AoS Theorycrafting Balance Changes

I never played with strength and toughness, so I can't exactly say if I miss it or not, lol!

But I will say that while I think it's nice not to have to go to a chart or memorize another table to tell you what your save is, I can understand why people would like it. From what I hear of 40k it sounds like it helps define a unit or a specific weapon loadout in a specific role, like anti-tank, anti-infantry, anti-Primaris Marine, etc.

AoS mostly has anti-horde and a few units with anti-monster rules, but otherwise does seem to lack units that are meant to target specific units types. It would be cool if, for example, our Razordons were better at taking down infantry while Salamanders were better at taking down monsters and tough characters. One of the reasons that AoS tends to be very spammy in listbuilding is because you usually have certain units that are just better against *everything* than the rest of your units.

But then again, AoS 3e is already a lot more complicated than 2e, so even more core rules to keep track of would honestly be pretty annoying to a lot of people. I personally wouldn't relish the thought of every time I'm about to attack having to go "ok, my unit has S 5, but your unit has T 8, so does that mean you get a 3+ or a 4+ save?" and then having to add AP (rend) on top of that. The Save/Rend mechanic in AoS is definitely less "crunchy" than the S/T/Rend mechanic, and it does seem at least on paper that it would be easier to balance certain units or to give units better-defined roles using the old method. But 40k which still uses S/T is much more unbalanced than AoS, so I can't really say I have an opinion on which method is better.

 

S/T does not effect your save it replaces the wound stat. if they are the same you wound on a 4+ if S is higher you wound on a 3+ if it's lower you wound on a 5+. if it's twice as high 6 to 3 for example you wound on a 2+ if it's half 2 to 4 you wound on a 6+. this means low S weapons just bounce off of high toughness so clanrats have a very hard time killing a carnasuar but rat ogers would do fine.
40K is not unbalanced due to S/T it's unbalanced due to 9th being out for almost 3 years now and half the armies still not having books

 

I do feel that aos should have the S/T rules for wounding

 

@Erta Wanderer thanks for the clarification! I forgot it was wound rolls that were affected, not saves

 

@Kilvakar GW uses the mechanic in War Cry, if you want to test it out.

 

Re: Hit vs Wound, it does feel a little vestigial to have both if they're gonna work the exact same way. Like why not just have 1 roll? I guess it lets you have finer-grained balance changes?

 

Lot of hate in this thread for Carnosaurs but all from people that seem to want him to be something other than what he is. He's a lawnmower for screens and chaff. I basically use him like a Dinosaur Smash Captain. Just drop a bunch of buffs on him (Prime Warbeast, Best Day Ever, +1 Hit/Saurian Savagery, Swift/Savage, Great Drake), and launch him up the board with reckless abandon to go demolish front lines so i can get my better stuff up the board without getting tied up. He might kill a monster if you spike your rolls sure but thats not really what he's built to do. He'll definitely die in the process, but with Scaly Skin and Bless from my EoTG/Terrain Ward he's gonna hold on for a turn or two, and at 215pts he's great at it.

Saurus Warriors are another one people seem to get hung up on not being able to just murder anything in sight. But again i think the issue is the way you're using them, those 32mm bases means a block of 20 with Scaly Skin, Spears, our 6+ Terrain Ward and an Emerald Lifeswarm nearby controls a huge area and can really tarpit someone. They aren't as good as what some other armies can do, but they they're good enough to warrant 210 points if you need a solid defensive line.

 

ok sure but thats not a useful roll. anything can clear chaff thats what makes it chaff.

that a lot of buffs to invest just to kill screens.

or you spend the same points for 30 skinks who can do the same job(and much much more) without getting destroyed on the counter charge. and only require 1 buff.

yeah no the only reason this guy lasts 2 turns is that he isn't worth killing.

well no we are mad that they don't do any thing well.

thats not very tanky. that dies to most things in one round. blight kings will eat them. so will sentanels and wardens, they die to DoK, NH, IDK, KO, SBGL, pretty much anything that doesn't run monsters

or you could spend 220 points for knights. they have the same save, the same wounds, +3" movement, buff better, and hit much harder so they won't just be sitting there all game.
or if you just wand board presence then again skinks you get 45% more they are faster and they buff better.

look ask any one here. i tried very very hard to make warriors work. we aren't using them wrong they just suck. they were built for a edition of the game that does not egsist any more they need buff stacking they need their battalion they need old sun blood. with out the tools they were built for they are just a very mediocre anvil that gets hit by everything and dies

 

This has probably been mentioned somewhere before, but what if the Dread Saurian had the SAURUS keyword? Sort of the "Saurus Stegadon," if you will. Do you think that might help the Saurus side a bit? It's a cool model, but it has an almost unusable base size and it's pretty expensive. IDK, just a thought.

I guess the idea of "feral Carnosaurs" that I've seen mentioned before is in the same vein.

 

Would be interesting to run in koatls claw.

 

Agreed. That was kind of my thought. @Dread Saurian I thought you even suggested this at one time?

 

I do not remember suggesting it. But I do think it would make taking the dread more viable

 

I can definitely say I'm in the camp of seeing Saurus Warriors getting retooled into a 2 wound/model unit with the Ordered Cohort horde bonus getting baked into their warscroll for the second celestite attack at the cost of being bumped up to 150pts per 10. At the current moment, there isn't really anything that a Saurus Warrior unit can do for its points cost that a Skink unit can do for at least 25% less points other than take up 50% more board space on a per-model basis.

I'd also consider something to help better differentiate between their clubs and spears, since even outside of the current GHB Season clubs outweigh spears in their capacity to inflict damage despite the latter being able to ensure that a full second rank of 32mm bases can fight. Two possible solutions to this might be to have it such that a Saurus Warrior unit with spears could either strike first when charged, or (like Freeguild Guard) gain +1 to hit against a charging unit; either way, making it more of a defensive weapon in contrast to the clubs' offensive capabilities would provide an interesting dichotomy with neither being clearly superior to the other in every aspect. Jaw attacks on the other hand I'm not terribly concerned with even in Coalesced due to their effectiveness being on average about half that of the same number of celestite attacks.

Suffice to say however that any changes to Saurus Warriors would precipitate in changes to all Saurus units just for being the baseline.

Skinks as they are could probably afford to be split between melee-centric Cohorts and ranged Skirmishers to encourage weapon variety, with Cohorts becoming the least expensive of the two (75 for 10 Cohort, 85-95 for 10 Skirmishers) in terms of points by virtue of lacking the threat range offered by javelins and blowpipes. Moonstone Clubs may not be anything spectacular to look at (especially compared to Saurus weapons), but they're both statistically average and comparable to the hand weapons of basic melee units in other armies (Freeguild Guard once again come to mind).

Monsters I think other people have already posited their opinions on that I've been in general agreement with, so I won't tread on that ground here. Likewise with heroes to an extent, though I have my misgivings with being overly reliant on them just to make certain Seraphon units viable on the tabletop even with sub-factions in mind. That kind of "hero tax" might benefit a faction like Soulblight or Cities of Sigmar from a lore and/or gameplay perspective, but with Seraphon it doesn't feel right to be forced into spending points and a LEADER slot on a specific hero unit for no other reason than to ensure that at least one of your units is playable at any given time, and then having to babysit that hero in order to retain that effectiveness throughout a given game specifically because it's a squishy support unit that can barely defend itself.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they'd remove the distinction between spears & clubs entirely. They've done it with several other units that were updated recently, like the skeletons. And imho, it's probably a good thing for basic troops to simplify, seeing as distinguishing multiple viable melee options is difficult when it's your basic troop that can't have particularly fancy rules.