Topic: Unbalanced, really?

[GamesPoet]

So I went into a local hobby shop today, and the store employee said W:AoS currently has an unbalanced set of rules.

Was he correct

[Victor]

Warhammer in the past has always been unbalanced, so where does your surprise come from? 
(I'm not actually familiar with any of the new rules)

[GamesPoet]

No surprise here.

Although I am curious as to what the W:AoS crowd has to say?

(GP ... crowd might be an overstatement.)

Good point.

[Artobans Ghost]

Not that I have much experience but I think the rules are ok but the army books make tier 1,2,3 level armies. Much like the previous warhammer when it comes to tournaments. With open and narrative games, anything goes. I have the old greenskins, skaven/beastman, devoted of Sigmar, and starting a stormcast army. Only the stormcast has a chance of tier one but not the way I’m making it.

[Gankom]

Eh like Victor said, it's a warhammer game. I personally think the balance is okay. It's better then some previous editions but can still use some work. Most armies I see all do decently against each other, but like usual theres some builds that will be like fighting a wood chipper unless you planned specifically for it.

Now internal balance within army books is a separate thing, and again that's hit or miss. Some are generally real good and have multiple build styles (like some of the dead people and ghosties.), some are constantly mixed up because of new additions kinda killing old choices (Hello stormcasts).

[GamesPoet]

Well this store employee's opinion was only one.  I figured asking here I'd get a more well rounded viewpoint.

One issue I am having with getting into it, is that there seems like too much to keep up with, that it is constantly changing.  Or is that the wrong sense

[Gankom]

I'd say their definitely changing a lot more then they did previously. They seem to have been really inspired by 'living' rulesets other companies to. To a large degree it's mostly fluff and lore. Each 'expansion' adds a fair bit of new stuff but most of it's not mandatory. If your getting competitive it might be, or at least some way to mitigate new stuff might be, but my local group essentially plays with the same rules that came out last year regardless of the newer stuff.

Also the vast majority of rules are free online.

The big change that might throw you is that the timeline essentially moves forward with each new expansion, unlike old warhammer. No more trapped in the same period before the End Times. Now we've gone through the Realmgate wars, into the opening of the Soul Wars, and now whatever this next phase is called.

[GamesPoet]

I picked up some sort of army book for the Light faction (or whatever it is called), and noticed a ton of units that have now had their models discontinued.  Maybe that is all part of the changes, yet wondering how a person that is new to the system can keep up or figure out what is needed if they tried.

[kingoftheempire12]

I really think that the word balance is a pointless word for games like AoS. Games were both players build their own "gaming pieces" and then play each other can’t by definition really be unbalanced. Now if you have a board game and one side has to play with X and the other one has to play with Y and the player who has X always win, then the game is unbalanced but thats not the standard situation in games like AoS, in AoS there are thousands of X and Y and they interact diffrently with each other.....

[Old Stonebeard]

I really think that the word balance is a pointless word for games like AoS.

Agreed. To be honest, I don't even know what the hell "balance" means anymore, or what players purportedly looking for it actually want. If you look at eSports, for example, there's many video games explicitly designed for competitive balance and there's still OP characters, builds, strategies, and so on. For example, Overwatch was designed around a 2 tank / 2 damage / 2 support balance, but some team came up with a strategy using 3 tanks and 3 supports and it was so king-kong that it was the only viable strat in their championship league until Blizzard mandated a 2/2/2 build.

So I went into a local hobby shop today, and the store employee said W:AoS currently has an unbalanced set of rules.

So, yeah. If they're looking for balance, they're missing the point. Also, they're wrong, AOS is pretty solid. Certainly no worse than Fantasy ever was, for what that's worth. (Looking at you, halberds... grumble, grumble...)

Alex

[Von Zorn]

I have often found that the die hard "NEED BALANCE" crowd seem to be completely unfamiliar with the idea of player responsibility. Wargames of this kind are complex and have so many variables that "balance" (which I take to mean "complete 100% fairness at all times") is impossible.

If you find a totally overpowered rules combo that breaks the game, how about don't use it? I guess win-at-all-costs type of play means you WILL use it, but then I have also always found that narrative-focussed players always have more fun and get on better with GW rules.

[Zygmund]

Von Zorn for the win!

For example, the 9th age fantasy battle rules are arguable more balanced than any edition of Warhammer Fantasy, but they're also bland in comparison. However, it's the gaming-oriented and winning-oriented player base that makes the game non-enjoyable for me. Playing with friends in the living room goes fine, but then again we can play other rules with more nuance and ridiculous oldschool fun.

Over here, AoS is usually played in the more casual manner, the players are interested in collecting and painting figures. Also, still!, the critics of the game seem to be those who don't play it very often. I guess in the sphere of balance, AoS is one of the better games around, although it's hard to keep the balance when new units are created all the time (GW sells figures, after all). Still, the head game designer plays the game himself competitively in tournaments, which always is a good thing regarding balance.

So probably the shopkeeper was right, in a way. But then again in the bigger scene and comparison his opinion is not totally justified, and it doesn't really matter that much.

-Z

[Warlord]

The ninth age isn’t balanced either. Armies have redundant options. Army Strength and Weakness lists mean some armies cannot be competitive in styles that don’t suit their ASAW. Which leads to some rock / paper / scissors games.
They do look at data a lot, but usually their balancing is based on points cost, which IMO ignores a fundamental flaw.

I don’t know if there truly is a balanced game.

[Zygmund]

The ninth age isn’t balanced either. Armies have redundant options. Army Strength and Weakness lists mean some armies cannot be competitive in styles that don’t suit their ASAW. Which leads to some rock / paper / scissors games.
They do look at data a lot, but usually their balancing is based on points cost, which IMO ignores a fundamental flaw.

True. Then again you can approach the game through the available options, and only play the 2-3 styles where an army is considered strong performer. It's a very different philosophy from the the points values and pick-and-mix. Kinda play the game as intended to find the balance. Play it as a fluffy and free game, and you're pretty much where Warhammer has always been.

Generally, games that strive to be competitively balanced (tournament style) games also achieve that better than games that don't try to achieve that. In that sense AoS, T9A, KoW, WM, FoW and such are more balanced than most other games. LotR might be one where there is good balance but also personal and story-oriented options. At least that's what I've heard many players say - and there are many different style players in the LotR tournaments, and they all enjoy the competitive game.

-Z