True, and in all honesty I don't mind "simple" strategies like deathstars that are effeciently countered by "simple" counters like a big spell of doom. In essence that's fine. It's not the simplicity that I take issue with, plenty of abusive tactics can be freakisly complicated. What I take issue with is when a deathstar can only be countered by a big spell of doom, or when a big spell of doom Always counters a deathstar. Or when it simply becomes a matter of "who goes first". Or when the abusive tactic basicly just breaks some core aspect of the game, usually a physics or movement-related rule. And for some reason way too many games use that balancing approach, and what I personally find far more confusing far too many "hardcore" players seem to prefer it for some godforsaken reason cuz it allows them to look cool, despite them doing nothing more than just abusing cheezy tactics, (after all, who doesn't like to cast the big spell of doom and blow up half an army). When that happens the game tends to get decided either by sheer luck (yay you rolled a succesfull spell of doom before my deathstar did a succesfull charge) or the actuall game is kind of moot as the outcome is more or less decided by the metagame that happens beforehand (yay, you picked a list that counters my list, unless I'm a god or you're a complete idiot I stand no change of winning). And lastly, it tends to force you the play the game a certain way. Basicly you can choose; use one of the abusive playstyles or be stomped. No idea if WFB was balanced that way, it's just something I really really dislike and made me want to rant . AOS does a relativly decent job so far of avoiding that particular pitfall in my (addmittadly limited) experience, which is one of the reasons why I do think it's a fairly good game.