PDA

View Full Version : Age of Sigmar: What's the Point?



minionboy
23-07-2015, 21:14
Hey guys! After reading a bunch of threads about whining about AoS, I was inspired to write a bit of an article... about points. As well as a few mutterings about game balance, and how people both insist that points are required to make a balanced game, yet complain incessantly about over/under powered units and how they should be worth X points.

The tl;dr version is essentially this: Points aren't perfect. They never will be. People comp everything when they play anyhow, so who cares about the lack of points?

Age of Sigmar: What's the Point? (http://www.thediceabide.com/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-whats-the-point/)

PS - I know there are people complaining about other aspects of the game, this article (and presumably this thread) is not about addressing those other complaints, we're talking points son.

Deadhorse
23-07-2015, 21:31
The game is specifically made to be pointless.

Tokamak
23-07-2015, 21:35
Badum-tsh.

Dokushin
23-07-2015, 21:53
My perspective here is this:

I want to have a fair game against another general -- I want my decisions, both in what to bring and what it does on the battlefield, to matter in whether I win or lose. If there's not a mechanism for two armies to be compared, then the game trivially degenerates into bringing more/better stuff. Therefore, there has to be such a mechanism. But for such a mechanism to be effective, it has to be neutral; when I'm facing down some guy over the table, and we want to have a go, who gets to decide what's fair? Why, in other words, do games have referees?

jet_palero
23-07-2015, 21:55
Hey guys! After reading a bunch of threads about whining about AoS, I was inspired to write a bit of an article... about points. As well as a few mutterings about game balance, and how people both insist that points are required to make a balanced game, yet complain incessantly about over/under powered units and how they should be worth X points.

The tl;dr version is essentially this: Points aren't perfect. They never will be. People comp everything when they play anyhow, so who cares about the lack of points?

Age of Sigmar: What's the Point? (http://www.thediceabide.com/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-whats-the-point/)

PS - I know there are people complaining about other aspects of the game, this article (and presumably this thread) is not about addressing those other complaints, we're talking points son.

So you're saying its better to just give up and not bother, rather than do some work and get a close approximation?

Without some sort of balancing system AoS will never be a lasting popular game. The mass profileration of players attempting to make their own should make that clear as day. Is there ANY other wargaming on the market that's been successful without points (or some alternate balancing scheme)? Let alone that other subjective flaws in the gameplay, a lack of a way to handle pickup games will eventually strangle AoS growth.

Deadhorse
23-07-2015, 22:14
The most enjoyable games are those where both sides have an approximately equal chance of victory.

It is not much fun to ROTFLstomp an enemy in spite of being outplayed.
It is not much fun to get ROTLFstomped when playing better than the opponent.

Both options are frustrating, and so nearly all game designers consider BALANCE as an important feature of the game.

GW have been doing a por job of it recently, now they decided they can't be bothered to do it at all. Other manufacturers of similar games are somehow able to provide decent balance.

That's a full reply to your post. Nothing else to say, really.

Tokamak
23-07-2015, 22:21
One big limitation of using points as your basis for determining fairness is that they are not readily mutable. By that I mean, points remain consistent, even when they become a hugely incorrect assessment of efficiency. For example, Draigo, by himself, isn’t all that great for his points, similarly Centurions aren’t over the top either. When you take Draigo and put him with Centurions, their value can definitely be worth more than their cost.

That's not a limitation, that's the boon of points. One on one comparisons between units of different armies are useless as indeed, the effectiveness of a unit depends on the synergies with other units. And that's great. It's up to a player to find useful combinations and employ them in a useful way to get the most out of his points.

The beauty is that there's not one single perfect army for each codex. There's a multiple efficient combinations and there's also a lot of very inefficient combinations. The amount of variety an army book offers is the game designers responsibility though. And yes, GW has dropped the ball on that one incredibly often. Many times due to obvious and cynical short term marketing motives.

But that's not a weakness inherent to using points for balance.


With or without points, it is always up to the players to decide what they think is fair for the game they want to play.

It shouldn't be the player's responsibility to decide what's fair or not. If that was true we could just play like we used to do with toy-soldiers. Just make up everything as we go and make explosion and gun sounds with our mouths (sounds familiar?). Games shouldn't rely on the goodwill of players. Even with friends I don't want the outcome to rely on an argument or an appeal to our better nature. I want an elegant and clear set of rules that make any rules lawyering unnecessary.

Malagor
23-07-2015, 22:26
Without some sort of balancing system AoS will never be a lasting popular game. The mass profileration of players attempting to make their own should make that clear as day. Is there ANY other wargaming on the market that's been successful without points (or some alternate balancing scheme)? Let alone that other subjective flaws in the gameplay, a lack of a way to handle pickup games will eventually strangle AoS growth.
Well Warlord Games has Black Powder, Pike & shot and Hail Caesar that don't use a point system as their main way of building a army.
Rick Priestly still added it however since he writes in the rulebooks that for pick-up games and tournaments then you need points to make it easier and faster hence he added a point system.
But when it comes to using no points, he is also clear on how that is suppose to work(which AoS doesn't, people are just guessing).
The way they are suppose to work is closed-knit groups of players and 1 of them makes the scenario, he/she makes the battlefield and he/she makes the armies for both sides, giving the units special rules and how well they are at fighting and so on.
So essentially there is a neutral player that directs everything.
It is possible that Jervis wanted this aspect in AoS since he did co-write Black Powder with Rick but Rick had the common sense to atleast help the players rather then just say "place whatever you want".

Bloodknight
23-07-2015, 22:43
Those games are also easier to balance because all they pit against each other is humans of a broadly similar tech level, not Skeletons vs Dragons.

Malagor
23-07-2015, 22:50
Those games are also easier to balance because all they pit against each other is humans of a broadly similar tech level, not Skeletons vs Dragons.
Overall yes even tho you will have celtic barbarians fighting medieval knights and things like that but the point costs reflect this and the "GM" if you want to call it that should take the technology in account when making the battle.

Bloodknight
23-07-2015, 23:15
Yeah, sure. But that's not all there is, those Celts fighting medieval knights don't have to worry about some of those knights swooping down on their Pegasi. There's basically a whole 3rd dimension that those games need not cover until maybe mid-19th century, but then it would only be a gag game with a Montgolfiere, they were only used as spotters after all. Flying units really only played a role from WW1 on, apart from very few earlier exceptions. I think some Italian guy bombed Libyans or Ethiopians a few years earlier, but that was basically it.

minionboy
23-07-2015, 23:41
So you're saying its better to just give up and not bother, rather than do some work and get a close approximation?

Without some sort of balancing system AoS will never be a lasting popular game. The mass profileration of players attempting to make their own should make that clear as day. Is there ANY other wargaming on the market that's been successful without points (or some alternate balancing scheme)? Let alone that other subjective flaws in the gameplay, a lack of a way to handle pickup games will eventually strangle AoS growth.

Quite the opposite! I'm saying that points have failed us for a long time, so let's try something new. I strongly encourage people to figure out what works well for them in their groups and share it. The great thing about it is that we can now have conversations and agree upon limits outside of points. Without points we can now discuss what is an adequate counter to nasty combos instead of accepting that when some units or rules are used together they become more powerful than the creators intended when first published. Points were a gilded cage, we were lazy, points were easy, even when points were nowhere near what they should be.

Spiney Norman
23-07-2015, 23:42
Hey guys! After reading a bunch of threads about whining about AoS, I was inspired to write a bit of an article... about points. As well as a few mutterings about game balance, and how people both insist that points are required to make a balanced game, yet complain incessantly about over/under powered units and how they should be worth X points.

The tl;dr version is essentially this: Points aren't perfect. They never will be. People comp everything when they play anyhow, so who cares about the lack of points?

Age of Sigmar: What's the Point? (http://www.thediceabide.com/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-whats-the-point/)

PS - I know there are people complaining about other aspects of the game, this article (and presumably this thread) is not about addressing those other complaints, we're talking points son.

The problem with AoS isn't that it lacks points per se, it's that it lacks any kind of balancing system at all. To be able to build two equally matched armies I need to know (or at least be reasonably able to calculate) how many ogres a dragon is worth, how many empire Knights Nagash is worth, how many goblins a vargheist is worth etc. Presently I have no idea at all how many night goblins I should deploy if my opponent puts down Karl Franz, AoS comes with precisely zero frame of reference to help get my army playing in the same ball park as my opponent, let alone achieve anything approaching 'balance'.

Points were never perfect, but they were much, much better than nothing, which is what we have now, a man subsisting on a diet of lentils might complain that all he ever has to eat is lentils until he has nothing to eat at all, then he'll wish he still had some damned lentils, this is where the WFB community is at with AoS right now.


Quite the opposite! I'm saying that points have failed us for a long time, so let's try something new. I strongly encourage people to figure out what works well for them in their groups and share it. The great thing about it is that we can now have conversations and agree upon limits outside of points. Without points we can now discuss what is an adequate counter to nasty combos instead of accepting that when some units or rules are used together they become more powerful than the creators intended when first published. Points were a gilded cage, we were lazy, points were easy, even when points were nowhere near what they should be.

Except AoS isn't 'trying something new', it is 'not trying anything at all', throwing out balance altogether with no possibility of getting it back just makes for a crap gaming experience, or at least that's my experience of AoS so far, the game is a failure before you even roll the first dice.

Maybe there are ways to balance a game that don't use points, many historicals use scripted forces (though I'm not sure how well that would work in warhammer's case) as an alternative to balance games, but AoS doesn't have anything.

Sparowl
24-07-2015, 00:00
Quite the opposite! I'm saying that points have failed us for a long time, so let's try something new. I strongly encourage people to figure out what works well for them in their groups and share it. The great thing about it is that we can now have conversations and agree upon limits outside of points. Without points we can now discuss what is an adequate counter to nasty combos instead of accepting that when some units or rules are used together they become more powerful than the creators intended when first published. Points were a gilded cage, we were lazy, points were easy, even when points were nowhere near what they should be.

a.) people, as a group, as notoriously bad about agreeing on anything.

b.) points weren't bars to a cage. They were pillars to the framework. Have you tried removing load bearing pillars from something? It doesn't tend to work out well.

c.) We could always have had conversations, discussions, modifications, changes, homebrews, whatever. We didn't need GW's permission. A year ago you could've agreed with your mates that (blank) was too broken in combination with something else, and house rule it away.

But now I can't walk into a store somewhere else while I'm traveling and get a pick-up game at a set level without trying to figure out a completely new meta, potentially with new house rules for different things. Whereas before, I could, because we all had a similar understanding of what 1850pts were.

Ayin
24-07-2015, 01:04
Quite the opposite! I'm saying that points have failed us for a long time, so let's try something new. I strongly encourage people to figure out what works well for them in their groups and share it.

The concept of "points" hasn't been what's failed. GW's efforts at creating a balanced game have failed. Your quote could just as easily have replaced "points" the menthod, with "Games Workshop", the cause.

Change your mind about anything? No. It likely won't.

Shandor
24-07-2015, 01:40
Would it not been much better to Invite one Person to work for GW and working on balancing the whole time, then just throw it away and leave the costumers alone?

I mean. One person actually playing the game, listen to the costumers, testing things out and making updates towards the balancing in a frequent rate.. you know like other Companys do for thier games since over 20 Years.. (thats called update)
Warcrolls would be perfect for this kind of updates. You can easy replace one warcroll without having a full new book to print.
"Oh look we did somethign wrong here and the Goblin Archer is to weak for its points.. lets make im 1 point cheaper.. Warcroll update and done"

Points didnt fail the whole time.. they worked really good. not perfect thats why some peoples felt they need to Comp it here and there to make it more balanced. But "not perfect" is ALOT better then "not even existing"

Politics are not perfect.. in fact they failing alot in my opinion.. but we should not remove the goverment and let the Citizens deal with everything on thier own :)

Ayin
24-07-2015, 04:25
Would it not been much better to Invite one Person to work for GW and working on balancing the whole time, then just throw it away and leave the costumers alone?


Honestly, let's not act like GW was under some huge strain to fix the basic issues that popped up with points costs and despite trying as hard as they could with their years of experience and huge time to playtest and run simulations they just couldn't quite nail the details down.

To use an example, it took me about 5 minutes to peruse the Empire unit rules and points when that book came out and conclude that no one was going to use Mortars because they were WILDLY overpointed, and that Pistoliers, Free Company, and Flagellants would likely never see the table for the same reasons.

Now, Spearmen and Greatswords might be too expensive compared to Halberdiers and the Empire General might not bring anything to the table that an Arch Lector doesn't do wildly better, and there might be a fair number of other issues that have nuance and concern the interaction of special rules and army synergy, but leaving aside the smaller things, the more complicated things, there are obvious, I might even say STUPIDLY obvious imbalances in that book, and I'd dare to say every book.


Using points to balance is a complicated system, but GW spent 1/3 to 1/2 of every army book just shuffling things around for the sake of them being different. If they were honest-to-Gork trying their absolute best to create balance? Their designers should find a different line of work.

minionboy
24-07-2015, 05:11
The concept of "points" hasn't been what's failed. GW's efforts at creating a balanced game have failed. Your quote could just as easily have replaced "points" the menthod, with "Games Workshop", the cause.

Change your mind about anything? No. It likely won't.

Not even a little, I've played well over a dozen mini games in the nearly 20 years I've been in the hobby, and not a one has been perfectly balanced through points. GW isn't alone, points in their entirety are subjective when assigned, and impossible to take into account every permutation of list imaginable, but instead have created an environment where people are comfortable playing a "fair" game because they both played with the same number of points, besides the army being drastically different in power level, and where it is seen as a negative thing to play with an unequal point value for the sake of balancing the game.

Captain Idaho
24-07-2015, 06:28
Lol so the point of easy to play Warhammer Age of Sigmar is to spend more time than ever devising a scenario that's fun each time you want to play? Isn't that more work than just devising a list and even more restrictive?

Wesser
24-07-2015, 06:34
Not even a little, I've played well over a dozen mini games in the nearly 20 years I've been in the hobby, and not a one has been perfectly balanced through points. GW isn't alone, points in their entirety are subjective when assigned, and impossible to take into account every permutation of list imaginable, but instead have created an environment where people are comfortable playing a "fair" game because they both played with the same number of points, besides the army being drastically different in power level, and where it is seen as a negative thing to play with an unequal point value for the sake of balancing the game.

