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.

 catbarf wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

But if you have a 4+ save with a re-roll, and get in cover, then that gives you 3+ with a re-roll, right? Which is statistically better than a straight 2+, by a significant margin (50%).

GW's designers having a poor grasp of probability is nothing new, though.

The shields only let you re-roll 1s, irrespective of your current save.

Furthermore, it all depends how effective you want Rend to be. Rend (essentially fantasy AP) has different effects on a 2+ than it does on a 3+ with a reroll, especially considering you cannot reroll saves that failed due to Rend (since it's a modifier and you do rerolls before modifiers).

nataliereed1984 wrote:

This can be proved objectively

*looks at camera*

Here we go agaaaaain!!!

*canned laughter*

*roll credits*

Indeed. I stopped reading at this phrase, proved the rest would be nonsense.

Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

No, narrative is what causes that. Balance is what keeps them both from getting +1 save.

(I know, game rules based in the narrative, try not to have a heart attack).

And there are things that are too granular for the narrative to give them separate rules. All the Sequitors in my unit move 5" because that makes the game easier to play than saying "well, narratively these aren't robots, if we lined them all up and had a race some of them would be faster than others, so maybe they need different Move stats..."

To go to the opposite extreme let's take a look at Bolt Action for a moment. All the things that go on the 40k statline are still things Bolt Action needs to track; everyone has a move rate, WS, BS, S, T, W, A, and Ld. But all armies' infantry are defined as being either Veteran, Regular, or Inexperienced units because they don't differ from each other far enough to need to write out the full statline for everything. It's not very narratively characterful, but it makes the game incredibly easy to play because you don't need to memorize any statlines, once you've learned the numbers assigned to one unit you know the numbers assigned to all units.

So let's imagine that things can be standardized/easy to play at the expense of being unique and characterful, or they can be unique and characterful at the expense of being easy to play. Is it so hard to follow on from that and realize that I might disagree with GW about when something becomes a silly trade-off? Do we have different rules for Chaos Warriors with horns on their helmets and Chaos Warriors without horns on their helmets? Why not? Narratively they're different things, is that the only justification you need to add rules to your game? When does a game have too many rules?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The differences between shields have nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with function.

For example, Chaos Runeshields give you a 5+ save against Mortal Wounds, since they're designed and enchanted specifically to ward against magic and otherworldly energies/etc. Empire shields, meanwhile, add +1 to your save, which does nothing against mortal wounds but makes you more durable against things like arrows and swords (i.e. they're sturdy and maneuverable but not enchanted)

I get why the rune shield would offer some protection against magic, but I don't get why it wouldn't do that in addition of offering physical protection as well. And why do some shields add to the armour save and others offer rerolls?

Game balance. +1 save to a 4+ save model means it is a 2+ save model in cover. AOS makes a point of reserving 2+ saves for only a very very very very very few models; it's comparatively rare. Most of what pre-exists with a 3+ cannot get cover (e.g. Steam Tanks, which have more than 8 wounds). 2+ saves are typically kept for relics or special units fulfilling special objectives.

CSM (who get Chaos Runeshields) have a 4+. Stormcast, who are an example of an army with shield rerolls, have a 4+. Storm Vermin, who have shields with rerolls, have a 4+.

Empire State Troops (freeguild guard now), who get +1 save, have a 5+ base.

So game balance requires one 2W/4+ unit's shields to give reroll 1s and another's to give a 5+ save against mortal wounds?

No, narrative is what causes that. Balance is what keeps them both from getting +1 save.

(I know, game rules based in the narrative, try not to have a heart attack).

And there are things that are too granular for the narrative to give them separate rules. All the Sequitors in my unit move 5" because that makes the game easier to play than saying "well, narratively these aren't robots, if we lined them all up and had a race some of them would be faster than others, so maybe they need different Move stats..."

To go to the opposite extreme let's take a look at Bolt Action for a moment. All the things that go on the 40k statline are still things Bolt Action needs to track; everyone has a move rate, WS, BS, S, T, W, A, and Ld. But all armies' infantry are defined as being either Veteran, Regular, or Inexperienced units because they don't differ from each other far enough to need to write out the full statline for everything. It's not very narratively characterful, but it makes the game incredibly easy to play because you don't need to memorize any statlines, once you've learned the numbers assigned to one unit you know the numbers assigned to all units.

