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.

This game is not balanced and never will be. the closest you can get is by
a: create pre made lists for all players that are +- on par.

b: both players powerplay as hard as they can. This has given me the most interesting games and I would say pts cost is derived from ultra competitive play and often does not make any sense when certain combos are not present.

c:?

Just imagine that you have a chess game where you could bring what you wanted. even with an attached pts cost, you would never see a standard start game, and you would have very unbalanced games even if the pts are even. This is basically what warhammer is doing, and then not even giving both sides access to the same stuff or kind of stuff, inventing mind blowing abilities that are next to impossible to put pts on, combinations that should cost more but if not put together should cost less.. etc...

Saying that summoning is broken, I agree, but I also have to say all new armies are getting a lot of broken combos to do something about it (skaven, IDK eel spam, DoK) also seeing the new FEC I would say summoning is getting nerfed next GHB, last summoning rules update were in the last GHB after all and not in the core rules.

In a more balanced system, you have more viable builds thus more viable ways to play, not a single way to play.

I don't personally understand the difference between highly competitive and beer & pretzels. Its still about fielding a force and trying to win with it.

There is a ton of variety if you have a balanced system.

auticus wrote:
In a more balanced system, you have more viable builds thus more viable ways to play, not a single way to play.

I don't personally understand the difference between highly competitive and beer & pretzels. Its still about fielding a force and trying to win with it.

There is a ton of variety if you have a balanced system.

I don't know about "tons" but certainly more than Warhammer's "one build to rule them all" in tournaments and most units being completely outclassed such that you actively reduce your chance of winning just for not picking them.

Not AOS related but slightly balance related GW today put up a community article about how to expand the new 40k Shadowspear box for Matched Play. They suggested taking 3x10 squads of Chaos Space Marines (CSM are in the "barely playable" category right now in 40k). They were lambasted on Facebook for giving such terrible advice and promptly started to delete negative comments (surprise, surprise). This is sort of what is happening, and the opposite is what should: There shouldn't be a situation like this where if you like Chaos Space Marines (feel free to substitute with any nonperforming AOS unit instead) you will automatically be at a disadvantage simply because of liking that unit. And yet, this is way too common in Warhammer as a whole. A small fraction of each book is actually viable and, perhaps worst of all, these glaring inconsistencies and imbalances are often found within hours of a book release, if not before it even releases when leaks inevitably come. That questions just what GW is doing to playtest if people are discovering pretty basic issues immediately yet a team of "professional" designers haven't discovered them during playtesting. Most of the things discovered aren't even hidden gems or require comparing many different things, they are very basic that even an inexperienced player could see.

That's bad balance.

auticus wrote:
In a more balanced system, you have more viable builds thus more viable ways to play, not a single way to play.

I don't personally understand the difference between highly competitive and beer & pretzels. Its still about fielding a force and trying to win with it.

There is a ton of variety if you have a balanced system.

Then I think that's the issue.
GW is a successful company and AoS has done insanely well despite it's poor start - This is pure facts based on sales.

However, alot of that is because it's not just a so gel way of playing.
Fielding a force multiple ways is not the same as a tournament list compared to a casual game list.


I'm happy to take the most broken crap I can to a tournament because that's the setting there.
You expect stupid lists that abuse the system as heavily as possible.

If I go into my local GW for a pickup game though, I'm not going to run a list anywhere near similar.
I'll be running something more based around fluff and looks than sheer effectiveness.


Now, this is in no way an insult towards you, but not being able to see the difference kind of makes this discussion pointless.
For alot of people, the draw to it is that they can either have fun casual games or hard hitting tournaments.
This way it appeals to far more of the players than a single strict way of playing.

As I said, this is in no way an insult to you, I'm just trying to explain it the best I can.
From your statement about playing to win, I'd say that's more of the tournament style than the typical beer and pretzels type of play.

I've played in casual campaigns most of my life. Despite the players there not being tournament players, no one is playing to lose. Thats why I don't understand the difference.