Well the points system never stood on its own legs did it? You didn't just build 2500 pts, you build 2500 pts for a tournament, pick-up games, playing with friends, or perhaps even tailored lists.

When making an army you knew just about what power level you were/are aiming for. Of course there could be issues where a foot based VC army would come up against a Wood Elf avoidance army or other unlucky matchups or things for which you had no counter (the "should have brought a cannon" moments), but such factors just encouraged you to take a balanced force.

AoS don't really deal with those issues. Rather they reward the player with the largest collection who can use it to outdeploy his opponent. No Points doesn't make games more or less balanced in the overall scheme of things... but it does make balance kinda more random..

Marauder Carl
24-07-2015, 06:41
The OP proposed ideas have merit, but only from a certain point of view that is not shared by sizable segment of the community, therefore it just serves to fracture the player base. Points to many will always be sacrosanct no matter how imperfect. The Walter Sobchak's of gaming are shomer Shabbos when it comes to this issue, and they will not roll. That's a glaring fault in the design more harmful overall than any gains by their omission in my opinion- even though I agree with your general observations.

Samsonov
24-07-2015, 06:42
As a community GW players (measured by forums anyway) are often much more concerned over points. Afterall, most historical games do not have 'net-lists'. There are plenty of historical games that are primarily intended to be used to re-fight historical battles, so history sets the points, yet those games still have a points value in there somewhere. In essence, you did not need get rid of points to get rid of netlists, that was a mentality.

some_scrub
24-07-2015, 07:16
To me it seems like some people are making an argument that boils down to "The thing we had wasn't perfect, so the right solution is to remove it and replace it with nothing." Having no built-in mechanism for creating games that are even remotely balanced seems much worse than something that was imperfect.

I do sort of understand the idea that the powers that be at GW legitimately might legitimately feel that 'narrative games' (ie games where people set out to tell a story and choose the appropriate models, scenery and special objectives and other rules that are appropriate to that story) are a more fun and fulfilling way to game than 2 players simply bringing (somewhat) balanced forces and playing from a small list of 'approved' scenarios. I could see how they also feel that the promotion of points values as the standard' way to play the game prevents people from experience the wonders and joys of the cool 'narrative game' mode.

But even if that were the motivation, the execution really seems to fall far short. For one thing, removal of a default and - dare I say it - easy way to play against a complete stranger limits the number of opportunities people will have for games, or at least will make that experience much more complicated and obviously less fair. It seems sort of absurd to assume that two average people playing a game after possibly meeting each other for the first time are somehow supposed to be better at collaboratively determining whether a particular pair of armies is balanced in a few minutes than a team of professional game designers who have months and no particular vested interest in one side or the other. It also gets even worse when you're playing against someone using models you've never played against before.

Also, none of the official materials released so far (other than the little book in the starter box) have any examples of the kinds of narrative scenarios I imagine the GW designers would like us to construct. It's all just little building blocks (Realm-specific rules and Battleplans and Warscrolls) without any rules or guidelines or advice on how to put it all together into a satisfying game experience.

Dokushin
24-07-2015, 07:33
Not even a little, I've played well over a dozen mini games in the nearly 20 years I've been in the hobby, and not a one has been perfectly balanced through points. GW isn't alone, points in their entirety are subjective when assigned, and impossible to take into account every permutation of list imaginable, but instead have created an environment where people are comfortable playing a "fair" game because they both played with the same number of points, besides the army being drastically different in power level, and where it is seen as a negative thing to play with an unequal point value for the sake of balancing the game.

Do you think it would be better if, before the game, each player went through their army book and wrote in what they thought the points values should be for their army? Because that's exactly what we have now.

Tokamak
24-07-2015, 07:42
I've played well over a dozen mini games in the nearly 20 years I've been in the hobby, and not a one has been perfectly balanced through points.

This is not actually connecting to this point:


The concept of "points" hasn't been what's failed. GW's efforts at creating a balanced game have failed.

If you want to somehow say that points balancing systems are never fully perfect. Fine. Granted. You're not going to find anyone who's saying that points balancing systems are pefect.

What people are saying is that points balancing systems are the BEST system we have. That it stands out among all the other systems some other board games employ.

Why?

Because a point system is the sweet spot between just enough restriction and just enough flexibility to employ wildly different armies with wildly different sets of properties, strategies, playstyles, sizes, strengths and weaknesses. Every other system that tries to balance this without points either becomes too flexible and turns the game into a soup where everything is similar (AoS) or is too restrictive and doesn't allow players to fully create something of their own.

Spiney Norman
24-07-2015, 08:12
Not even a little, I've played well over a dozen mini games in the nearly 20 years I've been in the hobby, and not a one has been perfectly balanced through points. GW isn't alone, points in their entirety are subjective when assigned, and impossible to take into account every permutation of list imaginable, but instead have created an environment where people are comfortable playing a "fair" game because they both played with the same number of points, besides the army being drastically different in power level, and where it is seen as a negative thing to play with an unequal point value for the sake of balancing the game.

You keep dancing around this issue extremely elegantly, but please, let's tackle it head-on shall we.

1. Points don't give us perfect balance, they give a broad framework for creating armies that approximately equal with each other, and when combined with an FOC give an acceptable margin for error to allow armies to compete on (very) roughly equal terms.

2. Age of Sigmar has no points, it has no other method of balancing forces except for the instant death rule, which is the worst rule I have ever seen in a war game bar none. It pushes you towards the most elite units and makes horde troops completely non-viable, and worst of all, it comprehensively fails at doing what it is intended for - balancing the game.

You have failed to advance a coherent argument as to why you think a game that is intentionally designed to be unbalanced (Age of Sigmar) is in any way way superior to the imperfect-but-serviceable balance provided by the points/FOC combo used in 6th/7th/8th.

T10
24-07-2015, 08:45
Why, in other words, do games have referees?

That's an interesting analogy: points values serve as referees. And why not? The points values in army lists and codexes have always been accepted (at least, I know of no-one that would insist on playing a causal game with home-brew points values), even if there has always been grumbling about unfair costs.

Another thing I find interesting is that players that want some sort of army composition rules fore Age of Sigmar also want GW to be the ones to present it, to put their stamp of approval on it, so to speak. It feels safe to adhere to a singular authority, since that means you can "speak the same language" as all adhering to the same. Sure, anyone can make their own composition rules, but the odds of people being at least familiar with the "GW universal standard" and willing is a near certainty.

Too bad it doesn't exist.

So what can you do?

1. Make your own composition rules.
2. Try out other peoples composition rules and use the one you like
3. Wait until a new community standard becomes generally accepted and use that, even if you don't like it.

Things may look bad right now, but that's partly because of the nerd rage and rampant speculation is moving much faster than the new game is settling. I mean, asking "Has GW committed suicide with AoS?" is a valid expression of nerd angst, but it's going to take months to see. The same thing applies to the community's desire for army composition rules: Make the effort to adopt some hold-over composition rules, see if any tournaments see a success with their own rules, and wait it out.

-T10

MarkNorfolk
24-07-2015, 08:51
Not that my opinion is any more relavent..



1. Points don't give us perfect balance, they give a broad framework for creating armies that approximately equal with each other, and when combined with an FOC give an acceptable margin for error to allow armies to compete on (very) roughly equal terms.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but isn't this saying "Point's don't give us balance.....not equal with each other....compete on unequal terms"? Is it not WORSE than no system because it fails but gives the illusion of fairness?




2. Age of Sigmar has no points, it has no other method of balancing forces except for the instant death rule, which is the worst rule I have ever seen in a war game bar none. It pushes you towards the most elite units and makes horde troops completely non-viable, and worst of all, it comprehensively fails at doing what it is intended for - balancing the game.

You have failed to advance a coherent argument as to why you think a game that is intentionally designed to be unbalanced (Age of Sigmar) is in any way way superior to the imperfect-but-serviceable balance provided by the points/FOC combo used in 6th/7th/8th.

Just watching some younger players do 40K at a small local club (one using a 5th ed codex, one had 'roughly' worked out a points value but not followed the FOC, another just brought flyers 'cause they're cool) shows that to GWs target audience, points are inconvenient at best. The fact that even adult gamers of GW and other games who hurriedly put together a list right before play (at the expence of gaming time) shows that to a lot of people army-building is chore.

Cheers
Mark

Spiney Norman
24-07-2015, 09:19
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but isn't this saying "Point's don't give us balance.....not equal with each other....compete on unequal terms"? Is it not WORSE than no system because it fails but gives the illusion of fairness?

No because balanced/unbalanced isn't a binary state, it's a sliding scale

If you bring 20 chaos warriors and a daemon prince and I bring ten night goblins and a shaman on foot I'm going to have a worse time than if I'd brought 30 night goblins and a shaman on an arachnarok, even if the game is still probably unbalanced in your favour. Balance doesn't need to be perfect for a game to be enjoyable, it just needs to be within an acceptable margin of error, the 8th edition points system managed that, AoS does not.

Think of it like this, the old points system was like shooting at a target when the sight on your gun was not aligned properly, a skilled player could somewhat mitigate the problems caused by the misaligned sight and usually get his shot somewhere on the target board even if he couldn't hit the bullseye. AoS has tried to solve the problem of the misaligned sight by taking away the target board altogether.




Just watching some younger players do 40K at a small local club (one using a 5th ed codex, one had 'roughly' worked out a points value but not followed the FOC, another just brought flyers 'cause they're cool) shows that to GWs target audience, points are inconvenient at best. The fact that even adult gamers of GW and other games who hurriedly put together a list right before play (at the expence of gaming time) shows that to a lot of people army-building is chore.

Cheers
Mark

Your stories are anecdotal at best, I'm sure this kind of stuff happens somewhere, but most of the players I know spend all week agonising over their army list and putting together new and different combos, I've had thirty minute conversations with players on the subject of which lore of magic they should choose for a particular game against a particular army/opponent.

Even if points are inconvenient, that's not really the point, would you play a game of chess where all the pieces on your side of the table were pawns and all the pieces on your opponents side of the table were queens? That's what playing AoS is like currently. The thing is, if points exist you are free to ignore them if you want to, if there is no points system the guys who want a balanced game have no option but to play a different game.

Deadhorse
24-07-2015, 09:26
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here but isn't this saying "Point's don't give us balance.....not equal with each other....compete on unequal terms"? Is it not WORSE than no system because it fails but gives the illusion of fairness?

Absolutely false. Absolute balance in any advanced game is impossible... unless both sides have exactly the same armies and starting conditions. Even chess isn't balanced, because white goes first :)

Balance in games is thus not a true-false variable, but something that can be quantified. I. e. you can have decent balance, so-so balance, poor balance, etc.

With this move, GW went from poor balance to terrible balance, and your argument is pretty much a kind of "parachuting wasn't a safe sport anyway, so we got rid of the secondary chutes to save money".

As per your "children cannot build rosters" argument - sure, I've seen that. That is why it's always been my pet idea that GW should have basic and advanced versions of rulesets. The basic versions can say "take whatever", we understand this is for beginners, kids or role-players and whatever other groups want to use it. The advanced version is for people who are more into the hobby of playing the game. And it should definitely include rules for army building.

Currently, GW somehow believes that catering to the second group is completely not unprofitable, which in my mind is pretty stupid.

Moirdryd
24-07-2015, 11:28
You don't need points in a game to for that game to have balance.
However what you DO need under those circumstances is a solid and tight game that emphasises tactical play with an easy understanding of the capabilities of the units involved to succeed with this or you need Scenario play, preferably with substitution options to allow for a wider audience to use that Scenario (which AoS is apparently bringing) that gives things in detail. Currently AoS does neither of this things particularly well. A game that does do this well would be Battletech which has a number of balancing options (a few different systems of points as well as the age old classic of Tonnage of Forces balancing or even simply Unit Size balancing Lance vs Lance etc) you can also create random units of the Force Composition Tables and still have an interesting game. It also has a fully built in set of campaign systems (yes systems) it has scenarios with substitution options and you can even play an unbalanced narrative themed game and have plenty of fun with it (Clan invasion style of a Star landing on a backwater Lyran garrison with it's Lance of 3025 militia mechs, was one sided, was brutal and we still gave those Jade Falcons a run for their money).

AoS had the possibility of being a really really good game. What they made is not.

Spiney Norman
24-07-2015, 11:36
You don't need points in a game to for that game to have balance.

I'm open to that possibility, I'm sure that points are not the only way to balance a game, but you do need something, and AoS has nothing. What they could have done was make each warscroll limited, for example to the number of models that come in a standard box, then given each scroll a value between 1-5 (with things like goblins and state troopers being worth 1 and ogres, chaos Knights etc being worth 4-5, and special cases like Nagash being worth 10).

Making each scroll open ended was utterly retarded in my view, it just makes the game favour a few large units of super-elites.

EagleWarrior
24-07-2015, 11:49
Points never were totally balanced and never could be, but I think they had benefits all the same. I think on of the main reasons I like points is it gives you a meaningful decision to make when deciding what upgrades to take and a meaningful reason to take weaker but cheaper things. I found this added a lot more character to armies.

In the real world there is a balance between how good something is and how much of your economy it takes to produce it. An example is the excellent tanks produced by WW2 Germany losing to the far inferior but far more numerous tanks produced by the US and Russia. I like the idea of the Skaven lord deciding it isn't worth the cost to give leather armour to his slaves or the Empire captain deciding that giving a standard to the handgunner unit won't help them enough to be worth while.

Yes, most players will try and balance armies and will allow the goblin army to take more wounds than the chaos warriors army, but I think we will see a lot of players taking all the upgrades available just because there it's hard to justify not doing so, and army flavour being the poorer for it.

MarkNorfolk
24-07-2015, 11:52
Oh yes - it was aneodcdotal - I meant to mention that originally. :-) I do think there should be some kind of balancing factor, be it points values, scenario details or different victory conditions.

Anecdotal again, but I have seen several casual gamers have fun with thier Old World armies and this system, but we'll see if this new setup has legs...

Cheers
Mark

Shandor
24-07-2015, 11:58
Its very much the same if you say: "Democracy is not perfect! It failed us since 2000 years. So remove it and make an Anarchy thats much better!"

jtrowell
24-07-2015, 12:02
Games like Kings of War, X-wing, Star wars armada and many other prove that you can make a point system that is decently balanced (more than anything GW made ever was) and with a reasonable army building time.

