes up a small fraction of that games marketbase.

Other than making a statement based on my real life observations, ant not personal opinion, I actually am allowed to make any assertion I want. That I chose to make one based on studied evidence as well as my opinion is also my choice.

And the problem is that there are just as many people that will say the opposite.
The financial report will tell us some things, but like you said, no break down. We probably won't know the success or failure of AOS for quite a while.

Killing Warhammer Fantasy Battle off completely, no question.

Release AoS - fine. But, removing a game that had a buzzing tournament community (at least here in the UK) was questionable on multiple levels.

On a personal level, I think it genuinely upset people as well, and shows precisely what kind of people are in charge of GW and what they think of their veteran community.

 MWHistorian wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
~10 people posting on a forum that represents less than 1% of the gaming population itself is not decent numbers.


Although GW has yet to release financials for June2015-May2016 because of course that would be time traveling, and when they do like always it will not include a breakdown of sales of their different product lines.

My observation from the 5 different gaming stores I frequent between two states in the U.S. on two different sides of the country throughout the year since AoS has been released and before.

I have not seen anyone at any of the 5 stores purchase WFB items, nor play WFB in the stores in a period of two years prior to AoS. I often looked at certain packages of Tomb Kings/VK/Orc/Skaven/Dark Elf boxes for conversion bits to order off ebay later and they never moved over those years. I have seen people play and purchase AoS and older WFB models since AoS. Whether these two gaming areas are showing that no one plays WFB, or no one is buying new models/starting WFB is not certain- however what is certain is that no one was buying any significant amount of WFB models in these areas prior to AoS, and now people are to some extent.

WFB was dead. There were a few people here and there into necromancy of it, but it was a dead system. There were no real influx of new players and people were leaving it for other systems. I observed this on my own, and I am going to make the radical assertion that GW as a company knew it based on sales over years. In case you missed it their sales have been bad for the past 4 years compared to 5-6 years ago. 5-6 years ago was around the time WFB pretty much died. I am guessing they made that decision based on actual decent numbers and not a few people who loved WFB and are whining on a gaming forum that makes up a small fraction of that games marketbase.

Other than making a statement based on my real life observations, ant not personal opinion, I actually am allowed to make any assertion I want. That I chose to make one based on studied evidence as well as my opinion is also my choice.

And the problem is that there are just as many people that will say the opposite.
The financial report will tell us some things, but like you said, no break down. We probably won't know the success or failure of AOS for quite a while.

I am sure there is a possibility that some areas had decent WFB sales still, I did not see them- so yeah some people may say that.

I am also certain that anyone saying GW is not aware of their own sales, and them axing WFB was a mistake is completely slowed. GW knew how WFB was doing overall in all regions they sell to. It was doing bad, they axed it. They did not kill it because it was doing good, or even mediocre, they killed it because it was doing bad for many years. They are GW, they like money. They are not keeping something around that is doing bad for half a decade or more.

Of course killing it upset people, but as a company it was not a mistake.

WHFB was doing poorly. That didn't require blowing up 30 years of fluff.

Well technically they did not blow it up, events happened which rapidly created an abrupt difference in the WFB-verse

But remember, GW is a model company not a fluff company.

Which is why my Rhinos and Land Raiders fire multilasers.

TBH this is not the most drastic of their fluff changes. It is the most drastic of their rules set changes though. There has been multiple times in 40k where entire factions have been completely revamped and major backstories of them, or heroic models from their faction have been completely retconned or removed from happening. WFB to AoS was just a change of the setting by advancing the setting in a way some players don't like. All the factions are still there, what happened before still happened...

Good God, AoS. The worst part? Ignoring the BS of nuking the old fluff, I LIKED what they were going for. This summer I finally played the starter set at my local GW with a friend. We loved it, it was simple and fun. The warscrolls for each model was so easy to understand with the 4 part pie chart. Everything so intuitive.

But no points? No balance of any kind? After the play test I talked with the store manager and after some prodding he admitting that outside of play testing with the starter set, not a single AoS game played at the store didn't have some form of house rule balance of some kind.

Not a single game.