The biggest fundamental difference I note is that casual for fun recognizes that there are X number of ways to build a list, but tournament player only uses X(.1) or 10% of the game and casual for fun player wants a larger diversity of builds to keep their attention, not see the same .1 of the game every day untiil burn out happens and they find something else to do.

The most fundamental flaw in designing a game where you expect people to tone down is there is nothing making someone tone down. Nothing stops someone from making a jacked up list, so long as it is in the rules that lets them do it.

And when I say "please tone down", what does that mean?

You can ask 20 people that question and get 20 different answers.

Breaking your statement down further "for a lot of people the draw is that they can either have fun casual games or hard hitting tournaments"

This denotes you have List A and List B. List A iis hard hitting tournament. List B iis fun casual game.

Now if the game were actually balanced, you could field List A or List B in either hard hiitting tournament OR fun casual game. You are literally losing nothing here. You would still be able to field either List A or List B, iin both environments, as opposed to needing to filter it out iin one or the other.

With the added benefit that you no longer have to negotiate what "toning down" means or have to deal with 20 interpretations of "toning down" on game night. Everyone can just buiild a list and play.

You can still play the same in tournaments OR in casual for fun games. Nothing is lost. Other than it would be impossible to go teabag the casuals and let them nom nom on the sweaty stank of the powerlist's taint any longer (and people would be losiing games on the merit that they are inferior players as opposed to them liking the inferior models)

Why would it be superior and a draw to a game to have environments where you should have to take certain types of lists as opposed to more viable lists on even ground? Why is it superior and a draw to say that thiis game requires you to bring a power list to tournament and thiis game requires you to play a nebulous "toned down" liist somewhere else? I don't see how that is a draw. What I see that doing is attracting tournament players and powergamers and running off casual players or campaign players to other games (this is where someone steps in and says they are a casual gamer and they love it, which iis fine, but I don't think that that is a majority) because running a power list is an easy standard, whereas "toned down" is a nebulous subjective term that can mean taking a list that does 1% less mortal wounds to someone so thats "toned down" (when in reality its still just as filthy)

It's not about the difference between it, it's that a game as unbalanced Warhammer the list you bring to your local GW for a pickup game might be head and shoulders better than anything your opponent can field, simply because you happened to choose an army that has/had a good release.

Case in point, my primary army is Flesh-Eater Courts. I started them right around when the first General's Handbook came out, and (IMHO) they were very poor at the time so much that my army was considered a joke and the sort of army you played against for an "easy win"

Now though, FEC got a major boost. If I were to bring even a casual list to the GW, I could end up curbstomping someone because my army is now considered very powerful, if not "OP" through no fault of my own.

That's the danger of an unbalanced system like Warhammer. What's casual today might be OP tomorrow, regardless of if you're playing a tournament list or a casual one, and you could be ruining someone's fun because you like Unit X and it just so happens the latest release made Unit X very good.

auticus wrote:
I've played in casual campaigns most of my life. Despite the players there not being tournament players, no one is playing to lose. Thats why I don't understand the difference.

The biggest fundamental difference I note is that casual for fun recognizes that there are X number of ways to build a list, but tournament player only uses X(.1) or 10% of the game and casual for fun player wants a larger diversity of builds to keep their attention, not see the same .1 of the game every day untiil burn out happens and they find something else to do.

The most fundamental flaw in designing a game where you expect people to tone down is there is nothing making someone tone down. Nothing stops someone from making a jacked up list, so long as it is in the rules that lets them do it.

And when I say "please tone down", what does that mean?

You can ask 20 people that question and get 20 different answers.

Breaking your statement down further "for a lot of people the draw is that they can either have fun casual games or hard hitting tournaments"

This denotes you have List A and List B. List A iis hard hitting tournament. List B iis fun casual game.

Now if the game were actually balanced, you could field List A or List B in either hard hiitting tournament OR fun casual game. You are literally losing nothing here. You would still be able to field either List A or List B, iin both environments, as opposed to needing to filter it out iin one or the other.

With the added benefit that you no longer have to negotiate what "toning down" means or have to deal with 20 interpretations of "toning down" on game night. Everyone can just buiild a list and play.

