Just more evidence that AoS would have been much better received if it was simply an alternate "squad/platoon level" ruleset for WFB. Or a warband ruleset, or whatever. (and if the prank edition never happened, or was released on April 1st so we could all know that it was a joke ahead of time)
It's a mystery why they didn't.
It would've been an easy way to test the waters, it'd give it a clear niche distinct from their other games, and by choosing a solid direction from the start they could've prevented some of the sillier issues GW created over the years.
But instead they started (and continued) with this unclear vision.
Ok, real talk... what exactly do we call the level of combat depicted in AoS? Obviously Fantasy/TOW are Battalion level, but you can't call AoS skirmish, because that's what Mordheim/Warcry are. I've personally called it squad level, just because even at their most numerous, units never really numbered higher than a squad, though an argument can be made that skirmish better fits that, as the total number of models per side would be a single squad at most.
Honestly, I don't think even GW knows.
Units feel closest to balanced when it's small squads facing off against eachother; so units of 5-10 models. It's also the only time footheroes can actually fight without immediately getting obliterated. So I'd say it naturally gravitates towards squad based gameplay; as that's when most units can contribute in a somewhat meaningful manner in combat.
But GW doesn't seem to design around squads. They seem to design as if they're still working with battalions like in WHF, as they keep introducing either small super elite units (e.g. 3-man elite cavalry, behemoths, gods) as well as big hordes, both of which fit much more with the battalion power-levels as they easily tear through the basic squads. The end result can be a bit weird at times.
Kind if. MESBG's Warband system and AoS 4e's Regiment system are both built on the premise that heroes can have a warband or regiment of minions formed around them as part of listbuilding. However, there are stark differences:
Imho, the biggest difference is that MESBG has a much clearer distinction between its heroes and its "regular" units in terms of power.
In AoS you have skinks and stardrakes as "regular" units. But you also have starpriests & Archaon as heroes. and of course everything in between. Consequently, heroes aren't necesarly stronger than "regular" units.
In MESBG, that distinction is much clearer. A "weak" caster hero, like a easterling warpriest, still has the stats to defend himself against most "regular" opponents fairly reliably. Sure, he doesn't want to be on the frontline because that's a waste, but he's not helpless in the way a starpriest is.
Minor caveat; things like trolls exist, they can rival heroes in combat. But it's not like a troll is just going to slaughter that warpriest in the same way a stardrake would slaughter the starpriest in AoS.
Also, the power levels in general don't fluctuate as much with the exception of a handfull of especially powerfull models that are essentially one-man armies, like balrogs, dragons, or sauron. The difference between a goblin and an elf in MESBG is much smaller than the difference between a skink & a stardrake even if both a "regular" units. Similarly, the difference between a strong combat hero like boromir, and a weak "regular" unit like a goblin, is nowhere as big as the difference between say Archaon and a skink.
Consequently it's much clearer what you can expect from a given regiment in MESBG as a regiment has 1 hero, and that hero is (usually) going to be the most powerful unit in the regiment. Whereas an AoS battalion can be all over the place in terms of power.