Absolute balance outside of mirror matches might be impossible, but a much better result can be -and has been- done compared to the average GW product, and AoS don't even make a try on this point.

jtrowell
24-07-2015, 12:03
Its very much the same if you say: "Democracy is not perfect! It failed us since 2000 years. So remove it and make an Anarchy thats much better!"

"using points is the worst balancing system, except for all the others" ;)

Shandor
24-07-2015, 12:06
"using points is the worse balancing system, except for all the others" ;)

Yeah Winston nailed it :)

EagleWarrior
24-07-2015, 12:41
I'm not a competitive player, don't play in tournaments, and will often take what I find fun rather than what's most optimal. I'll quite often take armies with an interesting theme that's fun to build even though it may technically be at a disadvantage on the table. If I want a balanced and competitive game, I'll play chess. I play Warhammer because I like being the general of an awesome looking army.

But I find points very important. It makes things easier, and gives a framework that makes sure things are roughly fair. I'm free to build my army the way I want it, without having to worry about stomping or getting stomped by someone who did it differently. I know I can take my army to any gaming club and not have to waist half an hour working a how to play.

Points aren't just about competitiveness and focusing on winning, they're really useful for people who want stories, cool models and having fun.

Tokamak
24-07-2015, 13:05
Its very much the same if you say: "Democracy is not perfect! It failed us since 2000 years. So remove it and make an Anarchy thats much better!"

Well AoS requires a referee so we'd be looking at Feudalism because democracy isn't perfect.

Spiney Norman
24-07-2015, 13:19
Well AoS requires a referee so we'd be looking at Feudalism because democracy isn't perfect.

"AoS requires a referee" based on what? I don't see that mentioned in the rules at all

You mean there are magical beings out there who instinctively know how many night goblins are required to balance out Nagash and can rule definitively on all matters pertaining to game balance in AoS? Give me a break...

Niall78
24-07-2015, 13:21
"AoS requires a referee" based on what? I don't see that mentioned in the rules at all

You mean there are magical beings out there who instinctively know how many night goblins are required to balance out Nagash and can rule definitively on all matters pertaining to game balance in AoS? Give me a break...

I've GM'd all kinds of games. I'd find it completely impossible to GM a game of AoS without resorting to complete guess work most of the time. I wouldn't put myself in that position to be honest.

Wishing
24-07-2015, 13:25
Points values, even though arbitrary and inaccurate, have advantages, and also disadvantages.

GW is now trying out if the lack of the advantages of points values can be turned into a selling point, and combined with the lack of the disadvantages of points values.

The comparison to historicals is most relevant here I think. People point out that historicals don't have points values, and then others reply that historicals don't have dragons either. Which is true. But it is silly to say that a lack of points values is OK in one genre of game and not in another genre of game without acknowledging that a lack of points values has the potential to be OK.

Just saying "dragons" isn't enough. What is the exact mechanism that makes no points OK in historicals but not OK in warhammer?

It seems that the main argument is that all the armies are the same in historicals, so it is easy to make games balanced, there are no dragons to swoop in and smash things up. I think that's too simplistic though. I am sure that if you wanted to set up a historicals game where the sides are not balanced, it would be possible. So how do people play balanced games? By wanting to play balanced games, I reckon, and by valuing the game integrity higher than the ability to min-max an army to get the best chance of winning. To me, it seems like the main difference between historicals and warhammer is one of mentality. Which leads to a feeling that the mentality of historicals players can handle a lack of points, and the mentality of warhammer players cannot.

You could argue that it is much *easier* to handle a lack of points in historicals due to the lack of dragons. And I would agree with that completely. But it being harder to do in AoS doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the principle, and I would argue that it gets easier as you get more used to the system.

Wishing
24-07-2015, 13:29
You mean there are magical beings out there who instinctively know how many night goblins are required to balance out Nagash and can rule definitively on all matters pertaining to game balance in AoS? Give me a break...

Indeed there are no such beings. And no such points system either. Can you really see a points system that accurately and meaningfully says that X amount of goblins is equal to one nagash, and it actually working out so that if you field X amount of goblins against one nagash, you will think "yep, that was just the right amount of goblins, not too few and not too many"?

Spiney Norman
24-07-2015, 13:32
Points values, even though arbitrary and inaccurate, have advantages, and also disadvantages.

GW is now trying out if the lack of the advantages of points values can be turned into a selling point, and combined with the lack of the disadvantages of points values.

The comparison to historicals is most relevant here I think. People point out that historicals don't have points values, and then others reply that historicals don't have dragons either. Which is true. But it is silly to say that a lack of points values is OK in one genre of game and not in another genre of game without acknowledging that a lack of points values has the potential to be OK.

Just saying "dragons" isn't enough. What is the exact mechanism that makes no points OK in historicals but not OK in warhammer?

It seems that the main argument is that all the armies are the same in historicals, so it is easy to make games balanced, there are no dragons to swoop in and smash things up. I think that's too simplistic though. I am sure that if you wanted to set up a historicals game where the sides are not balanced, it would be possible. So how do people play balanced games? By wanting to play balanced games, I reckon, and by valuing the game integrity higher than the ability to min-max an army to get the best chance of winning. To me, it seems like the main difference between historicals and warhammer is one of mentality. Which leads to a feeling that the mentality of historicals players can handle a lack of points, and the mentality of warhammer players cannot.

The thing about historicals is that a given scenario usually tells you exactly how many of each unit/vehicle to put down, points values are not needed because force lists are fixed and players have no choice about what they bring. Can you imagine trying to re-fight a WWII tank battle where both sides were allowed to bring as many tanks as they liked of whatever class they wanted?

There is also a very different agenda behind historical gaming, you're a trying to recreate a battle that actually happened in history, AoS takes place in a world which presently has no history, nothing to recreate, just a blank page.

Wishing
24-07-2015, 13:39
The thing about historicals is that a given scenario usually tells you exactly how many of each unit/vehicle to put down, points values are not needed because force lists are fixed and players have no choice about what they bring. Can you imagine trying to re-fight a WWII tank battle where both sides were allowed to bring as many tanks as they liked of whatever class they wanted?

There is also a very different agenda behind historical gaming, you're a trying to recreate a battle that actually happened in history, AoS takes place in a world which presently has no history, nothing to recreate, just a blank page.

I think these are good points, but not that they present any argument for why warhammer has to have points values. To me, your good points just point out how to approach AoS to make the lack of points work better.

Flexibility is one of the main points I guess. If a historicals scenario tells you exactly how many of what figures to put on the table, how do people play if they don't happen to have the exact models required? Would they not just shuffle it around a bit, and field what they had instead? Which sounds similar to the AoS idea to me.

Can you play historicals without a scenario? Just a pitched battle with no history or background? If not, then that's probably the mentality we need for AoS too. There is no such thing as no scenario. You have to make a scenario. You just write it yourself, at least the "what forces should either side field?" part of the scenario.

Shandor
24-07-2015, 13:44
The thing about historicals is that a given scenario usually tells you exactly how many of each unit/vehicle to put down, points values are not needed because force lists are fixed and players have no choice about what they bring. Can you imagine trying to re-fight a WWII tank battle where both sides were allowed to bring as many tanks as they liked of whatever class they wanted?

There is also a very different agenda behind historical gaming, you're a trying to recreate a battle that actually happened in history, AoS takes place in a world which presently has no history, nothing to recreate, just a blank page.

Plus in Historical battles its not a match of even Armys. Some of them there is a clear winner from start on since its that what really happend. Its not matter of "who wins?" its how you lose or win. Its like Scenarios but i dont want to play only premade battles "Here you play the Battle where the High Elves lost against the Dwarves and fled over the ocean"
No i want to make my own battles with, whatever my Playing partner want to play and with as many units we want to play and still got an almost even Battle where the winner isnt sure from the start.
It might be fun to play the chanceless defender for a Game or too.. but for me thats not what i want. I want my own Story and my own Battle with my own army in a fair game.

Spiney Norman
24-07-2015, 13:48
I think these are good points, but not that they present any argument for why warhammer has to have points values. To me, your good points just point out how to approach AoS to make the lack of points work better.

Flexibility is one of the main points I guess. If a historicals scenario tells you exactly how many of what figures to put on the table, how do people play if they don't happen to have the exact models required? Would they not just shuffle it around a bit, and field what they had instead? Which sounds similar to the AoS idea to me.

Can you play historicals without a scenario? Just a pitched battle with no history or background? If not, then that's probably the mentality we need for AoS too. There is no such thing as no scenario. You have to make a scenario. You just write it yourself, at least the "what forces should either side field?" part of the scenario.

First let me say that my experience with historicals is extremely limited, I've played mostly napoleonics in what if I remember correctly was similar to warmaster scale. The historicals we played were the 'battle in a box' variety, in the box you got all the models you needed to play the battle/battles contained within it. Afaik most historicals are always scenario based because the whole point in historical war gaming is recreating historical battles.

Also lets try and get away from talking about 'points', points are not necessary, but some method of balancing forces is, points just happen to be the most common/easiest to understand method of balancing forces to a satisfactory degree.

The lack of any balancing methodology makes it incredibly hard to design anything approaching a balanced scenario because you simply don't know how to equate models on one side with those on the other, is an elf spearmen worth two night Goblins? How many elves (or goblins for that matter) is a chaos knight worth? How does an elf prince on a dragon compare to a greater daemon? etc. etc.

Shadeseraph
24-07-2015, 13:48
Just saying "dragons" isn't enough. What is the exact mechanism that makes no points OK in historicals but not OK in warhammer?

Sincerely? Critical mass of players.

Like it or not, most historicals are quite niche. People who play them tend to be very focused on what they want and how they want it. For starters, most are simulationists, whose biggest interest is replaying battles or representing them. Most, also, tend to play almost exclusively within their community, which usually tends to share their own preferences.

Warhammer has grown big enough than it has reached quite a lot of people, in many cases people with completely different approaches to gaming. Furthermore, warhammer has much less appeal as a simulationist game, even if it still has some.

In the end, as someone has said before, points are a good medium because of three reasons:

1- They create a common language which anyone can fall back into.

2- They are the sweet spot to allow enough flexibility while still presenting a measure to compare.

3- You can just ignore it. Someone before wrote about a bunch of gamers more or less ignoring army restrictions and just bringing whatever they wanted. That just mean that people can do that without the book explicitly allowing you to do so! That's great! and that doesn't mean you should ignore those that want such a system.

TheKingInYellow
24-07-2015, 14:05
The other thing about Historicals is that they are extremely scenario driven. The win conditions are rarely as simple as 'kill more of them' and more like 'a drastically undersized force needs to hold off this advance for five turns'.

Wishing
24-07-2015, 14:08
You can certainly argue that the historicals only work because they are historical, and the kind of fun you get in a historical cannot be replicated in any kind of non-historical setting, since you are not playing out something from history. I would say that that would be a fair argument as to why someone would think that AoS does not work. But I think that's a different and more layered argument than simply saying that "warhammer has to have points, end of story".


I want my own Story and my own Battle with my own army in a fair game.

I would say that this reply highlights one of my issues. You want a fair game, and you want a story. To me, there is some disconnect between these - a very fundamental disconnect within wargaming in general.

It is just like you say with historicals. If you are playing the grand battle where the elves lost against the dwarfs - that is not really a game. That's playing out a story. It's not about winning or losing. The result is already given at the start. It is like civil war re-enactments. It's fun with battles in history, i.e. it is living out a story - but it is not a game.

So if that's not what you want, you go and play chess. It's a finely balanced game, modeled over the idea of a battlefield, and it is all about winning or losing and being the better player. But it lacks history. Chess does not feel like a battle that is really happening. It is not realistic that the exact same forces would line up in front of each other and move in fixed ways. It is not part of a story.

So we have a story, and a game, that are two completely different things. Wargames with miniatures try to be something in between these two. They want to be semi-balanced games that are about winning or losing. But they also want it to feel a bit like a story, so the sides are not mirrored and characters have names and stuff. The inherent imbalance is introduced by this desire to make the game interesting by having fluff, background, character and fiction in there.

By removing points, AoS has moved itself further towards story and further away from game. We can probably all agree on this. I think the point of the OP is that that doesn't in itself make AoS terrible, unless you also think that historicals are terrible and military re-enactment is terrible.

minionboy
24-07-2015, 14:17
Well the points system never stood on its own legs did it? You didn't just build 2500 pts, you build 2500 pts for a tournament, pick-up games, playing with friends, or perhaps even tailored lists.

When making an army you knew just about what power level you were/are aiming for. Of course there could be issues where a foot based VC army would come up against a Wood Elf avoidance army or other unlucky matchups or things for which you had no counter (the "should have brought a cannon" moments), but such factors just encouraged you to take a balanced force.

AoS don't really deal with those issues. Rather they reward the player with the largest collection who can use it to outdeploy his opponent. No Points doesn't make games more or less balanced in the overall scheme of things... but it does make balance kinda more random..

So you're making my point for me? You're right, you never just played 2500 points, you may set that as a starting point for restriction, but then you move on to add Tournament rules (that have taken years and are built on decades of experience with a slowly evolving game), or add in other social restrictions as well, such as friendly games. But then you go on to insist that this cannot be done with AoS and it can only be played by bringing all the models you own? Come now.


You keep dancing around this issue extremely elegantly, but please, let's tackle it head-on shall we.

1. Points don't give us perfect balance, they give a broad framework for creating armies that approximately equal with each other, and when combined with an FOC give an acceptable margin for error to allow armies to compete on (very) roughly equal terms.

2. Age of Sigmar has no points, it has no other method of balancing forces except for the instant death rule, which is the worst rule I have ever seen in a war game bar none. It pushes you towards the most elite units and makes horde troops completely non-viable, and worst of all, it comprehensively fails at doing what it is intended for - balancing the game.

You have failed to advance a coherent argument as to why you think a game that is intentionally designed to be unbalanced (Age of Sigmar) is in any way way superior to the imperfect-but-serviceable balance provided by the points/FOC combo used in 6th/7th/8th.

Hey Spiney buddy!

