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.

Hello, Dakka Community.

After playing quite a few games with my AoS starter set against a few different opponents I believe that it's fairly balanced, but there's room for improvement. Here's my attempt to improve the balance between the two armies to remove the sudden death condition and to allow both armies more similarities, but with different enough playstyles to give the players the desire to try different tactics between the two armies.

Stormcast Eternals
1 Lord Celestant on Dracoloth
1 Lord Relictor
3 Prosecutors
3 Retributors
10 Liberators

Khorne Bloodbound
1 Exulted Deathbringer
1 Bloodsecrator
3 Mighty Skullcrushers
3 Khorgoraths
10 Blood Warriors

Let's start from the bottom up...

> Liberator vs Blood Warrior
I believe that the Liberator/Blood Warrior matchup is a good one. Where as the Liberators are slightly tougher, the Blood Warriors are slightly more killy.

> Retributor vs Khorgorath
The Retributor/Khorgorath matchup is great because the Retributors are slightly more killy, while the Khorgoraths are tougher. I think this matchup favors the Khorgoraths, but I believe it balances out because the Liberators have a slight benefit against the Khorgoraths, and because the General vs General matchup favors Lord Celestant on Dracoloth over the Exalted Deathbringer.

> Prosecutor vs Mighty Skullcrusher
The Prosecutor/Mighty Skullcrusher anolog is great in my opinion. Where as one is slightly more tuned for ranged combat, the other is slightly more in favor of melee. Otherwise they're both pretty mobile and decent strike units.

> Lord Relictor vs Bloodsecrator
They have the same stat lines and their abilities are comparable in the sense that one is slightly tuned for defense, the other offence. Both fill a utility slot well for their respective armies and I believe that leaves them as a decent analog.

> Lord Celestant on Dracoloth vs Exalted Deathbringer
I'd be crazy if I didn't say right from the get that Lord Celestant overshadows the Exaulted Deathbringer on so many levels. But, I believe it equals out because the Exalted Deathbringer can be very killy (8 attacks if he's your general and you have a skull portal down, not to mention his impale ability), his command ability serves somewhat of the same purpose as Lord Celestant's, and I believe the Khorgoraths equalize the power curve back out due to them slightly overshadowing their match up.

I've played with these two armies a few times and I have to say that I'm very happy with the games I've had. Sudden death being off the table is awesome, and it feels more like a game of chess in the sense that the two armies a very similar in composition, but it retains the great AoS feeling due to the two armies still having very different goals.

What do you guys think about this rebalancing? What would you change or try differently? I've considered replacing the Exalted Deathbringer with a Juggerlord, and the Bloodsecrator with a Slaughterpriest, but haven't got around to doing it and I'd hate to lose the Bloodsecrator as I feel like he's always been a centerpiece for the Bloodbound army.

What you have presented here is all well and good, but you haven't actually rebalanced the Starter Set.
The Bloodbound army in this example is completely different to the collection of models the starter set provides you with, so I'm not sure what your aim is here.

Its actually a mighty lord of Khorne. And on a 6 it can instakill on an unsaved wound.

@alex
Sorry, I thought my intentions of rebalancing the starter set with different models would have been clear with my inclusion of models outside of the starter set. Maybe "Creating a better starter set" would have been a better title to convey my intentions.

@sete
That is indeed what a MLoK does.

No thoughts on the balance of the presented armies? I would have thought that this would be a subject of interest for some. Especially those of you that have thought about the composition of the starter set and how you'd change it.

I didn't buy the starter set. I have no use for Khorne Minis.
And the SE are all aremd with hammers. Which I dislike
Cant help in this

 Sete wrote:
I didn't buy the starter set. I have no use for Khorne Minis.
And the SE are all aremd with hammers. Which I dislike
Cant help in this

I got a chuckle out of this. Yeah it's funny they are all using hammers. You would think GW would want to take the Hammer out of Warhammer.

Then again, maybe it's GW saying that Warhammer is not really gone, after all isn't the proper name Warhammer Age of Sigmar? This could be just like how Rouge Trader was to 40K second edition which was to 40K third edition. Same thing, but played differently with different fluff.

 mrstimpson wrote:
@alex
Sorry, I thought my intentions of rebalancing the starter set with different models would have been clear with my inclusion of models outside of the starter set. Maybe "Creating a better starter set" would have been a better title to convey my intentions.

Yeh I understand that, but it's a bit of a moot point. The starter set isn't going to change and the Bloodbound army you have presented here would force a new player to make a ton of extra purchases on top of the current starter set, no it isn't at all accessible to new players.

I believe your confusion lies in you misunderstanding the point of the thread. I don't care if they change the starter box, and I don't care if it's not practical for a new player to purchase new models just to play a "more balanced game."

The point in this post is fully in the realm of design. Designing a starter set and considering the similarities between the units I've presented.

It's a thread that poses a topic that's supposed to inspire thought about game design, unit attribute and comparisons. Specifically about a hypothetical "starter box" that is closely based on the original starter box.

