The issue with saying "x amount of wounds" is that herpa derp saurus (and likely others) are still just one wound and thus are objectively much much more powerful than many other 1 wound infantry models.
Ehh it doesn't really work that way, though...
Saurus beat Goblins to a pulp for the most part, yeah. But Quarrelers look at Saurus and go, "HAH!" But then that Quarreler sees a Shade behind him and is all "
O_O" but then that Shade sees a Temple Guard and goes "FFFFUU--" but then that Temple Guard, out of the corner of its beady little eye, spies a Black Guard and runs for the hills. And don't even get me started on how multi-wound models, command, command abilities, support options, chaff, etc. play into all of this! But even on the bottom of that totem poll, Goblins can excel in certain areas where Saurus lag. So on and so forth. Just like before: lots of different roles.
I guess what I'm getting at is...
"Rock, Paper, Stonehorn" is still alive and well.
Wounds are a decent general idea for balance, but you still need to consider what your opponent is putting down and how you'll counter that. It doesn't stop with wounds -- there are still roles, arguably more roles than there were before. Some one-wound infantry are better than others at specific things, yeah... but then chances are, the 'other' can be fielded in such a way (probably through a battalion) that makes it worthwhile. Like Saurus, for example.
Alternatively, if you don't like the thought of putting down models until you both agree, "Ehh yeah that's enough," then enforcing a wound cap per unit and a wound cap per army works out pretty well if you're playing against someone decent. Agreeing on a number of battalions or warscrolls or heroes or whatever is good too, if that's your cake.
I think you're on to something Pendrake. Maybe a new fantasy version of "Wings Of War" where the planes are replaced with flying mounts from multiple factions?