I actually don't think it was intentionally designed to be unbalanced, I think it's designed to leave it to social darwinism. Ever have a total jerk playing in your local game club? Did people stop playing with him and he disappeared? Happens all the time. These players also were the worst to encounter as someone new to the hobby who are not heavily invested and can happily leave to go play Magic. When you read the forums, the advice that many people resoundingly give to new players, is to not read the forums for this exact reason. I full heartedly believe that GW is leaving it open so that players can find what works for themselves, and no longer are bound by the golden handcuffs of using points to determine what is fun, fair, or balanced.

So, to take on your points directly:

1. Armies are only going to be anywhere near approximately equal, when the armies they are created with are equally well balanced with points and have equal amounts of units that are capable of being force multipliers. I've been a long time Beastman player, and I can tell you that going against someone's tournament Vampire or Ogre army, with the toughest army I could muster after years of playing them, was never anything short of an uphill fight. Regardless of the community totally agreeing on some armies and units being underpowered, there was nobody fighting to change it, and certainly few tournaments that would. Even if you do play in a tournament that gave certain armies bonus points to work with (like ETC), it did nothing to solve internal balance issues which revolved around points. The Jabberslythe, and Cygor were never worth their points. That's one example with one army, using points only gives you the illusion of a balanced match. Some games (I'm looking at you WMH) which also use points have such poor internal balance that units are only really viable in very specific combos, which has essentially led that game to have about 2-3 acceptable lists per faction, and those lists are generally 95% identical, you may as well just play the game without points and only pre-determined matchups based on these combos.

2. There is always another method to balance you game, it's not written in the rules and never has been. It's called speaking to the person you've accepted a social contract with for the next few hours. Nowhere in Age of Sigmar does it say that you must ignore your opponent pre-game and may only begin discourse after armies have been deployed. Much like people have done with pointed game systems, it is often beneficial to come to some sort of agreement about the nature of the game you're beginning to engage in. For that matter, there was nothing in the previous editions that outright banned the ability to play unevenly pointed games against each other with total disregard for the force org! The GW Police aren't going to come kicking your door in for having a conversation with your opponent before the game, and agreeing to play the game the way you like.

To your third and unnumbered point, I'm not sure if it's superior, the game has only been out for a brief amount of time, and the decades of experience I have with other games is mostly irrelevant to this entirely new one. I'm intrigued by the possibilities of not being forced to play by what the game manufacturer says is balanced, as that has failed me so many times in both GW games and non-. But I like the idea that my Cygor is no longer too over cost to be viable in a game, because now the socially acceptable thing to do is to talk about the game, instead of shrugging your shoulders and chopping it up to bad luck/design/gw's secret agenda to get us to worship cthulhu.

Sephillion
24-07-2015, 14:19
Historicals are not like a fantasy game – the number of variations in model types and between armies is going to be less pronounced than in a fantasy game, where we have literally dozens of infantry fighters wielding dozens of different weapons, being of different races, of different sizes, wearing varied armor, sometimes even supported by magic. That’s just the melee infantry. The variables are enormous. So two players may very well end up facing one another, and having absolutely not a clue what the other player’s army is going to play. That’s not to say there aren’t variations in historicals, but you will not face jungle-dwelling primitive orkss one day, refined elvish tacticians the other, and hordes of demonic, blood crazy warriors the following week.

Also, points have already been made about scenarios and simulations.

Points are not perfect, but they’re better than nothing. If GW wanted to change the system because they didn’t like points, they should have done exactly that – tried something. Instead of changing the foundation, they removed it, and not the edifice is crumbling.

HammerofThunor
24-07-2015, 14:24
I wonder how long it's going to take before everyone finally accepts that AoS isn't really a game in the tradition sense. It's a loose framework for pitting you're collections against each other (and not in any meaningful competitive way). That's it. There is no Games Workshop fantasy game supported anymore.

When I originally played WFB we used bits of paper for the units with the individual units marked on. It was a game, with pieces, which as long as they were identifiable, could be whatever you wanted. There would be no point doing that with AoS because it's the models that are the point (and the only point).

Don't get me wrong, people can turn anything into a game and get enjoyment out of it. Personally, I'm mainly about collecting the stuff I like and since I've come back into it don't really care for list building and those aspects. If the models are good and I can put together a themed army I'm happy with then I'm happy with it.

One day, if the drop off is significant, GW may realise their dream of being a miniatures company isn't sustainable and start putting effect into the games again. Or them may do ok out their dream and keep it up. Or they may do badly but ignore and get into real trouble.

But I think everyone would be better off just accepting that they don't do a fantasy game any more and if that is what you're after you'll need to follow an unsupported game edition or a different option entirely. If you just want some framework, or are willing to put the effort into turning it into a game, then crack on as things are.

Er...ramble ramble.

Bloodknight
24-07-2015, 14:30
A game that does do this well would be Battletech which has a number of balancing options (a few different systems of points as well as the age old classic of Tonnage of Forces balancing or even simply Unit Size balancing Lance vs Lance etc)

BT makes this relatively easy because the capabilities of the units can basically seen by looking at the record sheet. All units follow the same construction rule set and the units themselves do not have special rules that are hard to put a price on, with very few exceptions*. Also, it is a game that is very depending on player skill to decide the outcome of a game because it is a game basically won in the movement phase, i.e. it's easy to handicap yourself or build forces of roughly similar strengths as long as your maps are the right size (we usually play on 6-9 sheets, the standard 2-sheet maps are way too small for missile boats to play a role as they cannot retreat long enough before getting overrun, brawling rules there - for the same reasons the maps can't be too big or fast, long ranged units dominate. I once fought a guy who brought a Hussar in a light lance battle, and boy, that was hard because the map gave him too much room to maneuver. 142 turns later - thank Megamek -, I finally shot him in the hip when he miscounted a range bracket. For the guys who don't know BT, a game usually takes between 5 and 25 turns tops).

The points system BV2 is quite good because it relies on the construction formula, although it does have its issues (Clan Large Pulse Lasers, double heatsinks and the general efficiency of Laser Zombies, the price of pilot upgrades that make standard pilots more effective than elite pilots). Matching by tonnage only really works inside a time bracket of same tech because a 3070s 60-tonner will easily outperform a 3025 100-ton assault mech. Also there are some specialized units that are better represented by BV, like the Cyclops command mech (90 tons, but it's soft and full of ammo and as a combat unit it does not really perform better than a Hunchback overall, I use them as a replacement for medium brawlers in general) and the CGR-1A1 Charger which looks like a giant 80 ton joke until you notice that its BV is less than that of many 3025 medium mechs. And then it's suddenly useful at kicking those 4/6 moving trooper units that can't dodge it to smithereens, it's a zombie with lots of redundant locations and it's got just enough firepower to put a dent in another unit, but not force a Piloting Skill Roll before it kicks (prone targets are easier to hit from an adjacent position, but since you want to immobilize enemy units first, it's oftenbetter to just weaken the armor and then hit the leg until it falls off).

Lance vs Lance works as well as most mechs in one size category tend to have a somewhat similar bv anyway. Basically a 3025 4/6 moving heavy trooper unit will generally have a BV around 1300-1400, for example. Most mediums hover around 1000 plusminus 100, most light mechs are between 350 and 600 bv anyway. It's quite hard to unbalance the game unless you want to, actually. And then you give the side with the cheaper units a couple better pilots and you're almost there.

*Narc missile pods that become successively stronger the more missile boats you have, C3 networks, Mobile HQs. Basically the stuff that's hard to balance is the ultra-high-tech from the later periods. 3

Wishing
24-07-2015, 14:33
To explain more what I mean, think of the story-based kind of game like the realm of chaos narrative campaigns tried to be. I have a chaos warband. I rolled it up on tables. I randomly encounter the warband of another chaos champion. We play out a battle where we are both trying to investigate a mysterious tomb with unknown contents. There are no points costs to these forces. Are they equally matched? Who cares? This is a story. The end result will be that something has happened in the story of my chaos champion and his warband. I will write this in the journal of their exploits. That is what matters. It is not a contest of skill, it is a narrative encounter event for the historical records. Having points costs to artificially match up the size of the two warbands so they follow some arbitrary system of equality would drain storytelling flavour and the feeling of story immersion.


Sincerely? Critical mass of players.

I love this response because I agree with it. I agree that the storytelling approach is quite niche and not as easy for people to get into as competitive games. But that doesn't make the story approach bad or incompetent.


You can just ignore it. Someone before wrote about a bunch of gamers more or less ignoring army restrictions and just bringing whatever they wanted. That just mean that people can do that without the book explicitly allowing you to do so! That's great! and that doesn't mean you should ignore those that want such a system.

Sure, true enough. But that is the same as saying that all historicals games should also add a points system as an appendix to their games, so that the people who like points costs can play them too.

That's a fair enough opinion to have - but I think that most game developers would argue that they have no interest in adding an artificial appendix to their game that does not fit with the idea behind the game, just in order to make the game appeal to people that are not their target audience. Even in case where they really want as many sales as possible, like GW, there is probably an idea that they will do better by being true to the game concept rather than add secondary appendix rules to try and please everyone.

Piano Man
24-07-2015, 15:14
This is my first post here, so bear with me! I don't play GW games now, though I would have liked Fantasy but I could not justify the costs, or like the constant changes in armies. But I loved Warhammer Ancients, and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth what GW did to it. (And as an aside, its very hard to find people to play WAB anymore, so all those that say to just continue playing unsupported games, it isn't always so easy).

Regarding historicals - most of the historical games that I play and have played do indeed use points (not all historical gamers want to simply refight historical battles). WAB did, War and Conquest, SAGA, WECW, the old WRG Ancients from decades ago, and as has been mentioned Pike & Shotte / Hail Caesar all contain a balancing mechanism. Ancients in particular - players have widely varied historical interests so sometime you just have to have a game of ancient Egyptians vs Roman legions. Was the balancing perfect? No - but it was better than everyone just guessing. Fantasy due to its very nature exacerbates the problem (see 'Dragons').

I think that people arguing that AoS is a 'story-based' game are both right and wrong. Wrong, in that GW intends to foster this for a collegial atmosphere for the "good of the hobby." Right in that yes, GW does indeed want a story-based game, with perhaps a history -a history and a story that GW can now create.

The cynical view is that GW did not create an 'authoritative' balancing within the game - but they can create authoritative balancing by writing the story going forward - publishing scenarios in different realms, at different times, etc. And if these scenarios require that new unit that was just produced, or the new monster miniature that
just came out - well, they are a miniature company are they not?

My perspective (and I could easily be proved wrong) is that many (not all of course) that play GW games may only play GW games (there is nothing wrong with this, I love WAB which is based on an old edition of WHFB), or branch out into very similar games - so GW knows that they can now control the history and the balancing of AoS.

Anyway, thats my two cents.

Tokamak
24-07-2015, 15:15
I would say that this reply highlights one of my issues. You want a fair game, and you want a story. To me, there is some disconnect between these - a very fundamental disconnect within wargaming in general.

Balanced games can lead to amazing narratives within them. That goes for sports for video games, for board games and the same goes for tabletop games. Providing for compelling themese interacting with each other within a game is part of the design goals.

Of course most AoS games end up in a moshpit. Which is also a story I suppose, just not a very good one.

EagleWarrior
24-07-2015, 15:30
The comparison to historicals is most relevant here I think. People point out that historicals don't have points values

Is that true? I play Flames of War and Bold Action, both of which use points values.

Spiney Norman
24-07-2015, 15:38
So you're making my point for me? You're right, you never just played 2500 points, you may set that as a starting point for restriction, but then you move on to add Tournament rules (that have taken years and are built on decades of experience with a slowly evolving game), or add in other social restrictions as well, such as friendly games. But then you go on to insist that this cannot be done with AoS and it can only be played by bringing all the models you own? Come now.

Even if points are used as a starting point, at least you have a starting point, AoS has none.



I actually don't think it was intentionally designed to be unbalanced, I think it's designed to leave it to social darwinism. Ever have a total jerk playing in your local game club? Did people stop playing with him and he disappeared? Happens all the time. These players also were the worst to encounter as someone new to the hobby who are not heavily invested and can happily leave to go play Magic. When you read the forums, the advice that many people resoundingly give to new players, is to not read the forums for this exact reason. I full heartedly believe that GW is leaving it open so that players can find what works for themselves, and no longer are bound by the golden handcuffs of using points to determine what is fun, fair, or balanced.

Here's the problem I see with AoS, it turns us all into 'that guy', most of us unintentionally, it's less 'social Darwinism' and more 'social extinction'. I've played a dozen games of AoS and I still don't have a clue how to balance it, there is no frame of reference even, if I've played that many games and haven't had a good one yet, at what point do you say 'sod it' and try something else?



1. Armies are only going to be anywhere near approximately equal, when the armies they are created with are equally well balanced with points and have equal amounts of units that are capable of being force multipliers. I've been a long time Beastman player, and I can tell you that going against someone's tournament Vampire or Ogre army, with the toughest army I could muster after years of playing them, was never anything short of an uphill fight. Regardless of the community totally agreeing on some armies and units being underpowered, there was nobody fighting to change it, and certainly few tournaments that would. Even if you do play in a tournament that gave certain armies bonus points to work with (like ETC), it did nothing to solve internal balance issues which revolved around points. The Jabberslythe, and Cygor were never worth their points. That's one example with one army, using points only gives you the illusion of a balanced match. Some games (I'm looking at you WMH) which also use points have such poor internal balance that units are only really viable in very specific combos, which has essentially led that game to have about 2-3 acceptable lists per faction, and those lists are generally 95% identical, you may as well just play the game without points and only pre-determined matchups based on these combos.

Look, I played wood elves and tomb kings through 7th and early 8th edition, I'm more than familiar with the short comings of a points system, my point is, it's better than nothing. AoS is completely at sea with unit comparison. Now let's assume that I'm committed to the cause of us both having a good game, let's say you've put down a unit of ten chaos Knights, I'm getting out my skaven clan rats, should I put down ten, twenty or fifty of them to balance up your chaos Knights?


2. There is always another method to balance you game, it's not written in the rules and never has been. It's called speaking to the person you've accepted a social contract with for the next few hours. Nowhere in Age of Sigmar does it say that you must ignore your opponent pre-game and may only begin discourse after armies have been deployed. Much like people have done with pointed game systems, it is often beneficial to come to some sort of agreement about the nature of the game you're beginning to engage in. For that matter, there was nothing in the previous editions that outright banned the ability to play unevenly pointed games against each other with total disregard for the force org! The GW Police aren't going to come kicking your door in for having a conversation with your opponent before the game, and agreeing to play the game the way you like.