So let's imagine that things can be standardized/easy to play at the expense of being unique and characterful, or they can be unique and characterful at the expense of being easy to play. Is it so hard to follow on from that and realize that I might disagree with GW about when something becomes a silly trade-off? Do we have different rules for Chaos Warriors with horns on their helmets and Chaos Warriors without horns on their helmets? Why not? Narratively they're different things, is that the only justification you need to add rules to your game? When does a game have too many rules?

*shrug* That's not my place to judge. I don't find it too complicated, but if your assertion is that AOS is too complicated/too hard to play, then I can't disagree, as that's subjective. Me? I find it far easier to play than 40k.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

Thread in a nutshell.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
AoS is one of the worst games ever made. It should be seen as an example of how not to write rules.

So you haven't played at all in 2.0, you shouldn't be talking then. It is clearly a good system and is a popular one. Some of the tournaments events are 300 players.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

Thread in a nutshell.

While some might fee this way, 1 is clearly worst than the other from different peoples perspectives.

For me and my group, we like AOS better, even tho we all were die hard 40k players for many years, one game needs to be pretty bad for a dedicated group that did like 8th at the start (and was tired of 7th) to look for a new game, and when AoS 2.0 came out we tried it (we didn't like 1.0 at all) and we all jump ship to AoS. I'm talking about 20+ players.

8th has some very bad parts to it that AOS doesn't have, AoS while has some imbalances, its nothing like what 8th has.

I wonder if AoS is still having to deal with the place it started from on release. It still feels bogged down in a lot of that in how its going now, even if its better i still am constantly disappointed with it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
one game needs to be pretty bad for a dedicated group that did like 8th at the start (and was tired of 7th) to look for a new game

Not really, burnout is extremely common in all games after enough time. Easily happens to a gaming group when they all play the same game.

AoS is doing so badly that tournaments are actually filling up now and the system as a whole is turning a huge profit, 2 things that WHFB couldn’t consistently do.

I’ve seen far more players jump into AoS than WHFB due to a lower buy in cost and slightly simplified rules.


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

The AoS rules are NOT better written. Lol what a silly statement.

AoS has less balance and more abuse than current 40k, significantly so.

 Ishagu wrote:
The AoS rules are NOT better written. Lol what a silly statement.

AoS has less balance and more abuse than current 40k, significantly so.

I think it's more a matter of perspective to be honest. My group seems to be drifting away from 40k and more to Sigmar since the Marine supplements for balance reasons.

But honestly I think burnout is as much of an issue as which is the better game. Both have big flaws.

And in my group AoS has been utterly and completely abandoned in favour of 40k.

The AoS rules are all "flavour of the week" to a much greater extent than 40k. Some are written so badly they literally don't function, like in the recent case of some terrain rules that had to be completely changed shortly after release.

This entire topic is built on a factually incorrect premise.

Searching for superior writing in a GW system? Look at lotr. The game is running with the same basic core rules since18 years, updates are merely refinements, every unit is viable, the game is highly interactive and has more tactical depth than 40K ever had.

LOTR is a pretty good game, yes!

 Ishagu wrote:
LOTR is a pretty good game, yes!

LoTR is good game for man-things, yes yes! They'll be distracted by it, and we clamour up from beneath, yes yes!

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

 Ishagu wrote:
The AoS rules are NOT better written. Lol what a silly statement.

AoS has less balance and more abuse than current 40k, significantly so.

Of course, because previously in the fantasy environment 2+ rerollable saves, banner of the world dragon and telcos combo, huge steadfast blocks etc didn’t exist.
Wait.........
As someone who played fantasy heavily, the original AoS was a complete disaster that I ignored.
Now though it’s come back around quite nicely.
Yes there is imbalance, but nothing as bad as fantasy used to have.

So, balance in 40k..........
How many threads were there on iron hands alone talking about how broken it was?
Salamanders? They had the same.
Tau also caught a lot of hate for their power level.
At one stage a few weeks back the front page of Dakka was a majority of 40k complaint threads.
But this is balance?