You can still play the same in tournaments OR in casual for fun games. Nothing is lost. Other than it would be impossible to go teabag the casuals and let them nom nom on the sweaty stank of the powerlist's taint any longer (and people would be losiing games on the merit that they are inferior players as opposed to them liking the inferior models)

Why would it be superior and a draw to a game to have environments where you should have to take certain types of lists as opposed to more viable lists on even ground? Why is it superior and a draw to say that thiis game requires you to bring a power list to tournament and thiis game requires you to play a nebulous "toned down" liist somewhere else? I don't see how that is a draw. What I see that doing is attracting tournament players and powergamers and running off casual players or campaign players to other games (this is where someone steps in and says they are a casual gamer and they love it, which iis fine, but I don't think that that is a majority) because running a power list is an easy standard, whereas "toned down" is a nebulous subjective term that can mean taking a list that does 1% less mortal wounds to someone so thats "toned down" (when in reality its still just as filthy)

Wait, so this game isn't for casual players?
You realise that the majority of people that buy GWs products are causal, right?
Some don't even play atall.
If you removed the casual players GWs yearly profits suddenly wouldn't look so great.

Alot of players play this game for the setting and the background of armies aswell.
People don't literally just think "I must always win"
And no, people don't only play the game to win.
People play the game to have fun and enjoy themselves.
While to some, winning is the fun part, that doesn't apply to everyone.

I've picked bottom of the barrel armies before to take to tournaments.
Did I expect to win it? Hardly.
I did it because I found alot of fun in using an army that no one else there had taken and it was different.



Essentially, your saying it should only be a tournament style game and nothing else.
I think if that's how GW went with it, alot of people would just stop playing.
Not everyone wants dead serious games all the time where they strive to win, no matter what.

I've known quite a few clubs to have AoS nights where you simply go along for some fun games, grab a pizza and have a few drinks.
While I love the tournament setting and atmosphere, nights like that really are good fun.

I'm still not understanding how if the game is a lot better balanced and there are more viable armies that suddenly going to club night to have pizza and drinks and having fun games is suddenly not possible.

Nor do I understand how if the game has a lot better balance that that is the same as being dead serious all the time. I don't understand how needing the game to be this lopsided promotes fun and pizza and drinks and being less serious or how you cannot do any of those things if the game was more balanced.

The last tournament I played in was in 2007. I am the last person on earth that wants the game to be nothing but a tournament game.

auticus wrote:
I'm still not understanding how if the game is a lot better balanced and there are more viable armies that suddenly going to club night to have pizza and drinks and having fun games is suddenly not possible.

Nor do I understand how if the game has a lot better balance that that is the same as being dead serious all the time. I don't understand how needing the game to be this lopsided promotes fun and pizza and drinks and being less serious or how you cannot do any of those things if the game was more balanced.

Because the second you make everything 100% serious it does kill the fun for some people.
As you said in the previous post, you play just to win.
That's not everyone else's mindset.
You said yourself you had was it 350 complaints because it was too balanced? I'd wager alot of those were casual players.

Tournament players love it and hell, the second I saw your comp I managed to push it into my groups tournaments with ease as it was perfect for that.
I'm not saying that armies should be poorly balanced, I'm saying that it shouldn't have to be deadly serious made to win armies the whole time

auticus wrote:

Mostly my take too. I don't think the design team is part of that though. I think their part is either naively believing that players will be nice and want their opponent to have fun (to be fair, the most balanced games of either Warhammer I ever played were no points AoS) or part GW's business practice.

The GW design team for AOS are all tournament players that play in many tournaments a year, to include the big daddy ones in the UK. They know all about tournament player behavior because they themselves are tournament players and they know the iintent of tournaements is to break the game.

In fact a couple years ago it was postulated heavily that because the design team were all tournament players that this would usher in an era of balance never seen before and that the community efforts to comp were not needed. This was a massive talking point on twitter, on the tga forums before i got banned from them (as i participated heavily iin that conversation) and to an extent on dakka in these forums.