How do those conversations even go, if I said, 'I want to bring Nagash in our next game', how would you respond to that? The problem I've come up against in all the games I've played isn't people being a dick (though clearly that could be a problem), it's people who genuinely want to make the game work trying and failing to achieve a balanced game because they can't see the ball let alone the goal posts. GW have completely abrogated responsibility for making the game work because it was the quick and easy path, how do you balance a completely new game you have virtually no experience of when you don't even have the vaguest frame of reference for how effective any given unit is in the game?

I have these kind of conversations before every game I play, heck 40k doesn't work at all without them and that does use points, the problem with AoS is I don't even know where to start that conversation now, it's like trying to describe what the colour blue is like to someone who has been blind from birth, there is simply no frame of reference for comparison.


To your third and unnumbered point, I'm not sure if it's superior, the game has only been out for a brief amount of time, and the decades of experience I have with other games is mostly irrelevant to this entirely new one. I'm intrigued by the possibilities of not being forced to play by what the game manufacturer says is balanced, as that has failed me so many times in both GW games and non-. But I like the idea that my Cygor is no longer too over cost to be viable in a game, because now the socially acceptable thing to do is to talk about the game, instead of shrugging your shoulders and chopping it up to bad luck/design/gw's secret agenda to get us to worship cthulhu.

No-one forces you to play matched games in wfb, we've played siege games where the defender has only half the points of the attacker, we've played through the warhammer battlefields Lustria mini-campaign which generates unevenly matched games based on the strategies each player plugs into the app and balances those discrepancies with special rules and victory conditions within the scenario, no-one was ever forcing you to play 2000pts aside march-to-the-middle-and-slug-it-out games before they ditched points values.

What's worse, I now can't do those things, because put any two armies for AoS in front of me and I couldn't tell you which has the advantage before we start weighting victory conditions or scenario special rules. The instant death rule is a classic example of this, more often than not we've found it gives the advantage to the player who already had the upper hand anyway

Jack Shrapnel
24-07-2015, 16:15
Quite the opposite! I'm saying that points have failed us for a long time, so let's try something new. I strongly encourage people to figure out what works well for them in their groups and share it. The great thing about it is that we can now have conversations and agree upon limits outside of points. Without points we can now discuss what is an adequate counter to nasty combos instead of accepting that when some units or rules are used together they become more powerful than the creators intended when first published. Points were a gilded cage, we were lazy, points were easy, even when points were nowhere near what they should be.

Thank you for your article and I certainly appreciate the perspective. I think this is a new way of doing things for certain, but to say previous editions were balanced due to points was not remotely accurate. How many comp systems were in place for 8th ed. tournies? How did it feel to be a tomb kings player? balanced?

EagleWarrior
24-07-2015, 16:24
it turns us all into 'that guy', most of us unintentionally

This. It's like eating out with a group of friends, but the menu has no prices on. The bill comes and it's a lot. How do you split it? It's clear that the guy who had the lobster and six glasses of wine put more on than the guy who had chips, but by how much? Would it be simpler just to have everyone pay the same amount even with the clear difference? How does that make everybody feel? With the best will in the world no points leaves otherwise perfectly decent people with no frame of reference of how to even try and be reasonable and it will be really hard not to leave somebody feeling hard done by.

The_Real_Chris
24-07-2015, 17:11
Not even a little, I've played well over a dozen mini games in the nearly 20 years I've been in the hobby, and not a one has been perfectly balanced through points. GW isn't alone, points in their entirety are subjective when assigned, and impossible to take into account every permutation of list imaginable, but instead have created an environment where people are comfortable playing a "fair" game because they both played with the same number of points, besides the army being drastically different in power level, and where it is seen as a negative thing to play with an unequal point value for the sake of balancing the game.

I find Epic A, especially with the Epic UK lists pretty much spot on. A few armies are below par or more difficult than the others, but overall, pretty damn good.

Inquisitor Kallus
24-07-2015, 17:28
I find Epic A, especially with the Epic UK lists pretty much spot on. A few armies are below par or more difficult than the others, but overall, pretty damn good.

They are really good, a lot of this comes down to the fact that there arent a large amount of different units and weapon options/upgrades and so on in each force list. This is one of the huge differences between games of its ilk and 40k/wfb etc

Tyelacoirii
24-07-2015, 17:45
I don't buy that points were a gilded cage - they were fundamental for army building.

I could say "lets play a game this weekend of say 2000 points". My opponent and I could then spend some time thinking and putting together a 2000 point list. My opponent could then bring their 2000 point army along and we could play. They didn't have to lug over their entire collection because hey, I might want to use every model I have. Some people might suffer from weak army books but I could mitigate that by taking the the hardest net list I could find.

In AoS I have to say something like "well I really want to take X, Y and Z" and my opponent has to say "hmmm, well I guess that would be roughly the same as K, L & M". To which I have to say "er... sure, lets give it a go".

We play, one side massacres the other.

We then say "well that didn't work out as expected. Did you play badly or is it that K is just no match for X? Lets play another game and find out."

We play again, one side massacres the other again.

At this point we say "well that was a waste of an evening. How about instead of trying to somehow assign values to every unit in combination with everything else we just play something else."

So we do and never play AoS again.

I wanted AoS to succeed. I still think it could but not like this. GW seem to want me to have as much attachment to the game as I would for say Hungry Hungry Hippos - win or lose it doesn't matter so long as you have a laugh. Yet when I have to spend hundreds of pounds on miniatures and countless hours building and painting them its not going to happen. There has to be a deeper involvement there.

Sephillion
24-07-2015, 18:59
A model can be unbalanced for its points. They removed that aspect by removing points – now a model can be unbalanced in a vacuum. There will remain terribad models, good models and ZOMFGthismodelisawinbutton. And all shades in between. With the Sudden Death rules, elite-style troops are favored a lot over rank-and-file.

RandomThoughts
24-07-2015, 19:21
I would say that this reply highlights one of my issues. You want a fair game, and you want a story. To me, there is some disconnect between these

For me it's the opposite, but we might simply mean different things when we say story. I guess you mean the story leading up to a fight, explaining why everyone is there and why they brought the troops they brought (I used to dig that kind of stuff when I was a teenager, but I scratch that itch now with things other than tabletop games). I on the other hand mean the story that happens once the two armies meet on the field of battle.

Most of my Warmachine games for instance turn into great stories, like the time a desperate Captain Haley sent her last two remaining Gunmages after a already trumphant Prince Vladimir, and against all odds they take him down, just as she herself was running out of time, men and momentum.

The 40K game I have the fondest memories of is one that I barely won because a few surviving Dire Avengers crawled out of their smoking, wrecked Serpent unto a dais in the courtyard of the imperial palace, surrounded by dozens of Imperial soldiers that were closing in fast, but the brave Dire Avengers held the line, death-defiant, contesting the one flag I needed contested while the last turn of the game wound down.


To explain more what I mean, think of the story-based kind of game like the realm of chaos narrative campaigns tried to be. I have a chaos warband. I rolled it up on tables. I randomly encounter the warband of another chaos champion. We play out a battle where we are both trying to investigate a mysterious tomb with unknown contents. There are no points costs to these forces. Are they equally matched? Who cares? This is a story.

You didn't have points, but you had structure. The game told you what you could or could not bring. It's what Necromunda did, and while game game was far from balanced, you still had a framework that told you what to bring and what not.

I don't know how familiar you are with P&P RPGs, but the old standard as that you rolled up your character entirely, which changed over time until most systems have completely eliminated random elements (and most switched to straight-up points at some point, because it was easier, more straight forward, and often fairer than the convoluted mechanics we used to have).

One thing I remember distinctly was the guy in our group who spent hours rolling up characters until he had the one that had exactly the stats he wanted. Or he lied about it and simply write in the stats when nobody was looking. Wow, nostalgia. So there are good things coming out of AOS... :)

RandomThoughts
24-07-2015, 19:53
One thing I remember distinctly was the guy in our group who spent hours rolling up characters until he had the one that had exactly the stats he wanted. Or he lied about it and simply write in the stats when nobody was looking. Wow, nostalgia. So there are good things coming out of AOS... :)

Seriously, it felt like this guy thought the whole point of the game was to find new, creative ways to cheat. But no wonder, I mean the people that taught him the game pretty much thought the whole point of the game was to backstab the other players, kill them and steal their loot as crafty as possible. Unlike them he actually became one of the greatest, most decent guys I know... :D

Sorry for the derailment, but memory lane called and I couldn't refuse... ;)

Sephillion
24-07-2015, 20:24
Seriously, it felt like this guy thought the whole point of the game was to find new, creative ways to cheat. But no wonder, I mean the people that taught him the game pretty much thought the whole point of the game was to backstab the other players, kill them and steal their loot as crafty as possible. Unlike them he actually became one of the greatest, most decent guys I know... :D

Sorry for the derailment, but memory lane called and I couldn't refuse... ;)

So you had one of these guys too? “18, 18, 16, 17, 14, 16. Yeah, you rolled these. Wow, you really were lucky.” The guy would famously hide his d20 rolls behind his hand or scoop his dice so fast we couldn’t check.

EDIT: I must admit that for a moment, I really thought he rolled high – we were using a homebrew rolling system that led to high stats (not that high) and I couldn’t conceive that someone would CHEAT in an RPG! It was just so… unreal. I mean… it’s an RPG’ not a competition.

Bede19025
24-07-2015, 20:41
It seems all agree that points don't necessarily mean a perfectly balanced match-up. Perhaps it's more difficult to get a balanced match up without points. But it's also true that it's possible to get some balance without points via your general knowledge of how the game plays.

So the question is, how close does it have to be for both sides to have fun? I have a hard time believing that two people who want to play a balanced game can't get it close enough if they both act in good faith.

Lexington
24-07-2015, 21:09
Re: Points, I'm gonna repeat myself (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?411683-Is-GW-returning-to-its-1970s-mentality&p=7500515&viewfull=1#post7500515) here -

AoS is not, primarily, a game. AoS is a series of business decisions that have been marketed as a game.

When GW says "we're a models company, not a game company," they actually mean it - rules will be written to support and maximize the sale of models. When you think of it this way, AoS makes a ton of sense. From a business perspective, having a completely arbitrary, self-imposed set of "points" that limits the purchase of certain models (say, large, expensive monsters that cost a lot to produce) seems pretty crazy. Why on Earth would you tell a customer that they can only buy so many big, expensive models? Along the same line, why would you allow for a situation where groups of customers create artificial limits on the number of models they can field in any given game? It means everyone will be held back to the level of the group's lowest spender. So, no points limits, no assumption of balanced forces - it's "up to the players" to balance the game. Bring what you want, buy all you can!

The GW design team did not sit around in a room, bat about a ton of ideas, then just happen to come up with one that works as a maximized marketing/sales engine for GW's primary product. Within the hierarchy of GW, the design team operates as a component of the sales division. This is not a coincidence. Feel how you want about the lack of points as a design decision (personally, I'm not regretting selling off my Skaven while the selling was good), but talking about it as something that was arrived at as anything but a sales mechanic is not interfacing properly with the reality of the situation.

Mawduce
24-07-2015, 21:19
So you had one of these guys too? “18, 18, 16, 17, 14, 16. Yeah, you rolled these. Wow, you really were lucky.” The guy would famously hide his d20 rolls behind his hand or scoop his dice so fast we couldn’t check.

EDIT: I must admit that for a moment, I really thought he rolled high – we were using a homebrew rolling system that led to high stats (not that high) and I couldn’t conceive that someone would CHEAT in an RPG! It was just so… unreal. I mean… it’s an RPG’ not a competition.

we had it were you could roll 3 character stats but each character had to be set. meaning you rolled for all stats on character a, then b, then c. you picked which character you wanted and you had to do it in front of everyone. Sometimes you did have really high stats, and sometimes you didn't. most of the time people had a bunch of 12's and 14's with one 10. We all accepted it because hey, these were hero's, not average joes.

black_numenorean
24-07-2015, 21:22
My perspective here is this:

I want to have a fair game against another general -- I want my decisions, both in what to bring and what it does on the battlefield, to matter in whether I win or lose. If there's not a mechanism for two armies to be compared, then the game trivially degenerates into bringing more/better stuff. Therefore, there has to be such a mechanism. But for such a mechanism to be effective, it has to be neutral; when I'm facing down some guy over the table, and we want to have a go, who gets to decide what's fair? Why, in other words, do games have referees?

I agree. In chess, checkers, board games you start with equal numbers of similarly capable units, currency, geography or at least randomly generated in an attempt at being fair or blind.

So now I have to figure out how many units I should have or my opponent and have no guideline????????????????????????????????????????? ?!

Tokamak
24-07-2015, 21:27
The GW design team did not sit around in a room, bat about a ton of ideas, then just happen to come up with one that works as a maximized marketing/sales engine for GW's primary product. Within the hierarchy of GW, the design team operates as a component of the sales division. This is not a coincidence. Feel how you want about the lack of points as a design decision (personally, I'm not regretting selling off my Skaven while the selling was good), but talking about it as something that was arrived at as anything but a sales mechanic is not interfacing properly with the reality of the situation.

It's a sales mechanic, definitely. Whether it's a mechanic that will lead to any sales remains to be seen.

Shandor
24-07-2015, 21:44
Thank you for your article and I certainly appreciate the perspective. I think this is a new way of doing things for certain, but to say previous editions were balanced due to points was not remotely accurate. How many comp systems were in place for 8th ed. tournies? How did it feel to be a tomb kings player? balanced?

Im a Tomb King Player. Actually ive got around 6000 points of Tomb Kings. And i think when it comes down to Fun, pickup games they where really playable. O/C when a Tourney player was getting serious and really wanted to give all i was lost but against the broad mass i did well with my Tomb Kings.

