That's a framework for a game. Even a format if you extend it to multiple rounds of play. And I suggest you look at the battleplans that are presented in multiple times and campaign books. Even refer to the older AoS 1.0 campaign books for these. You're getting far too specific in your mindset to allow for the "Soul of the game" to be a concern in my opinion. I'm still waiting on that definition by the by. I don't believe that to be the case. While I don't have my books on hand, most of the battleplans do provide a paragraph at the start stating how armies should be picked, no? What kind of forces might be present. And if not in the rules, than in the lore/flavor text. That should be ample for abstracting what you might need. Anymore and you're straying into matched play. I'm at a loss for what you want. You're being pretty uncooperative to what is provided, which is vastly more malleable than what your asking for. Frameworks let you fill in the blanks and build of them. What you want is a step by step recipe for the perfect flavor of game you want. They actively engage with the community by and large, and ask for feedback pretty often. Sure, they're not having us playtest stuff in the way Privateer does, but thats not how they do things. What, specifically and with examples, would you have them do? And why, if I might ask, do you not express this consistently to them? This is assuming you consider yourself a casual player who doesn't actively look to give feedback, as you said most do not. You didn't ask me what they are. Read your own words. You asked what I expected of them. We can play pedantry and word games while you look for a gotcha, but it's pretty boring to do so. No, it was quite clear. I responded in kind. Your intention though was not expressed. Assuming that the only variable to err in is shoving him to combat. There are others, hence the character being complicated to play. For someone concerned with flavor and the soul of the game, you ignore what spells are flavored as. Or how they might appear. Just because two spells have the same mechanical effect doesn't necessarily mean they appear and act the exact same way in the narrative. That's pretty narrow thinking. Each character is there own, and pulling from the narrative portion of the game, each would likely have more magic at their disposal, and likely make different choices. And even then assumptions abound about how spellcraft actually works, as if on a binary basis. Collegiate wizards for example come in many flavors. Sure, they follow a theme in the lore, but for mechanical restraints/on the tabletop they're played as one sort of wizard per lore. No two wizards or magic users is so alike that they'd always attempt to cast the same spell. That's my assumption though. It's really a shame that a fluffy game shouldn't be allowed to also be mechanically pleasing and balanced by this. There are plenty of fluffy mechanics within the game that allow for crazy and fun things, and I believe that the balance to that is also having some reliable restrictions on those so they're just that, crazy and fun, but not rampant or oppressive. This isn't even coming from a competitive standpoint, but as someone who enjoys casual environments to play a relaxed game. @Erta Wanderer To be frank, I don't count Gordrak or Archeon, hence excluding Archeon. They may have similar power mechanically/be centerpieces, but they're not gods.