I stand corrected. Thats even worse than I thought.

And to an extent they were right. The tournament scene sees a fairly diverse list of armies in the top 10. Which I have found is what they mean when they say balanced. When they and the community that love AOS and 40k say balanced what they are looking for is not game-wide balance, they are looking for tournament balance where the top 10 are diverse enough and not the same 2-3 armies. Its generally accepted by they and the community that you need to cycle your army out to whats strong to play the game. When we talk about all factions being balanced and having an equal viable foothold, that is waived off as naive, not possible, or not a priority...

Yet other games manage.

Future War Cultist wrote:Summoning is most definitely a major issue with the game.

If it was up to me, summonable units would be treated a bit like endless spells...you have to pay for them, and they can either be deployed as normal or be called in by successfully casting them, which also means that they can be dispelled. And they can also be ‘banished’...as in an enemy unit that can attempt dispells can roll against their casting value in place of casting a spell, and if they beat it, the unit takes mortal wounds. But if the unit is destroyed then you can always attempt to bring it back by casting them.

I suggest this because as powerful as endless spells are, they have never seemed op to me. And the fact that they are fully paid for might have something to do with it.

The only times I've seen summoning be remotely balanced (kinda) is in games with action economy, like Malifaux. So summoning comes with an opportunity cost.

auticus wrote:For my money, there shouldn't be a "tone down" at all. The rules should indicate what a valid list is and you should operate within those confines.

Thats how I play kings of war, battletech, warlords, and any other game I've ever played and its largely been ok.

That's the thing. The casual vs competitive problem is only a problem if a game isn't balanced. I can bring the same list KoW list to a tournament or a casual game and not crush or be crushed because one of us misjudged what the other guys army is capable of (or someone decides to be an donkey-cave).
One of the worst games of Warhammer that I ever had I steamrolled a guy because his army simply couldn't deal with mine, I wasn't even trying.

Jackal90 wrote:

auticus wrote:
In a more balanced system, you have more viable builds thus more viable ways to play, not a single way to play.

I don't personally understand the difference between highly competitive and beer & pretzels. Its still about fielding a force and trying to win with it.

There is a ton of variety if you have a balanced system.

Then I think that's the issue.
GW is a successful company and AoS has done insanely well despite it's poor start - This is pure facts based on sales.

However, alot of that is because it's not just a so gel way of playing.
Fielding a force multiple ways is not the same as a tournament list compared to a casual game list.

I'm happy to take the most broken crap I can to a tournament because that's the setting there.
You expect stupid lists that abuse the system as heavily as possible.

If I go into my local GW for a pickup game though, I'm not going to run a list anywhere near similar.
I'll be running something more based around fluff and looks than sheer effectiveness.

Now, this is in no way an insult towards you, but not being able to see the difference kind of makes this discussion pointless.
For alot of people, the draw to it is that they can either have fun casual games or hard hitting tournaments.
This way it appeals to far more of the players than a single strict way of playing.

As I said, this is in no way an insult to you, I'm just trying to explain it the best I can.
From your statement about playing to win, I'd say that's more of the tournament style than the typical beer and pretzels type of play.

You've entirely missed the point. How weak is a "fun casual list" exactly? Chances are someone is losing that game because their fluffy stuff is weaker or one player didn't tone it down as much as the other.
If your game is balanced though, you both bring an army and you know they're quite close to equal in power because they are the same number of points (shocking, right!? Who would have imagined?), then you can both take it seriously and try to test your skills or have a beer and a laugh and not think too hard.
People try to win even casual games, even if it's secondary. If you want to insist that you sometimes don't, then please explain what the feth you do? Grow turnips? Pretend your models are having a conversation? Trying to get objectives or destroy the other army is trying to win, even if you're not too fussed.

Jackal90 wrote:
Wait, so this game isn't for casual players?
You realise that the majority of people that buy GWs products are causal, right?
Some don't even play atall.

Those wouldn't be players, now would they?

If you removed the casual players GWs yearly profits suddenly wouldn't look so great.

Citation needed.