Back then i was playing in the "Generals League" from GW.

here my last 3 games:



Shandor (http://uk.games-workshop.de/liga/index.php?a=sd&p1=6129)
Sieg
Gruftkönige von Khemri
Veränderung: 17,16 Punkte
theSorro
Niederlage
Krieger des Chaos
Veränderung: -7,16 Punkte
Details (http://uk.games-workshop.de/liga/league.php?league=1&a=hd&p1=70614)


gespielt am: 28.8.2013 | gewertet am: 10.9.2013


Shandor (http://uk.games-workshop.de/liga/index.php?a=sd&p1=6129)
Unentschieden
Gruftkönige von Khemri
Veränderung: 6,80 Punkte
Ben
Unentschieden
Krieger des Chaos
Veränderung: 3,20 Punkte
Details (http://uk.games-workshop.de/liga/league.php?league=1&a=hd&p1=70460)


gespielt am: 24.8.2013 | gewertet am: 10.9.2013


Bone
Niederlage
Krieger des Chaos
Veränderung: -13,16 Punkte
Shandor (http://uk.games-workshop.de/liga/index.php?a=sd&p1=6129)
Sieg
Gruftkönige von Khemri
Veränderung: 23,16 Punkte
Details (http://uk.games-workshop.de/liga/league.php?league=1&a=hd&p1=69184)


gespielt am: 20.7.2013 | gewertet am: 25.7.2013


Translation: Sieg = Win


Shandor = Me :)

I think i had 12 Games and won 8 and 1 draw.
So Point value was not totaly Fail and useless for Tombkings. It worked, not perfect but still better then nothing.

Wishing
25-07-2015, 08:31
I guess you mean the story leading up to a fight, explaining why everyone is there and why they brought the troops they brought (I used to dig that kind of stuff when I was a teenager, but I scratch that itch now with things other than tabletop games). I on the other hand mean the story that happens once the two armies meet on the field of battle.

I don't really mean story in a literal sense, I mean it in an "underlying logic" kind of sense. The story you describe is you seeing a story in the actions within the game - Haley stabbung a winterguard with her spear or something. That's how it should be. But if you are asked, "why are you fielding the number of models you are fielding?", your answer is "because that is how many models the game rules told me I could field". You defer to the game rule structure to tell you what your army can look like. The underlying story logic I talk about is in terms of my inner sense of storytelling being the arbiter of how many models I have in my army. If I have a vision of a skaven hero leading a team of stormvermin and a pack of rat ogres, in the storytelling logic, *I* get to decide what I feel is an appropriate number (and correlate that with my model collection). The game doesn't tell me "sorry, you have too many" or "you still have 100 points left over" or anything like that. Just like if I was writing a novel about the exploits of my skaven hero, there wouldn't be a novel-writing-points-system popping up and telling me "sorry, in this scene you have 20 points of skaven too much, remove some please".



You didn't have points, but you had structure. The game told you what you could or could not bring. It's what Necromunda did, and while game game was far from balanced, you still had a framework that told you what to bring and what not.

Indeed this is true, and true that in the olden days, you tended to have to roll these things up. Something we don't really go for anymore.

And the structure you talk about is exactly the point. People feel that you have to have something telling you what you can or cannot have in your army. You cannot just be told to decide that for yourself. That's anarchy. But that's how you write stories. You make decisions for youself. So to me, taking that structure and framework away is saying "try and think of your army as if you were writing a story. what troops would you bring? this time, the game isn't going to tell you what you are or aren't allowed". It's like a historicals game, except that you are making the history.

When people cannot handle that, it seems to me that they cannot think of their army as a part of a story they are writing. They can only think of it as game pieces. I understand why such people do not appreciate a lack of a fixed framework. Good thing that there are lots of other games that have it.

Spiney Norman
25-07-2015, 09:54
I don't really mean story in a literal sense, I mean it in an "underlying logic" kind of sense. The story you describe is you seeing a story in the actions within the game - Haley stabbung a winterguard with her spear or something. That's how it should be. But if you are asked, "why are you fielding the number of models you are fielding?", your answer is "because that is how many models the game rules told me I could field". You defer to the game rule structure to tell you what your army can look like. The underlying story logic I talk about is in terms of my inner sense of storytelling being the arbiter of how many models I have in my army. If I have a vision of a skaven hero leading a team of stormvermin and a pack of rat ogres, in the storytelling logic, *I* get to decide what I feel is an appropriate number (and correlate that with my model collection). The game doesn't tell me "sorry, you have too many" or "you still have 100 points left over" or anything like that. Just like if I was writing a novel about the exploits of my skaven hero, there wouldn't be a novel-writing-points-system popping up and telling me "sorry, in this scene you have 20 points of skaven too much, remove some please".


Are you saying that having to take 50 skaven slaves instead of 60 completely disabused your 'underlying logic' and causes your story to fall over flat? I'd say if you were that precious about the number of bodies you were fielding you're not being very 'skaven' about it at all.

My games never relied on that level of micromanagement, I managed to make my narratives work whether Prince Anukhet was accompanied by 20 members of the Undying Legion (my tomb guard regiment) or 30 of them or whether his flanks were protected by 3 of the (Necropolis) Knights of Asaph or 6 of them. Currently playing AoS is a joke, it is neither enjoyable or rewarding, it's just a waste of time.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-07-2015, 12:19
It's fun to read how arguments in favour of no points vary and how these come and go as time passes. Reminds me of the quote "i have my principles...and if you dont like them...well i have others".

Never ceases to amaze me the roads some people walk just to defend GW and this crappy and lazy ruleset wich was written in no more than 15 mins. It's like GW were paying them money or something.

RandomThoughts
25-07-2015, 12:35
And the structure you talk about is exactly the point. People feel that you have to have something telling you what you can or cannot have in your army. You cannot just be told to decide that for yourself. That's anarchy. But that's how you write stories. You make decisions for youself. So to me, taking that structure and framework away is saying "try and think of your army as if you were writing a story. what troops would you bring? this time, the game isn't going to tell you what you are or aren't allowed". It's like a historicals game, except that you are making the history.

When people cannot handle that, it seems to me that they cannot think of their army as a part of a story they are writing. They can only think of it as game pieces. I understand why such people do not appreciate a lack of a fixed framework. Good thing that there are lots of other games that have it.

But you see, when I write stories, I don't follow rules. I follow my own sense of what is appropriate and what will entertain my target audience and that is it. I don't start a scene in which the main antagonist is mugged by Danish golddiggers with the intension that she escapes and starts investigating Danes around the Yukon, then suddenly someone else decided the Golddiggers will try to kill my protagonist.

It's a completely different medium.

Da Etruskan
25-07-2015, 12:36
The only thing to take from the linked blog post is
"the Wraithknight is criminally undercosted".

The rest is just yaddayaddayadda.

75hastings69
25-07-2015, 12:42
..... GW seem to want me to have as much attachment to the game as I would for say Hungry Hungry Hippos

this really made me LOL, sigged

Greyshadow
25-07-2015, 12:43
Honestly, I am just after someone who has worked out how to set up a decent pick up game. If you are going around to a mates house to play you probably can only bring a small subset of your collection due to transportation constraints. Your mate will have her entire collection to tailor her force against you. Doesn't this make things unfair?

GW you have still got a lot of work to do, don't expect the community to do this heavy lifting.

P.S. Hungry Hungry Hippos was a sweet sweet game for your first 60 seconds though.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-07-2015, 12:48
Honestly, I am just after someone who has worked out how to set up a decent pick up game. If you are going around to a mates house to play you probably can only bring a small subset of your collection due to transportation constraints. Your mate will have her entire collection to tailor her force against you. Doesn't this make things unfair?

In the hard task of defending AoS, reality shouldn't be taken in account.

innerwolf
25-07-2015, 15:11
In a way, I find AoS to reflect better a historical battle than the WHFB points system.

As far as I know, no battle in history was fought with both general agreeing into a certain number of soldiers, percentage of cavalry, artillery... They showed up with what they had.

Some of the most famous battles were completely asymmetrical. The English army defeated the more numerous French host in Agincourt, thanks to their deployment, weather and different composition of their forces (they brought a gunline, basterds! :P). Alexander the Great defeated many Persian armies which vastly outnumbered his own.

Can you get a fun game even if you end on the wrong side? Can you still win through luck and tactics (or lack of them on the enemy's side ;))? Then AoS can work.

Points didn't even ensure WFHB games were always balanced. I played games in 7th edition were I found my army was worth 2/3 of my opponent's one.

Da Etruskan
25-07-2015, 15:45
If I have a functional point system framework, I can decide to ignore or alter it to challenge myself and others with an unbalanced battle. But I can have the choice in this regard.
Additionally, one could argue that you need a point system even for unbalanced games: you need it to understand how much unbalanced it.

Without a framework, is only guesswork and frustration. BTW, a veteran player I can guess correctly, but the most baffling thing is that the people that the most need guidelines are newbies.

As a newbie, I need a list and a point system, or their equivalent, to have some clue and suggestion in how to build an army.

Hell, I could argue that is needed for fluff reasons too. A standard army list of, say, high elves, had (when I used to play) archers spearelves and lothren guard as troops, sometime silverhelms. Phoenix guard or lions were special and so on.
This gave you a good idea about how in the fluff an elven army was. And before "but..but.. I can think that by myself" or "but.. but... I want a lion only army".. fine. Do it, is always fun to experiment. But the base framwork must be solid to support game AND fluff.

Seriously people stop defending this game. Is crap. Is absolute garbage.

vintagetcp
25-07-2015, 19:38
In a way, I find AoS to reflect better a historical battle than the WHFB points system.

As far as I know, no battle in history was fought with both general agreeing into a certain number of soldiers, percentage of cavalry, artillery... They showed up with what they had.

Some of the most famous battles were completely asymmetrical. The English army defeated the more numerous French host in Agincourt, thanks to their deployment, weather and different composition of their forces (they brought a gunline, basterds! :P). Alexander the Great defeated many Persian armies which vastly outnumbered his own.

Can you get a fun game even if you end on the wrong side? Can you still win through luck and tactics (or lack of them on the enemy's side ;))? Then AoS can work.

Points didn't even ensure WFHB games were always balanced. I played games in 7th edition were I found my army was worth 2/3 of my opponent's one.

I play historicals and all the good systems these days have some kind of points mechanic. And if I wanted to recreate a historical battle I'd choose WHFB of any edition before AoS.

Points don't only allow you to balance pickup games but they provide a framework to have narrative games unbalanced the way you intend them, and if you want to recreate a specific engagement then you can ignore points and field accurate forces.

A good narrative game should provide a framework for playing whatever style of game you want- AoS provides no framework and it's difficult to tell if the battle is lopsided, and in which way, and their are few tactical choices to be made. It's **** for historical-style play.

The first WD I read featured a narrative game pitting 1000pts of elves against 2000 of goblins. It was very easy to set up and provide for how difficult the game would be for the elf player. To do that in AoS you've god no guidelines- you run the chance of the elf player having much easier a time than intended, or the goblin player steamrolling the would-be 300 spartans, because you've got to awkwardly guesstimate what units to bring.

Tau_player001
25-07-2015, 19:40
In a way, I find AoS to reflect better a historical battle than the WHFB points system.

As far as I know, no battle in history was fought with both general agreeing into a certain number of soldiers, percentage of cavalry, artillery... They showed up with what they had.

Some of the most famous battles were completely asymmetrical. The English army defeated the more numerous French host in Agincourt, thanks to their deployment, weather and different composition of their forces (they brought a gunline, basterds! :P). Alexander the Great defeated many Persian armies which vastly outnumbered his own.

Can you get a fun game even if you end on the wrong side? Can you still win through luck and tactics (or lack of them on the enemy's side ;))? Then AoS can work.

Points didn't even ensure WFHB games were always balanced. I played games in 7th edition were I found my army was worth 2/3 of my opponent's one.

You can always say "i will play with around 1000 points against your around 3000 points", and then just play the game.

Sephillion
25-07-2015, 21:22
In a way, I find AoS to reflect better a historical battle than the WHFB points system.

As far as I know, no battle in history was fought with both general agreeing into a certain number of soldiers, percentage of cavalry, artillery... They showed up with what they had.

Some of the most famous battles were completely asymmetrical. The English army defeated the more numerous French host in Agincourt, thanks to their deployment, weather and different composition of their forces (they brought a gunline, basterds! :P). Alexander the Great defeated many Persian armies which vastly outnumbered his own.

Can you get a fun game even if you end on the wrong side? Can you still win through luck and tactics (or lack of them on the enemy's side ;))? Then AoS can work.

Points didn't even ensure WFHB games were always balanced. I played games in 7th edition were I found my army was worth 2/3 of my opponent's one.

You can choose to ignore points value; you can choose to play with uneven sides.

Games that use uneven sides are usually played around a specific scenario; the guidelines in the scenarios don't appear to really solve balance issues at all.

If you absolutely don't care about balance and absolutely don't care to win, I guess that's fine, doesn't mean a game that caters to players that don't care is a good idea, and if that's your case, I feel it's hypocritical to mention balance issues in 8th, because if you don't care about either balance or winning, the balance issues shouldn't matter to you.

And again, an imperfect system is still light-years ahead than no system. They just gave up. I feel they went the lazy way.

If any other game company had done so, it wouldn't last, and rightfully so. Because it's GW and because people will not want to abandon their existing armies behind, it might survive. If it does, it's a devolution, based only on the merit of name recognition, not because of any of the merits of the game.

Greyshadow
25-07-2015, 23:56
Heelanhammer did a good review where they picked some armies that they thought worked together and played some scenarios and they enjoyed the game. They said they thought the game was really fun and had real potential. Main sticking point was that there was a complete lack of guidance on how to play a good pick up game. The fact I don't know where I should start with this is why I am sticking with 8th. I really really want to like this new game but I think it will be at least another 1-2 years of development before I feel the game is actually finished.

Mawduce
26-07-2015, 01:37
In a way, I find AoS to reflect better a historical battle than the WHFB points system.

As far as I know, no battle in history was fought with both general agreeing into a certain number of soldiers, percentage of cavalry, artillery... They showed up with what they had.

Some of the most famous battles were completely asymmetrical. The English army defeated the more numerous French host in Agincourt, thanks to their deployment, weather and different composition of their forces (they brought a gunline, basterds! :P). Alexander the Great defeated many Persian armies which vastly outnumbered his own.

Can you get a fun game even if you end on the wrong side? Can you still win through luck and tactics (or lack of them on the enemy's side ;))? Then AoS can work.