The most balanced GW game to me is LoTR, but after that I’d easily say AoS above 40k.
Neither of the 2 are balanced to a top level, but 40k is far more abused in terms of how easily some armies can just break the game and cause everyone to hate them.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah no. AOS and 40k rules are both pretty bad. Just different kinds of bad.

there you go introducing nuance into the thread, you know how that upsets the indoctrinated

AoS is categorically not above 40k in ruled balance. I am baffled about anyond making such a statement. Looking at AoS over the last 3 years it's pretty comical that anyone would think that.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

Except AoS hasn’t had that many versions.
And even in WHFB shields were not the same at all.
There were 2 types of basic shields to begin with, then a lot of factions had addition rules or shield options that changed their function.
In AoS this is more for balance than anything as it prevents units gaining a 2+ save on an endless level.
I honesty don’t want to see an entire army rocking a 2+ save any more, but it seems that others do?
Imagine the basic troops for bonereapers.
It’s a heavy shield, so down to a 2+ save with petrifex, now give them mystic shield and boom, 2+ save with rerolls of 1 that easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
AoS is categorically not above 40k in ruled balance. I am baffled about anyond making such a statement. Looking at AoS over the last 3 years it's pretty comical that anyone would think that.

Why the last 3 years when the topic is about its levels of balance now?
And sure, why are all the complaint threads about OP issues 40k based and not AoS based?
Any input rather than saying the same thing without any basing for it?

AoS currently is not more balanced either.

It must be pointed out that this is no place to discuss AoS either way. This topic does not belong on the 40k forum.

 Ishagu wrote:
AoS currently is not more balanced either.

It must be pointed out that this is no place to discuss AoS either way. This topic does not belong on the 40k forum.

Good thing it’s on the AoS forum then and it’s talking about balance between the two systems.

Jackal90 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

Except AoS hasn’t had that many versions.
And even in WHFB shields were not the same at all.
There were 2 types of basic shields to begin with, then a lot of factions had addition rules or shield options that changed their function.
In AoS this is more for balance than anything as it prevents units gaining a 2+ save on an endless level.
I honesty don’t want to see an entire army rocking a 2+ save any more, but it seems that others do?
Imagine the basic troops for bonereapers.
It’s a heavy shield, so down to a 2+ save with petrifex, now give them mystic shield and boom, 2+ save with rerolls of 1 that easily.

That's why WHFB had armor save modifiers. Those scary 2+ saves get reduced to nothing real quick, especially against armies that can field guns. Not to mention that you were paying a lot of points for those 2+ save units and it was only certain units that could do it, so it wasn't as if entire armies had 2+ saves.
Iirc, you can only get 2+ saves if you were on a horse, had scaly skin, or had some item that granted more armor.
Only Brets could field entire armies of horses, Lizardmen didn't have the armor to stack with their scaly skin (saurus did not have access to light armor, only temple guard did. And it was still 3+ max), and I think only heroes and lords can do the latter.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Jackal90 wrote:


In regards to the whole shield topic, a shield isn’t just a shield and that’s it.
The entire reason shields differed throughout the ages was down to how they wanted them to be used.

Tactically, the romans ran a shield wall which gave far greater protection at the cost of a slower movement.

A lot of Viking shields were banded with the band being sharpened so it could also function as a second weapon.

A buckler was far lighter to allow more movement at the expense of less protection.

Most mounted shields were curved at the base (typical fantasy bret style) as the curve allowed movement while on horse back.

I’m sorry, but saying all shields are the same is just plain stupidity.

Except when it has been for the previous 8 iterations of the game and functions the same in other games of similar scale too.

In WMH a shield does exactly the same thing, no matter what Jack/Beast it is on. It works differently on infantry but it still has the same effect. Where the differences come in is the unit rules. AoS can do the same, but it chooses not to. The point people (and myself) are making is you should be able to look at a unit and know what it can do -"Oh, these have shields. So they have +1 to their save. Just like in every edition of WHFB in the past". The minutiae of that, such as Chaos Runeshields can be covered in a unit's special rules. But shields doing different things on the base rules is just daft and difference for difference's sake, which is GW's bread and butter.