Alot of players play this game for the setting and the background of armies aswell.
People don't literally just think "I must always win"
And no, people don't only play the game to win.
People play the game to have fun and enjoy themselves.
While to some, winning is the fun part, that doesn't apply to everyone.

See above. It's not much of a game if no one goes for the scenario.

I've picked bottom of the barrel armies before to take to tournaments.
Did I expect to win it? Hardly.
I did it because I found alot of fun in using an army that no one else there had taken and it was different.

Essentially, your saying it should only be a tournament style game and nothing else.
I think if that's how GW went with it, alot of people would just stop playing.
Not everyone wants dead serious games all the time where they strive to win, no matter what.

I've known quite a few clubs to have AoS nights where you simply go along for some fun games, grab a pizza and have a few drinks.
While I love the tournament setting and atmosphere, nights like that really are good fun.

That's not what he's saying. Casual gaming is just as possible and more fun when some of the armies don't happen to be more powerful for no good reason.
Also helps if that guy can't abuse the game easily.

Final note. A lot is two words. Do you say alittle, abit, aspacemarine, apoint or aporkchop? (yep, credit to The Oatmeal)
"Your" means that you are about to mention a thing that belongs to the person you are talking to. If you are too lazy to type out or say "you are" then your're going to use a ' to show that you left stuff out.

Edit: Warhammer threads bring out the worst in me, I will stop now.

Fair points but who plays a game to LOSE?

Aren't we all playing to win in some way, even if it's not serious business tournament play? Do people really go to play a game and not care if they get their teeth kicked in game after game after game?

As you said in the previous post, you play just to win.

I have never said I play just to win. I said I don't play to lose.

Additionally I don't see how having a ruleset that is balanced has anything to do with serious or not serious. I can have just as much a siilly time with a balanced ruleset as I can with a lopsided GW ruleset. I have casual games with Kings of War and wiith Middle Earth. Those have much tighter rulesets.

I don't think if GW had a more balanced ruleset where there were more viable options that people would be like "woah. hold on guys... this is a little too serious for my liking".

What it would accomplish however is to narrow the gap between "competitive players and casual players". Because competitive player is just another word for player that min/maxes and casual player is just another word for player that does not min/max.

I'll start by answering your last point.
I'm currently at work and using my phone to post, which also has a cracked screen.
While I do check through it, auto-correct likes to change it as I go.
So it's not so much lazy as it is having a beaten to death phone and a small screen.




In regards to citation needed, why? It's common sense.
If casual players stopped then GW would lose profit.
That's not something that needs any proof as it's quite simply common sense.
Now, if I said they would lose X% amount each year, then I would need to show how I worked that out.


In regards to playing to win, no, I play to socialise with people and have fun, winning isn't always the primary reason for playing.


I'm guessing by your further comments there that you maybe don't get out much around other humans, I'd work on those social skills a bit, it will go a long way.
If warhammer threads bring out the worst in you then it's an issue with you and no one else.
The fact you know that then wander through them by choice is down to you.


Before I offend you further by not quoting and answering in blocked sections as you have, I'm using a phone.
Breaking it into sections will have me here all night.

Wayniac wrote:
Fair points but who plays a game to LOSE?

Aren't we all playing to win in some way, even if it's not serious business tournament play? Do people really go to play a game and not care if they get their teeth kicked in game after game after game?

As someone who gets their teeth kicked in regularly (I can count the number of games of aos I’ve won on one hand...literally) in both tournaments and casual play I can tell you, it gets really grating after a while. It really does sap your enjoyment for the game because you spend more time setting up and watching your opponent rolling dice than you do actually playing.

Everyone else has an ‘easy’ mode that literally just deletes units on the trot. By circumstance, I never have these options, and what’s more, they insist upon bringing these options out for every single game. “Causal game you say? No matter, I’m summoning Riperdactyls within 3” of you anyway, to destroy whatever my twin star engines leave behind.”

Even if they didn’t, they could argue that by not bringing that option, anything I do will be a hollow victory because they ‘threw’ the game. And this is the kicker. I shouldn’t have to shelf my armies and start over with a faction I don’t care about just to stand a chance of actually winning for once. Even in bloody “casual’ games.