Points didn't even ensure WFHB games were always balanced. I played games in 7th edition were I found my army was worth 2/3 of my opponent's one.

being unbalanced in real life is great and all but this is a game. Games are supposed to be fair for both sides turn 1. Having an arbitrator like points helps, having a GM or DM helps. Nothing in the AoS rules helps.

innerwolf
26-07-2015, 07:43
Seriously people stop defending this game. Is crap. Is absolute garbage.

No, I won't. I like it (with all its mistakes) and I have legitimate arguments for liking it. I'm not trying to convince you, anyway. It was just food for thought.

I still disagree about us needing points to know beforehand if the battle is unbalanced. I like the: you show up to battle with what you got, see during the battle if you brought too few or too many, and in the end one force wins due to (or against) it - feel. Is it any good for gaming? I don't know. I'm sure not for many. For me, it's refreshing and I'm willing to adapt to it.

But I understand your arguments for missing a points system.

Griefbringer
26-07-2015, 08:48
As far as I know, no battle in history was fought with both general agreeing into a certain number of soldiers, percentage of cavalry, artillery... They showed up with what they had.


This is an argument that many historical players like to make when somebody mentions the concept of a point system or army list.

The shortcoming of this argument is that it assumes that the generals and their armies would show up to the battle in the first place. But individual battles do not happen by coincidence, they take place within a larger strategic context, and the historical generals (at least better sorts) could and would avoid a field battle if they thought that they would not have a decent chance in the first place. They could retreat away from the path of an advancing enemy force, and hope that logistical issues would force them to give up (see what happened to Napoleon in Russia in 1812). Or they could hole up inside a fortress or fortified camp (as long as supplies lasted), providing themselves a clear advantage if the opponent really wanted to engage them in battle.

Since the generals could often simply refuse a field battle if they thought they would not have a good enough chance of victory, a field battle would most likely take place if both generals thought they had sufficient forces (quality/quantity wise) or some other advantage. Of course they could misestimate the opponent, either through own insufficient intelligence (or cunning deception by opponent) or through the inexperience of the commander. Alternatively, a cunning general might be able to force the enemy into a combat by cunning manoeuvre, such as by catching an opponent by surprise during a march or enticing him into a location where no retreat was possible. Threatening a strategic location, such as an important city, might also entice an opponent to march out with a smaller force than he might prefer. Or if supplies were running low on one side or another, they would likely prefer engaging in uncertain battle over certain starvation.

So one should always consider battles in a wider context. If you are playing a campaign system with strategic movement and so on, then clever generals should actually try to force opponents into battles on their own conditions, which can result in uneven battles on the tabletop, but at least then the player with disadvantage can blame himself for poor strategic choices. And even overwhelming victories can be pyrrhic...

But if you are gaming a fictional one-off field battle between two armies without larger context, then I don't think that it would be all that unrealistic for the two sides to be remotely even - since if they were not, why did the commander of the clearly weaker side settle for a field battle in the first place?


Of course in a fantasy setting things can be more complicated, since the various factions have their own particular benefits. Necromancers do not normally need to worry too much about their skeletons starving, and warriors of Nurgle are not likely to quit a siege because some epidemy broke out in their camp. Khorne warlord is not likely to avoid battle even if it would be heavily unsided, since for them the battle itself can be much more important than winning - Khorne not being too picky about whose blood is being shed, but he does not like cowards.

innerwolf
26-07-2015, 09:47
This is an argument that many historical players like to make when somebody mentions the concept of a point system or army list.

The shortcoming of this argument is that it assumes that the generals and their armies would show up to the battle in the first place. But individual battles do not happen by coincidence, they take place within a larger strategic context, and the historical generals (at least better sorts) could and would avoid a field battle if they thought that they would not have a decent chance in the first place. They could retreat away from the path of an advancing enemy force, and hope that logistical issues would force them to give up (see what happened to Napoleon in Russia in 1812). Or they could hole up inside a fortress or fortified camp (as long as supplies lasted), providing themselves a clear advantage if the opponent really wanted to engage them in battle.

Since the generals could often simply refuse a field battle if they thought they would not have a good enough chance of victory, a field battle would most likely take place if both generals thought they had sufficient forces (quality/quantity wise) or some other advantage. Of course they could misestimate the opponent, either through own insufficient intelligence (or cunning deception by opponent) or through the inexperience of the commander. Alternatively, a cunning general might be able to force the enemy into a combat by cunning manoeuvre, such as by catching an opponent by surprise during a march or enticing him into a location where no retreat was possible. Threatening a strategic location, such as an important city, might also entice an opponent to march out with a smaller force than he might prefer. Or if supplies were running low on one side or another, they would likely prefer engaging in uncertain battle over certain starvation.

So one should always consider battles in a wider context. If you are playing a campaign system with strategic movement and so on, then clever generals should actually try to force opponents into battles on their own conditions, which can result in uneven battles on the tabletop, but at least then the player with disadvantage can blame himself for poor strategic choices. And even overwhelming victories can be pyrrhic...

But if you are gaming a fictional one-off field battle between two armies without larger context, then I don't think that it would be all that unrealistic for the two sides to be remotely even - since if they were not, why did the commander of the clearly weaker side settle for a field battle in the first place?


Of course in a fantasy setting things can be more complicated, since the various factions have their own particular benefits. Necromancers do not normally need to worry too much about their skeletons starving, and warriors of Nurgle are not likely to quit a siege because some epidemy broke out in their camp. Khorne warlord is not likely to avoid battle even if it would be heavily unsided, since for them the battle itself can be much more important than winning - Khorne not being too picky about whose blood is being shed, but he does not like cowards.

Very well thought and interesting post Griefbringer, I agree on most points. The thing is, one would assume a more or less balanced battle by defect, but many unbalanced battles occurred, so it shouldn't be the end of the world to have them in a wargame (I know most people wouldn't call AoS that).
I see your point about unbalanced battles needing a reason, and making more sense in strategic campaigns. In fact, I think AoS has a lot of potential for this kind of campaigns, due to its great flexibility.
You could divide you collection in a scouting force (scouts, skirmishers, light cavalry), main force, rearguard, an elite King's bodyguard... and play games with the separately or together as they encounter the enemy's forces across the map. I'm not saying you couldn't with WHFB, just that it seems easy with AoS.

Griefbringer
26-07-2015, 11:06
It is true that uneven encounters occurred in history, and generals would try to ensure that they would have an advantage. However, obtaining such an advantage could require outsmarting your opponent (maybe combined with some good luck). So if one side is commanded by a clever strategist with experienced advisors, and another by a young fool who just inherited a throne, surrounded by useless sycophants, then it might not be surprising that the battle would be effectively won already before a single arrow was shot. And that is actually what master strategists like Sun Zu would advice. But in that sort of battles the interesting part to play would actually be what happened in the battle, but instead the events leading to the battle taking place in the first place, and the different sides trying to outwit and deceive their opponent.

As for actual gaming, another issue is that some people have difficulty making a difference between uneven forces (in field battle context) and uneven game. For example, if one side is defending a fortified position, then it should not be unreasonable to give the attacking side an advantage in number and/or quality of forces, since the other side enjoys the advantage of a defensive position. Or maybe one side is outnumbered, but has different victory conditions - for example just needing to slow down the opponent for sufficiently long time.

One well-known historical example (which could also act as inspiration for various fictional scenarios or campaigns) is the encounter between Greeks and Persians in Thermopylaie. Persians had vast numerical advantage, but Greeks had high quality heavy infantry and a position that would limit the Persian numerical advantage. After Persians arrived to the proximity of the pass, both sides stayed on their positions for a number of days, choosing not to advance to engage the enemy. After a couple of days, Persians attacked in the narrow pass and were repulsed. The next day Persians attacked again and were again repulsed. However, they also managed to find out a way to outflank the Greeks. Thus on the third day most of the Greeks retreated from the pass, except for a rearguard of Spartans and Thespians who fought a hopeless delaying action.

Had the Greeks advanced from their pass to engage the Persians on the more open area beyond, the Persians would have been able to make better use of their numbers. However, there was no incentive for the Greeks to do so, since they were happy to be camping in the pass and did not need to worry too much about supply situation. Persians on the other hand could not afford to wait indefinitely, being on a campaign with a large force, and thus were forced to do something even if it meant engaging an enemy in a position of their choosing. And the final rearguard action is a classic example of an uneven battle where the aim was something else than beating the enemy force.

If you enjoy AoS, then building some sort of campaign would probably be a good way to make the gaming more narrative driven than single encounters. And in a real campaign environment the Triumph table from the core rules might actually make some sense, though you might want to replace it with something slightly more diverse.

Sephillion
26-07-2015, 11:26
Very well thought and interesting post Griefbringer, I agree on most points. The thing is, one would assume a more or less balanced battle by defect, but many unbalanced battles occurred, so it shouldn't be the end of the world to have them in a wargame (I know most people wouldn't call AoS that).
I see your point about unbalanced battles needing a reason, and making more sense in strategic campaigns. In fact, I think AoS has a lot of potential for this kind of campaigns, due to its great flexibility.
You could divide you collection in a scouting force (scouts, skirmishers, light cavalry), main force, rearguard, an elite King's bodyguard... and play games with the separately or together as they encounter the enemy's forces across the map. I'm not saying you couldn't with WHFB, just that it seems easy with AoS.

Good thing it's (supposed to be) a game... therefore all your arguments about historical battles being unequal become suddenly invalid. If you want a simulationist game where specific battles are recreated, well there are historicals - AoS doesn't provide that, and you're just making excuses for its lack of balance.

innerwolf
26-07-2015, 11:28
It is true that uneven encounters occurred in history, and generals would try to ensure that they would have an advantage. However, obtaining such an advantage could require outsmarting your opponent (maybe combined with some good luck). So if one side is commanded by a clever strategist with experienced advisors, and another by a young fool who just inherited a throne, surrounded by useless sycophants, then it might not be surprising that the battle would be effectively won already before a single arrow was shot. And that is actually what master strategists like Sun Zu would advice. But in that sort of battles the interesting part to play would actually be what happened in the battle, but instead the events leading to the battle taking place in the first place, and the different sides trying to outwit and deceive their opponent.

As for actual gaming, another issue is that some people have difficulty making a difference between uneven forces (in field battle context) and uneven game. For example, if one side is defending a fortified position, then it should not be unreasonable to give the attacking side an advantage in number and/or quality of forces, since the other side enjoys the advantage of a defensive position. Or maybe one side is outnumbered, but has different victory conditions - for example just needing to slow down the opponent for sufficiently long time.

One well-known historical example (which could also act as inspiration for various fictional scenarios or campaigns) is the encounter between Greeks and Persians in Thermopylaie. Persians had vast numerical advantage, but Greeks had high quality heavy infantry and a position that would limit the Persian numerical advantage. After Persians arrived to the proximity of the pass, both sides stayed on their positions for a number of days, choosing not to advance to engage the enemy. After a couple of days, Persians attacked in the narrow pass and were repulsed. The next day Persians attacked again and were again repulsed. However, they also managed to find out a way to outflank the Greeks. Thus on the third day most of the Greeks retreated from the pass, except for a rearguard of Spartans and Thespians who fought a hopeless delaying action.

Had the Greeks advanced from their pass to engage the Persians on the more open area beyond, the Persians would have been able to make better use of their numbers. However, there was no incentive for the Greeks to do so, since they were happy to be camping in the pass and did not need to worry too much about supply situation. Persians on the other hand could not afford to wait indefinitely, being on a campaign with a large force, and thus were forced to do something even if it meant engaging an enemy in a position of their choosing. And the final rearguard action is a classic example of an uneven battle where the aim was something else than beating the enemy force.

If you enjoy AoS, then building some sort of campaign would probably be a good way to make the gaming more narrative driven than single encounters. And in a real campaign environment the Triumph table from the core rules might actually make some sense, though you might want to replace it with something slightly more diverse.

I see your military-history-fu is strong ;) I'm pleased, I also love my share of historical battles.

I think using the Independent UK pool (it seems it will be large enough to receive strong feedback and review) as a guide for unit value, combining it with map-based campaigns will be my choice. Good suggestion on the Triumph table :)

I'm already thinking on rules like keeping supply lines (clear paths connecting conquered cities) allow you to use your full detachments, while losing them could mean you must use the minimum unit size for some of your Warscrolls. Capturing cities or enemy supplies would give reinforcements: more Warscrolls or models over the minimum unit size.

Well, it's sparking my creativity, that's for sure!


Good thing it's (supposed to be) a game... therefore all your arguments about historical battles being unequal become suddenly invalid. If you want a simulationist game where specific battles are recreated, well there are historicals - AoS doesn't provide that, and you're just making excuses for its lack of balance.

If you read my post with any care, you would have noticed I said unbalanced battles aren't unfair in a historical sense. That's completely independent of you needing them to be balanced or not for a number of reasons (competitiveness, not having fun in this way...).
It's not an excuse, it's an observation. For me, armies being exactly balanced makes less sense, so I'm not infuriated by the lack of point system. It's not ideal, but not a major issue for me.

Griefbringer
26-07-2015, 11:46
And before we stray too far into the realms of real world history, I would like to remind that we have here on Warseer a dedicated section for discussing historical miniature gaming:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?77-Historical-Games

As for map based campaign games, one thing worth looking for is discouraging players from concentrating all of their forces into one massive steamroller army that will crush all the smaller armies one by one. Instead of just arbitrary limits for stacking forces, there can be more subtle ways to do this. For example, smaller campaign forces may be more nimble and faster, thus being able to avoid big forces and capture strategic assets that they have left unguarded. Or by logistics getting more and more difficult as forces get stacked: roads get choked with traffic, foraging gets difficult, disease spreads in crowded camps etc.

vintagetcp
26-07-2015, 13:32
I still can't see how AoS is a better system than 8th for campaign game.

I'm imagining fielding historical armies under AoS rules and what a shitshow it would be. Thermopylae- scrum up on one board edge. Gettysburg- scrum up on the hill. Hell I can't even continue my bad joke because most battles would just be a scrum of models in a field.

Alexander's companions are flanking the Sacred Band... wait who cares... they'd do the same damage from any direction?

Spiney Norman
26-07-2015, 13:41
The problem with AoS is not just that the game is impossible to balance, it's that the extent of any imbalance is impossible to quantify, in the majority of AoS games I have played it has been impossible to tell which side will be disadvantaged before the game begins, even when the result has been one side utterly dominating the game. Asymmetric games can be fun, even games where you are at a disadvantage can be fun and challenging but if the imbalance is so great that the battle is effectively decided before you begin that is not fun.