Except AoS hasn’t had that many versions.
And even in WHFB shields were not the same at all.
There were 2 types of basic shields to begin with, then a lot of factions had addition rules or shield options that changed their function.
In AoS this is more for balance than anything as it prevents units gaining a 2+ save on an endless level.
I honesty don’t want to see an entire army rocking a 2+ save any more, but it seems that others do?
Imagine the basic troops for bonereapers.
It’s a heavy shield, so down to a 2+ save with petrifex, now give them mystic shield and boom, 2+ save with rerolls of 1 that easily.

That's why WHFB had armor save modifiers. Not to mention that you were paying a lot of points for those 1+ save units and it was only certain units that could do it, so it wasn't as if entire armies had 1+ saves.
1+ saves may sound scary, but in practice they weren't that bad as long as you had the right equipment and spells for them.

Enter teclis, banner of the world dragon and a blob of Phoenix guard.
Saves are rerollable, teclis knocks out the spells, then what?
And what about 2++ saves?

That's one broken combination for a poorly balanced army that was introduced in 8th ed, which is considered to be the worst edition.
That's not really representative of the whole system, as no other army could do that.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That's one broken combination for a poorly balanced army that was introduced in 8th ed, which is considered to be the worst edition.
That's not really representative of the whole system. Try 7th ed, which had its problems but at least you can kill stuff.

I did prefer 7th overall to be fair.
But then 8th you had daemons as a whole too, which could literally break the game non stop.

Jackal90 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
That's one broken combination for a poorly balanced army that was introduced in 8th ed, which is considered to be the worst edition.
That's not really representative of the whole system. Try 7th ed, which had its problems but at least you can kill stuff.

I did prefer 7th overall to be fair.
But then 8th you had daemons as a whole too, which could literally break the game non stop.

Oh yeah, Daemons were a problem. 8th ed was a clusterfeth in terms of balance. Its as if GW just gave up caring about WHFB, and then was surprised that no one began to care enough to buy their gak either.

From my experiences, while AOS has gotten a bit worse the past little bit, the middle ground is less of a rollercoaster than 40k while the two extremes are still out there.

Overall though I feel like the AOS rules are clearer and more concise than 40k, and that it feels like the AOS team has more of a clue than the 40k team.

It suffers from all of the same problems: A focus on models, with rules being an afterthought; heavy release schedule that reduces time to actually test; most likely books written in isolation without communication; and the old GW classic of not really caring about balance but pretending you do just enough to make people believe it.

However I do think AOS cares just a smidgen more than 40k does.

While some might fee this way, 1 is clearly worst than the other from different peoples perspectives.

Not arguing that at all. Some people also look at 3 keeper armies summoning in 2000 free extra points and say its not that big of a deal.

...
8th has some very bad parts to it that AOS doesn't have, AoS while has some imbalances, its nothing like what 8th has.

I found both games to be equally imbalanced, rife with obvious and blatant wtf moments and both allowed my public campaigns to be destroyed by a handful of guys that only play the game on Adepticon level.

As I said above, they are both bad sets of rules that if any independent game designer had written would never have taken off at all and would have been panned as being garbage. But because it was GW that wrote them, everyone plays them. Because everyone plays them. And everyone plays them, because everyone else plays them.

They have transcended to a level that I don't think Electronic Arts has ever achieved. They can literally shovel out whatever rules they want (EXCEPTION: if they leave off points, it will never get touched... reference AOS without official points 2015-2016 and fan comps weren't good enough because official points or no points was the battlecry), and they will be hugely successful, so long as they keep their PR train rolling and engage the customer base to make them feel like they are being heard.

One thing 8th 40k does not have is the free bastardized summoning that AOS has, and it also doesn't have the double turn. They both suffer from horrible internal and external balance and they both suffer from insufferable terrain rules that make the battlefield mostly meh where precision and maneuver are not really needed.

From that perspective if I had to choose one or the other, I'd choose 40k as the better of the two, though I don't play either until a day they address the major issues I have pointed out above.

Good thing it’s on the AoS forum then and it’s talking about balance between the two systems.

This thread originated in the 40k forum and a mod moved it here.