And therein lies the madness of GW's rulesets (LotR a notable exception) A balanced game benefits all levels of play.

This artificial Casual vs Competitive nonsense is just a construct to excuse terrible rules (Some of the nastiest balance travesties have been the most lore accurate forces many times).

A side effect of the almost insurmountable lead GW has from being the biggest show in town from the beginning. As the most played game we forgive/excuse the quality as it's the easiest to find opponents for wherever you go.

auticus wrote:

As you said in the previous post, you play just to win.

I have never said I play just to win. I said I don't play to lose.

Additionally I don't see how having a ruleset that is balanced has anything to do with serious or not serious. I can have just as much a siilly time with a balanced ruleset as I can with a lopsided GW ruleset. I have casual games with Kings of War and wiith Middle Earth. Those have much tighter rulesets.

I don't think if GW had a more balanced ruleset where there were more viable options that people would be like "woah. hold on guys... this is a little too serious for my liking".

What it would accomplish however is to narrow the gap between "competitive players and casual players". Because competitive player is just another word for player that min/maxes and casual player is just another word for player that does not min/max.

^This

Jackal90 wrote:
I'm guessing by your further comments there that you maybe don't get out much around other humans, I'd work on those social skills a bit, it will go a long way.

That's just gakky of you.
I said I would stop and I'm basically just agreeing with auticus.

The compromise between free summoning and reserve points is players dedicating X points of their list as reserve, which allows one to summon in 2X points during the game. That is still strong and IMO could be implimented right now with no other changes and would improve balance dramatically without over-nerfing anyone.

As for MW spam, I feel the best way would be to simply stop giving them out so easily. IMO, way too many things do d3 mortal wounds when it should just be 1, and way too many things do d6 when it should be d3. And nothing should be dealing flat increments of 6 MWs unless it is from a demigod-level character like Skarbrand, Morathi, Nagash, etc. Why do spells always need to deal MWs? Why to so many '6 to hit' mechanics need to deal MWs? Make a 6 to hit wound automatically. Make a spell inflict X wounds at rend -3, Y damage. There is so much room for 'in between' mechanics that is not used at all and the game would be better if it were.

The easy house rule solution would be to, say, make all MWs in excess of 1% the points value (so 20 for 2000 points) become regular wounds at rend X, 1 damage. The problem I have with auticus' method is that a player with reasonable MW output could just happen to roll well in a given turn, do 21 mortal wounds, and get unjustifiably screwed when his army was not overpowered in the first place.

 DarkBlack wrote:

auticus wrote:

As you said in the previous post, you play just to win.

I have never said I play just to win. I said I don't play to lose.

Additionally I don't see how having a ruleset that is balanced has anything to do with serious or not serious. I can have just as much a siilly time with a balanced ruleset as I can with a lopsided GW ruleset. I have casual games with Kings of War and wiith Middle Earth. Those have much tighter rulesets.

I don't think if GW had a more balanced ruleset where there were more viable options that people would be like "woah. hold on guys... this is a little too serious for my liking".

What it would accomplish however is to narrow the gap between "competitive players and casual players". Because competitive player is just another word for player that min/maxes and casual player is just another word for player that does not min/max.

^This

Jackal90 wrote:
I'm guessing by your further comments there that you maybe don't get out much around other humans, I'd work on those social skills a bit, it will go a long way.

That's just gakky of you.
I said I would stop and I'm basically just agreeing with auticus.

His very 1st post at the top of the page states you play to win.

I never denied there were balance issues.
The new FeC push these issues even further, I really feel sorry for any player running an army like overlords against them.

It wouldn't however narrow the gap as such, it would remove it altogether if everything was purely set to a complete balance (or atleast best possible)



So you drop constant gakky comments towards me in your post then say it was gakky of me?
My apologies if any feelings were hurt in the process of reading that then, good sir.

If it was wrong of him to be gakky, it was wrong of you to be gakky.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If it was wrong of him to be gakky, it was wrong of you to be gakky.