The lack of an effective balancing mechanism for AOS means that the game has a sincerely difficult time existing outside of a group of friends who arbitrarily agree to self-imposed limits. Getting to those limits and having everyone agree on the game can be quite a trick. Beyond that, however, it seems like AOS is popular in its game simplicity- it's something I know I personally enjoy (in theory).

However, there isn't a good position for AOS to be played in the pick-up environment, so that the entire audience is lost. The same problem occurs with tournaments. These are two (arguably) large groups that AOS can't draw in effectively compared to WHFB.

I think the question then becomes- what is AOS going for? As many have said with balancing 40k, the close group of gamers will play the games regardless of the balance, but it's the rest of the audience that needs to be drawn in by an equitable experience. With AOS, those friends can continue to have a great time, but the other groups don't find a satisfactory place with the game. I don't know if GW is just banking on people interested in a simpler experience outnumbering/out-purchasing the tourney players? I sincerely doubt that- the competitive aspect of Warhammer draws massive amounts of sales, while players interested in a straightforward experience wouldn't necessarily correlate with large investments in the game.

I guess if GW was going for a game that can have a smaller audience along with a smaller investment (in rules, maintaining army ranges, etc), then they might be successful in that respect. However, I think the problems that were ailing WHFB never even got close to being addressed. Had GW simply dealt with the concerns of its audience, the game could have become more popular like in its 6th edition days, and we might still see it in places like the ICV2 (something I doubt we'll *ever* see with AOS).

 Accolade wrote:
I guess if GW was going for a game that can have a smaller audience along with a smaller investment (in rules, maintaining army ranges, etc), then they might be successful in that respect. However, I think the problems that were ailing WHFB never even got close to being addressed. Had GW simply dealt with the concerns of its audience, the game could have become more popular like in its 6th edition days, and we might still see it in places like the ICV2 (something I doubt we'll *ever* see with AOS).

To do this, they actually have to do two things they have continuously scorned:

1) Communication with their customer base;
2) That "otiose" market research.

Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

No balancing and no proper missions. All games seem to end up in a grand melee in the centre of the board.

The worst part about no balancing in AoS is that it literally becomes a contest to see which player has a bigger wallet. The last time I was in my GW I walked into a game where some neck beard WAC dude was fielding 3 bloodthirsters and and several bloodcrushers against some poor kid and his starter set Stormcast Eternals.

blaktoof wrote:
Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.
... ...

I disagree with that point. One of my gripes with AoS is that combat and movement is too similar to 40K. GW should have been a lot more ambitious in writing a new rule system.

That's my opinion as a wargamer and customer.

Whether it was a bad decision in terms of company performance, I don't think we'll know until the end of year financial statement next July.

Killing Fantasy.

If AoS had been released alongside 9th edition Fantasy, it would still be a puddle of vomit, but at least players would have the option of a proper (supported) ruleset to use instead.

And, AoS could be something to use to give new players an idea of the game, without needing to buy the rules.

 Accolade wrote:
The lack of an effective balancing mechanism for AOS means that the game has a sincerely difficult time existing outside of a group of friends who arbitrarily agree to self-imposed limits.

I think the bigger problem is that even self-imposed limits are virtually impossible to balance. I mean, what exactly do you limit yourself to? You can't really do it by models because that gives a huge advantage to elite armies over horde armies (not to mention the possibility of bringing character models). I mean, without points to work with, what exactly do you base your limits on?

There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

And if the group doesn't come to an agreement as to which should be used, what then?

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

Needing to houserule the most important element of a wargame is asinine, to put it mildly.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested. Well, I have half of the rules here, but GW couldn't be bothered actually putting points on them, so first we'll need to look online to find them. Yeah, this is pretty path of the course for GW but... Hey, where are you going?"

 vipoid wrote:
"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested. Well, I have half of the rules here, but GW couldn't be bothered actually putting points on them, so first we'll need to look online to find them. Yeah, this is pretty path of the course for GW but... Hey, where are you going?"

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"



And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

Well, having rules written by a chicken with ADHD doesn't help.

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

Well, having rules written by a chicken with ADHD doesn't help.

It's almost like they completely forgot how to make a moderately acceptable gaming system and went to the extremes - either overcomplicated or oversimplified.