If you find that type of discussion or ideas moot, there are plenty of other topics for you to bless with your presence.

 mrstimpson wrote:
I believe your confusion lies in you misunderstanding the point of the thread. I don't care if they change the starter box, and I don't care if it's not practical for a new player to purchase new models just to play a "more balanced game."

Title of the thread indicates that you were trying to balance games from the contents of the Starter Set. So just seemed odd that quite a number of units were being introduced that aren't in the Starter Set.

If you find that type of discussion or ideas moot, there are plenty of other topics for you to bless with your presence.

No need to get on the high horse. This is a discussion board and given the title of this thread my point was more that a rebalancing of the Starter Set would include the models provided in the actual Starter Set.

Case of the Title not representing the content, hence why we are on separate wavelengths I guess.

 mrstimpson wrote:
I believe your confusion lies in you misunderstanding the point of the thread. I don't care if they change the starter box, and I don't care if it's not practical for a new player to purchase new models just to play a "more balanced game."

The point in this post is fully in the realm of design. Designing a starter set and considering the similarities between the units I've presented.

It's a thread that poses a topic that's supposed to inspire thought about game design, unit attribute and comparisons. Specifically about a hypothetical "starter box" that is closely based on the original starter box.

If you find that type of discussion or ideas moot, there are plenty of other topics for you to bless with your presence.

Don't get upset. People are reacting to what you wrote, namely in the title. You already know this but yet have not changed the name of the title and really explained what you wanted to say in your original post.

If you can't take any criticism then you shouldn't be posting instead of telling other people not to read what you wrote. What is next you are going to be punching people on the side walk and then say if you don't want to be punched walk on the other side? No you wrote it, you made a mistake on how you worded it. You didn't correct.

Please dont be upset at others when you made a mistake. I make mistakes all the time, hell WE ALL DO. Just go back change your title and really explain like just how you did in the original post. We are not here to attack you, just trying to help. We are after all geeks and nerds why would we want to attack each other when we are already up against the world?

I've attacked no one, and aren't angry with anyone. I also haven't told anyone what to do. I've made a suggestion that is appropriate due to the responses in the thread.

I'm not going to change the title because of one or two people's misunderstanding of a simple topic. People misunderstand things, there's no need to be angry about that. And I also don't feel the need to explain the topic any further outside of what I gave to Alex for his own benifit.

That's fine if no one wants to discuss this subject, but to derail the thread in such a way as the replies have in this thread is a determent for me to continue putting effort into explaining anything, and is honestly a bit disappointing. I figured you chaps would like to discuss AoS, not the I inherent purpose of a thread posted, as you say, in a community forum made specifically for that purpose.

Have a good day.

mrstimpson wrote:If you find that type of discussion or ideas moot, there are plenty of other topics for you to bless with your presence.

mrstimpson wrote:I've attacked no one, and aren't angry with anyone. I also haven't told anyone what to do. I've made a suggestion that is appropriate due to the responses in the thread.

 mrstimpson wrote:
I've attacked no one, and aren't angry with anyone. I also haven't told anyone what to do. I've made a suggestion that is appropriate due to the responses in the thread.

I'm not going to change the title because of one or two people's misunderstanding of a simple topic. People misunderstand things, there's no need to be angry about that. And I also don't feel the need to explain the topic any further outside of what I gave to Alex for his own benifit.

That's fine if no one wants to discuss this subject, but to derail the thread in such a way as the replies have in this thread is a determent for me to continue putting effort into explaining anything, and is honestly a bit disappointing. I figured you chaps would like to discuss AoS, not the I inherent purpose of a thread posted, as you say, in a community forum made specifically for that purpose.

Have a good day.

The problem is that when you say "rebalancing", people are going to assume you wouldn't be doing more than swapping a single unit or change the compositions of various units. The 2-army starter sets GW releases are notoriously unbalanced to the point that one army can be taken from the set to the tabletop and the other is virtually useless save for 1 or 2 of the 5 units provided, and those units aren't usually particularly effective or interesting.

Take DV as an example. On the chaos side the Chosen were too varied, the leaders too static, the cultists little more than fodder and the Hellbrute was contentious in both armament and style. The DA portion was 600 pts of battle ready goodness.

So, balancing that set out would've been as simple as full weapons load outs for the Chosen and Hellbrute and inclusion of the Hellbrute/Cultists formation in the set as a tabletop option. Suddenly you'd have a Chaos army AND DA army which could both be taken to the tabletop in a semi-competitive/casual manner.

So rebalancing the Starter set for AoS would be more along the lines of reworking unit compositions and weapons options for both sides to bring them somewhat into alignment.

Completely reworking the set with entirely different options isn't "rebalancing", it's a complete rework of the set.

That being said, I think the reason you wouldn't see a starter like you've described is two-fold:

1. The "good guys" have to win.

2. You don't want to sell complete armies, it would extend the time before the players began purchasing items to flesh out their armies. Also, you can't give them the good toys as that would discourage spending on the higher priced items.

But I like your idea. It gives a good range of unit types and styles for players to learn different how things interact more realistically.