I simply treat others how they treat me.
While it was wrong (and 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that) I'm still going to dig back.
Its all in jest anyway.

The problem I have with auticus' method is that a player with reasonable MW output could just happen to roll well in a given turn, do 21 mortal wounds, and get unjustifiably screwed when his army was not overpowered in the first place.

We are implementing a new piece for that actually where after the 20th MW you can choose to make the remainder just be regular wounds that get regular saves.

To my great surprise, it took a full page and a half before this thread degenerated into name calling and insults directed at people for playing the game for other reasons than you do.

So do most people only have one list they play at all times regardless of what kind of game their playing? auticus mentioned a List A for match play and List B for casual. I have about 2500 points of Khorne Bloodbound and at least that much in Slaves to Darkness to run with them at this point along with few Khorne Daemons for good measure. I do that because I like the models, and it's nice to be able to tailor my list to my opponent. If someone brings in a tournament-caliber list, the Bloodthirsters come out. If they're bringing in their old Dwarf army they've had since 5th edition, I'll use mostly Chaos Warriors of Khorne with a Bloodsecrator and Mighty Lord. Toning down a list doesn't mean you're "playing to lose", it means you're bringing a list that your opponent has a chance against.

I often wonder if true balance can be achieved with the current mechanics of the game. The whole IGYG system the game currently uses as opposed to alternating unit actions. For the record, I think IGYG is out of date, but it’s currently entrenched and changing it is a whole new area of discussion.

Also, mortal wounds are thrown out way too often. Way way way too often. But also mortal wound cancelling effects also seem too common. It’s a pain in the ass watching all your hard earned damaged blocked by saves upon saves upon saves.

Question; what gives DoK their extra saves (name and fluff reason), and does anyone else agree that they need big point hikes to offset their op abilities? It really really really bugs the hole off of me when the DoK outnumber me 2 to 1 despite the fact that they’re also roughly 2 to 3 times as powerful as my units on an individual basis. In effect, it feels like you’re playing an army that’s literally triple your points. And it’s...it’s gak.

Now again, I don’t believe in nerfs. Just fair points cost. You know 10 wytch elves are cheaper than 10 arkanauts, despite being superior in damn near every single way. That’s bs.

Jackal90 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If it was wrong of him to be gakky, it was wrong of you to be gakky.

I simply treat others how they treat me.
While it was wrong (and 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that) I'm still going to dig back.
Its all in jest anyway.

Ah, you have me there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I often wonder if true balance can be achieved with the current mechanics of the game. The whole IGYG system the game currently uses as opposed to alternating unit actions. For the record, I think IGYG is out of date, but it’s currently entrenched and changing it is a whole new area of discussion.

Alternate unit activation would change how the game functions on a fundamental level though, it would not be 'AoS but with X change' it would be a completely different game entirely. For me personally it is also incredibly non-immersive. I can get behind the idea of one army surging forward and doing a bunch of stuff while the other is on the backfoot, then retaliates. But one unit running up and doing stuff while everyone waits?

Alternate by phase on the other hand works extremely well with the changes needed being much smaller. There needs to be two combat phases (since you fight twice per round) and abilities that expire on the end of turn/are used once per turn need to be tweaked (we do it by calling the second combat phase a separate 'turn' for purposes of ability use). A number of movement tactics not otherwise in place open up and that changes the game, and some per-battleshock-phase abilities are trickly to re-balance. But it still plays like AoS and still feels like AoS.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If it was wrong of him to be gakky, it was wrong of you to be gakky.

I simply treat others how they treat me.
While it was wrong (and 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that) I'm still going to dig back.
Its all in jest anyway.

Ah, you have me there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I often wonder if true balance can be achieved with the current mechanics of the game. The whole IGYG system the game currently uses as opposed to alternating unit actions. For the record, I think IGYG is out of date, but it’s currently entrenched and changing it is a whole new area of discussion.