I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

To replace a game that did have a definate structure with one that did not however, was idiotic.
The fact that we have been making lists for years did not help either, heads were bound to explode.

They totally ignored the fact that people are playing pick up games with strangers as well, and these people need some sort of structure, maybe not strict points costs, but somewhere to start at least.

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

So, why not give units point values and then the people who don't care about balance can just ignore them?

It isn't Starting Age of sigmar it was killing off Warhammer fantasy.
Those two should not have been mutual exclusive, fantasy certainly had its nice

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested. Well, I have half of the rules here, but GW couldn't be bothered actually putting points on them, so first we'll need to look online to find them. Yeah, this is pretty path of the course for GW but... Hey, where are you going?"

Meanwhile, over in 40K:

"Hello, potential new player, would you like to try a game of this and see if you're interested? Now you'll need to make a force, and for that you'll need this book. Also these books have other formations. Plus you can choose the type of organisation, and if you're going to use another army as an allied detachment. We've also got formations, and formations that have other formations as well. Or you can buy the ones online. You want that new box? That has another special formation in it that's only available in that box, but you need these two books to have all the rules... Hey, where are you going?"

And all of this, the problems with AoS and 40K, can be summarised as yet another example of GW's high barrier to entry.

This just in..

New player enters GW store and leaves with all literature necessary for a demo game.




More at 11...

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

1. That's nice. Now play a pick up game in a rule set that has no balancing or army construction rules.
2. No one said that a game has to be 'perfectly balanced'.
3. That actually doesn't matter, because a balanced game benefits everyone, whether you care about it or not.

Take BattleTech. That game is not balanced. Somewhere in the 90's (I believe) they introduced the Clans to the game. Clan 'Mechs run faster, with less heat, have longer ranged guns that weigh less, take up less space and do more damage. They were just objectively better at everything and there were literally no downsides to virtually all their technology. And I've never cared about that. I play the game regardless of this issue. However, not everyone plays BTech like me. Some people wanted more balance, so the writers eventually created the "Battle Value" system, a monolithic labyrinth of formulae that I've never bothered to learn that assess a 'Mechs relative value based upon its equipment, weapons, armour, how much heat it generates and so on. The system has gone through two versions now, and a lot of people use it to balance the game. Does that impact the way I play at all? Nope. Does it impact the people who only play historical scenarios/battles? Probably not. But it does allow for anyone to pick up and play the game using a rough BV total (like tournaments do). It doesn't perfectly balance BattleTech - imperfect balance is really the aim here - but it does add some much needed structure to the game.

blaktoof wrote:Many people want to say "AoS" but then give no reason why it is a bad decision.

Reading comprehension fail. Plenty reasons were given.

blaktoof wrote:
AoS was a good decision for GW, it was a bad decision in the eyes of certain gamers.

If by 'certain', you mean a very large proportion of the active, and dormant(they might not currently play, but there are plenty who want to get involved again) wfb players, then yes you are right. But if Aos isn't doing terribly well, then it wasn't a 'good' decision, is it?

blaktoof wrote:
AoS has seen a large influx of new players (large with respect to the previous WFB player base) and has allowed for them to make a game which is divergent in its basic concepts from its scifi counterpart- making it not just a different setting but a different game and playstyle.

Has it though? I don't think the update is as big on the big picture scale as you imagine. And how is it divergent from the basic concepts of its sci fi counter part - it uses the same core Dna in its mechanics along with a 'co operate with your opponent for fair games' ethos. It is very much s stripped back version of the typical gw games.

blaktoof wrote:
I am also certain that anyone saying GW is not aware of their own sales, and them axing WFB was a mistake is completely slowed. GW knew how WFB was doing overall in all regions they sell to. It was doing bad, they axed it. They did not kill it because it was doing good, or even mediocre, they killed it because it was doing bad for many years. They are GW, they like money. They are not keeping something around that is doing bad for half a decade or more.

Of course killing it upset people, but as a company it was not a mistake.