Alternate unit activation would change how the game functions on a fundamental level though, it would not be 'AoS but with X change' it would be a completely different game entirely. For me personally it is also incredibly non-immersive. I can get behind the idea of one army surging forward and doing a bunch of stuff while the other is on the backfoot, then retaliates. But one unit running up and doing stuff while everyone waits?

Alternate by phase on the other hand works extremely well with the changes needed being much smaller. There needs to be two combat phases (since you fight twice per round) and abilities that expire on the end of turn/are used once per turn need to be tweaked (we do it by calling the second combat phase a separate 'turn' for purposes of ability use). A number of movement tactics not otherwise in place open up and that changes the game, and some per-battleshock-phase abilities are trickly to re-balance. But it still plays like AoS and still feels like AoS.

Getting jabbed at in an online forum really is nothing to worry about, my skin is far to thick to be irritated by it.



The alternating activation worked well for epic I feel.
However, that was very different and revolved mainly around shooting.
I also think there are far too many mechanics in play to let it run smoothly.
The average game would drag on alot longer.

Epic is still a solid game though, but the rules for it were simple and to the point.

We use alt activation. By overwhelming vote wanting that because the hate for double turn is strong where I am.

A agree the Ninth on alternating activations. I think it changes too much about the game to just be thrown in on top of existing rules. I also fully agree on the immersion factor. It feels very "game-y" to me. Alternating phases has been pretty successful around here.

auticus wrote:
We use alt activation. By overwhelming vote wanting that because the hate for double turn is strong where I am.

What kind of alternating activation? In regards to double turn it is as simple as putting objective control to the end of the round then alternating turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
A agree the Ninth on alternating activations. I think it changes too much about the game to just be thrown in on top of existing rules. I also fully agree on the immersion factor. It feels very "game-y" to me. Alternating phases has been pretty successful around here.

Something my mind drifts to first when considering alternate unit activation is my Nurgle army. The very core of the strategy is a consistent line of units next to each other, advancing together such that no one part can be engaged separately. Alternate by unit I cannot do that. I go with one unit first and that unit can get jumped and engaged before my other units move up. If I run with one unit and get a good roll, I do not know how far to move up because the other units may not roll as high. It takes my entire turn to get what is supposed to be a steadily advancing line of troops up to where I want them, piecemeal, with my enemy getting a chance to disrupt that after every move.

That is strictly tactical stuff, without getting into abilities like, say, a Beastlord. He has a command ability that can be triggered when he kills a enemy model, granting an AoE buff around him. The use is that he charges alongside some other units, goes first and kills something, then triggers the ability. But in alternate unit activation this means he must charge in, by himself, then trigger the ability to buff units that may or may not be in range and/or in combat, assuming he does not get immediately ganked and slain for being a 5-wound character that just charged in by himself.

There is also listbuilding. 3 units of 3 jezzails is suddenly much worse than 1 unit of 9 jezzails, because that unit gets to activate all at once and thus six of them will be shooting earlier in the phase than they would otherwise. Death star shooting units in general become incredibly strong because of that.

I think alternating activation works better for AoS than 40k as AoS tends to have fewer but larger blobs due to its Warhammer Fantasy roots, or rather, a MSU squad that costs 45-50 points isn't as common in AoS.

Regarding general balance I do think that if people wanted balance the game would have to be toned down as currently we have such a level of lethality(40k suffers from this even moreso) that if you happen on a bad turn you could have lost half your army to one of those epic turns where your opponent gets nothing but 6.

Interestingly enough I have been playing Batman miniature game of late and I have found the system to be an interesting alternative. Although I don't foresee AoS work in a skirmish-like manner like Batman there is a different level of lethality and scoring tends to be different. I am especially fan of how differing scores can result in a tie as long as the score between player A and player B isn't too different. So if I were to score 29 points whereas my opponent scores 33 points it would result in a tie. This tends to force people to play harder for objectives instead of going for the kill as you need a proper lead on the score to actually win a match.

I once got tabled but won on objectives, pretty fun and I'm very glad that is a thing in AoS. Like... If there's an objective, that's the objective. I shouldn't be able to win by doing something else.