Incorrect. You are barely scratching the surface Blaktoof. Gw saw 'poor sales' and ended analysis at that point, followed by killing it. They treated the symptom with amputation at the neck, rather that's looking at the underlying causes and treating those. That's what people are criticising and angry about. Wfb was failing for a combination of reasons, including poor balance, poor game design and direction (random charges on their own drove so many people away) along with a refusal to address its bloated nature, which drove away the veterans, and killed the player base, whilst simultaneously jacking up prices and halving the contents of the box sets, whilst also increasing the sizes of games, thus making it an extremely unappealing choice to new players just buying in to it, hence why no one bought in. Which is why people are angry. A long litany of previous mistakes, compounded with taking it out the back and killing it with a bullet to the back of the head, rather than addressing the legitimate grievances of the community, and following this, offering Aos as a replacement, and as a replacement, it does a very poor job of replacing what came before it.

Don't get me wrong, Aos has game. But it carers to very specialised tastes. And it isn't the game that a lot of people wanted to play.

It's nowhere near as simple as 'game is selling poorly. Axe it'. If gw did, you know, market research, thry might have understood this.

 vipoid wrote:

I think the bigger problem is that even self-imposed limits are virtually impossible to balance. I mean, what exactly do you limit yourself to? You can't really do it by models because that gives a huge advantage to elite armies over horde armies (not to mention the possibility of bringing character models). I mean, without points to work with, what exactly do you base your limits on?

'Points' don't necessarily balance things Either. There is a difference between 'points', and 'a well designed points system'. And even then, points work as part of the answer, and not the full response. Warmachine is often heralded as a paragon of balance. And it is. It's balance is excellent. But the points system, whilst robust, doesn't work on its own. Bor can it. It is coupled to things like sideboards, steamroller scenarios and multiple list formats, for example. Even then, 'balance' isn't necessarily necessary (for tournaments - yes. For pugs - yes. For a story driven game, or a specific scenario - maybe not), and often, an 'interesting' game/scenario is just as appealing to me as a perfectly balanced Wargame.

But I'll answer your question vipoid because we often play those games. Self imposed limits can work, but again, it's only the start of the discussion, rather than the answer. Generally though, the answer is more based in adapting a different perception to your gaming than anything else. What do we base our limits on? Well, With us, we would firstly Approach a game in a co-operative manner. Also, take a step back from being a 'participant' and seeing the game as a duel between you and your opponent with the sole aim to win and take a step forward as a 'spectator' seeing the gsme like a scene in a movie. Sure, cheer on one side or the other, but don't get over involved in pushing it. This is key. (And yes, I am fully aware of the limitations and requirements- it required like minded individuals, lots of organisation etc. I just don't mind dealing with these things personally. Maybe not all the time mind - I embrace tourneys and pugs as much as the next guy!).
Our approach is to construct a scenario first. What's the hook? What's the story behind the engagement? What makes sense to be involved, given the context of the mission narrative, and the 'bigger picture' limitations that would exist within the game world. A hook I'd be tempted with, for example is 'skirmish between reconnaissance elements of armies'. Sure, you could field your five Knights and a bane blade, but it's not really appropriate, is it? Same with having an all plasma 'power list' that would be so rare in the fluff it should really be a thing. I think it's far more interesting to deal with the Chaff that inhabits the universe, and which would represent a greater proportion of what actually exists, than focusing over-exclusively on units that would be considered the 'pinnacles' and exceptions in their universe ie I think a game between a rag tag pdf army of conscripts agains an infantry focused chaos war and is far more interesting than decurion v scatter bike eldar. Grass league football, not premier league.

I approach it from the point of view that each player involves should be able to be an 'active participant' - if one players role is simply to remove all his models off the board while he can't do anything to you in turn, you've failed spectacularly at creativity, empathy and interesting scenario design. I also would argue that everyone should be allowed to 'run' a game - so I bring my scenario to the table based on what we have, and then it's your turn to cook up something interesting.

Beyond that, I would say it's important to not have 'universal' restrictions and limits. Like, I don't think it's fair, or interesting to straight up ban certain things for all time. I think whatever limits you take should be appropriate and unique to each scenario itself, with the scenario chosen defining the rosters, rather than an over arching set of restrictions 'to rule them all'. And change things up to make things interesting.

I think it's an approach you have to experience, rather than talk about though. For what it's worth it's fun, and if you were based in Scotland I'd give you a game and show you what I mean.