Special rules, victory conditions placement of terrain can all be altered to mitigate the effect of a superior force attacking an inferior one, but if the extent of the imbalance is not even roughly understood then knowing what level of advantage to grant (or often in the case of AoS, which side to grant the advantage to) then such things cannot be used to create fun scenarios between asymmetric forces.


I still can't see how AoS is a better system than 8th for campaign game.


Well quite obviously it's not, AoS isn't really better than 8th edition in any way save one, it is still supported by the company. I will certainly continue playing 8th edition wfb going forward (and 6th ed if I can find the willing opponents), but I will also be happy to play AoS provided I can find a comp pack that is acceptable to my opponent. Since wfb is effectively off-limits to new players due to the army books being discontinued en-mass I keep a 'live' game going so we can still bring new blood into the hobby.

Bigman
26-07-2015, 15:40
Id say having any system is better than none.

It seems that the pro-AoS players here think the choice is no points system and AoS rules set or 8th rules set and points.

What is the basis for this? Why couldn't we have had an AoS rules set with a point system? Does the AoS rule set preclude any balancing factors.

Basically in my mind having a points system, or a slot based system, is never arbitrary, you are always welcome to choose to ignore it, which many people playing narrative battles before now used to do in WFB...it never stopped you doing those battles...however, removing points from AoS stops pick up gamers having there way available to them.

You can have points based balanced and narrative, but without points it's harder and more difficult to have balanced at all.

vintagetcp
26-07-2015, 17:14
Special rules, victory conditions placement of terrain can all be altered to mitigate the effect of a superior force attacking an inferior one, but if the extent of the imbalance is not even roughly understood then knowing what level of advantage to grant (or often in the case of AoS, which side to grant the advantage to) then such things cannot be used to create fun scenarios between asymmetric forces.






This especially apparent in the Sudden Death conditions- which Ogres, as written, will always benefit from (either they autoget it, or they've brought a much more powerful army than their opponent), and which often are so arbitrary/easy to achieve that it doesn't feel like the spartans at Thermopylae so much as the Union Army declaring victory, packing up, and going home after Leonidas Polk took an unlucky cannonball to the face. The Sudden Death conditions don't feel like a battle won.

Additionally, the rules are so simplistic, and movement so freeform, that terrain/deployment means precious little. Another nail in the coffin to scenario play. Tactics begin and end with maximizing your own attacks into enemy units and minimizing the attacks your opponent makes back. Who charges what, or where, is near irrelevant.

WhispersofBlood
26-07-2015, 17:30
Its interesting that posters seem to think that no system will ever show up. We've already created one we are finding simple and enjoyable, that has been posted in our clubs news letter. I'm personally all for local comp systems, as it lets like minded groups form with each other.

There are also many non-written rules or play suggestions being made from gw. Even something as basic as unit sizes based on how many come in a box, has been tossed around for a 2-3 war scroll beginner league. There is structure if you are looking for it, there are suggestions and hand holds provided by the models and the game. They are just different than what we are used to.

Bigman
26-07-2015, 18:21
Its interesting that posters seem to think that no system will ever show up. We've already created one we are finding simple and enjoyable, that has been posted in our clubs news letter. I'm personally all for local comp systems, as it lets like minded groups form with each other.

There are also many non-written rules or play suggestions being made from gw. Even something as basic as unit sizes based on how many come in a box, has been tossed around for a 2-3 war scroll beginner league. There is structure if you are looking for it, there are suggestions and hand holds provided by the models and the game. They are just different than what we are used to.

No, what people are saying is that there is no reason why there couldn't be points, because everything doesn't in anyway stop us from also having points, allowing us grumblers the chance to play our way and let you play your way. Currently we are being forced to do it your way, and no one has provided a coherent argument to say that isn't true.

Why do they need to stop us playing or way when playing each way is not mutually exclusive?

Mr_Foulscumm
26-07-2015, 18:29
No, what people are saying is that there is no reason why there couldn't be points, because everything doesn't in anyway stop us from also having points, allowing us grumblers the chance to play our way and let you play your way. Currently we are being forced to do it your way, and no one has provided a coherent argument to say that isn't true.

Why do they need to stop us playing or way when playing each way is not mutually exclusive?

And yet GW decided that they don't really care about you (or me) in that regard. And there are many many games out there that I can spend my time and money on. So why should I sit around waiting for GW to fix something they don't seem to think is an issue (rather a feature).

Bigman
26-07-2015, 18:34
And yet GW decided that they don't really care about you (or me) in that regard. And there are many many games out there that I can spend my time and money on. So why should I sit around waiting for GW to fix something they don't seem to think is an issue (rather a feature).

Quite true. I went in today to buy WD. I have bought it before even when it was a 40k release (IG) with no fantasy models. Today, I couldn't even bring myself to buy it...because I'm tired of reading about a game that is apparently not meant for me.

Griefbringer
26-07-2015, 19:00
it doesn't feel like the spartans at Thermopylae so much as the Union Army declaring victory, packing up, and going home after Leonidas Polk took an unlucky cannonball to the face

Combining references to Thermopylaie and Leonidas Polk into a single sentence? I am impressed!

Spiney Norman
26-07-2015, 19:40
Its interesting that posters seem to think that no system will ever show up. We've already created one we are finding simple and enjoyable, that has been posted in our clubs news letter. I'm personally all for local comp systems, as it lets like minded groups form with each other.


It's interesting that you think there ever will be an official system for balancing armies, GW obviously intentionally created AoS to have no balancing mechanic, it was an intentional feature, not an accidental design flaw, and it is so integral to the functionality of a game I really don't see why they would plan to release their balancing mechanic at a later date.

HammerofThunor
26-07-2015, 19:59
The only pathway I can see for a balancing mechanism coming out in the future is once there is a critical mass of the 'new' factions out. Currently they may have scrapped points to avoid having to balance all the old units. It may also have been a trial run.

With the rules freely available on the website, it would be straight forward to add points at a later date.

To clarify, I don't expect this, but that's the only plan I could imagine for a later balance system.

minionboy
26-07-2015, 22:04
It's interesting that you think there ever will be an official system for balancing armies, GW obviously intentionally created AoS to have no balancing mechanic, it was an intentional feature, not an accidental design flaw, and it is so integral to the functionality of a game I really don't see why they would plan to release their balancing mechanic at a later date.

I think you mean, GW clearly intended us to self regulate, the same thing we do when we play a normal game of 40k, agreeing on things like, "are you bringing your ultra-competitive tournament list, or a friendly fluffy list?" :)

AngryAngel
26-07-2015, 22:08
Am I the only one who finds self regulating a bit dim in a competitive game ? From a game stand point, AoS isn't one, its a past time activity to be taken as simple, mindless fun. IF your trying to claim its really a competitive experience, that is silly. The point of AoS is simply to play with people your friends with and have fun, it isn't a pick up game and isn't a balanced one.

thegrumbliestpuppy
26-07-2015, 22:24
I disagree, why not have points but just work harder at balancing them?

Bigman
26-07-2015, 23:16
I think you mean, GW clearly intended us to self regulate, the same thing we do when we play a normal game of 40k, agreeing on things like, "are you bringing your ultra-competitive tournament list, or a friendly fluffy list?" :)

I don't mean any disrespect, but AoS is 'nothing' like 40k, except for the round bases and missions.

40k has a slot based army support structure (FOC). Yes it is not mandatory, but IT IS THERE, hiding behind all the formations and unbound army narrative flavour.

I actually think 40k's army structure design has some great positives to it, although I dislike the really op formation special rules you get for some of them.

If we had been given something like that, where they went:-

"We personally feel that AoS is a game that plays best when playing specific scenarios or missions like these (examples given) with forces that use units such as these (as is current now, a selection of 0-* choices of warscrolls).
HOWEVER, if you and you friend want to play a larger game with more balanced forces, then you should use the rules on page 5 of this pamphlet.

That is all we would've needed. Many of us could have EASILY come around to using formations/using different models/saying orruk instead of Orc....

But a much greater proportion of us still don't get why we were cut out. I'm not a tournament go-er. I'm not an etc player. I've played the games from End Times, I like campaigns...but just because I like my opponents and i's forces to be somewhat equally balanced in some arbitrary way, I am now pond scum and don't have a place in their world?

That is weak as... And I am sorry to appear rude, but people on here disagreeing have STILL to provide a coherent reason why this is the case. The only answer I keep getting back to is that GW were clear in their intent of not having balance for making money's sake, and as such people should leave us alone to clearly state the facts rather than lambast us for being negative, when all we can see are legitimate reasons to be annoyed.

Honestly, if anyone on here as a pro-AoS person can provide a logical reasoned argument to dissuade my opinions, I want to hear it, because I want to be positive about AoS...but it's tough right now when it has no balancing mechanism that is successful across a range of armies.

cotillion989
26-07-2015, 23:27
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofsigmarsdk/pointtables

Bigman
26-07-2015, 23:32
Am I the only one who finds self regulating a bit dim in a competitive game ? From a game stand point, AoS isn't one, its a past time activity to be taken as simple, mindless fun. IF your trying to claim its really a competitive experience, that is silly. The point of AoS is simply to play with people your friends with and have fun, it isn't a pick up game and isn't a balanced one.


Good, getting somewhere...

I agree with everything you said...it's not a pick up game, it's a game to be played with friends....

Except, I don't work with all my wfb friends all in one town..any of us live 40-50 minutes drive away, some further!
We don't always have time (as full time adults, some with children) to sit for 30 minutes and agree on what units are acceptable to take against other models).
Finally, even if we did have that time, once I arrive and we find that (by no fault of our own) one army rofl-stomps the other...after driving 30-50 mins, usually on a weekend, what is the take away?

Was general a better than general b? Did all the units perform well? Would I take them again? What changes can I make next time? All these questions become a lot more simple with a balancing mechanism.

If the game is no longer pick up by purpose design, then that is a mistake of BIBLICAL proportions. Are you going to tell me that every single game of AoS needs to be between friends? And that every single AoS player will encourage at least 3-4 friends of his to play?

Back when I started wfb, I had a circle of about 20-30 friends. NONE OF THEM played GW. I had to go to games clubs and make my friends through the hobby, an enjoyable process, but one I was able to make so much more easily due to a common balancing system that prevented me from being left out with an awful at in the wrong meta.

A new player doesn't have a 3000 point old wfb force to mix around to get different builds, he will usually have the starter set, plus a couple of kits. What does that person do? Continue to lose because of unit selection?

I lost my first ever game of 8th, but when I looked across the field, I didn't feel like I was against an insurmountable problem, so I went and changed my list...played a few more games etc. each time I lost I at least knew it wasn't that the armies were necessarily unbalanced.

If I lose at AoS it will likely be because player a made a mistake in the army building and brought the wrong combination, but we won't know for certain what the mistake was, because we are the ones doing the play testing.

For me this whole thing screams (beta test phase).

Once again, why couldn't they include points as well as narrative scenario balancing. Still waiting for someone to give a good reason apart from GW laziness or on purpose to alienate players.

Bigman
26-07-2015, 23:35
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofsigmarsdk/pointtables

A good start. I'll look at these. At least someone's done some work on it.

In a years time, there will be lots of different points tables across the world, valuing units at different points costs, because it is always subjective.

A GW points system is at least a central rule to go with. Why should I use Jimmy's points tables when Billy's allows me to use an extra dragon Etc etc.

But, it is a start, so thank you to the person who put it together.

Spiney Norman
26-07-2015, 23:51
I think you mean, GW clearly intended us to self regulate, the same thing we do when we play a normal game of 40k, agreeing on things like, "are you bringing your ultra-competitive tournament list, or a friendly fluffy list?" :)

How exactly do you self-regulate with no frame of reference for what any model is worth, it's like telling someone to self-regulate their caloric intake without giving them any nutritional information about what they're eating. Self regulation isn't possible without some kind of information to base that regulation on, but I've been over this same ground before and you completely ignored it.

AngryAngel
27-07-2015, 00:10
Good, getting somewhere...

I agree with everything you said...it's not a pick up game, it's a game to be played with friends....

Except, I don't work with all my wfb friends all in one town..any of us live 40-50 minutes drive away, some further!
We don't always have time (as full time adults, some with children) to sit for 30 minutes and agree on what units are acceptable to take against other models).
Finally, even if we did have that time, once I arrive and we find that (by no fault of our own) one army rofl-stomps the other...after driving 30-50 mins, usually on a weekend, what is the take away?

Was general a better than general b? Did all the units perform well? Would I take them again? What changes can I make next time? All these questions become a lot more simple with a balancing mechanism.

If the game is no longer pick up by purpose design, then that is a mistake of BIBLICAL proportions. Are you going to tell me that every single game of AoS needs to be between friends? And that every single AoS player will encourage at least 3-4 friends of his to play?

Back when I started wfb, I had a circle of about 20-30 friends. NONE OF THEM played GW. I had to go to games clubs and make my friends through the hobby, an enjoyable process, but one I was able to make so much more easily due to a common balancing system that prevented me from being left out with an awful at in the wrong meta.

A new player doesn't have a 3000 point old wfb force to mix around to get different builds, he will usually have the starter set, plus a couple of kits. What does that person do? Continue to lose because of unit selection?

I lost my first ever game of 8th, but when I looked across the field, I didn't feel like I was against an insurmountable problem, so I went and changed my list...played a few more games etc. each time I lost I at least knew it wasn't that the armies were necessarily unbalanced.

If I lose at AoS it will likely be because player a made a mistake in the army building and brought the wrong combination, but we won't know for certain what the mistake was, because we are the ones doing the play testing.

For me this whole thing screams (beta test phase).

Once again, why couldn't they include points as well as narrative scenario balancing. Still waiting for someone to give a good reason apart from GW laziness or on purpose to alienate players.

I'll go ahead and say I understand where your coming from, and also consider the premise of the game to be something of a mistake. I was just saying what it is, and what it isn't. Glad some do also believe that. They honestly should have had points, and I don't think many of the supporters can with all honesty say they don't think they borked this game up out the gate. As most of them are re tooling the rules to fix them and add balancing mechanics into it for army set up, that crys there is a problem. As any game you can add house rules, this one needs them just to function at even a loose competitive level.

Bigman
27-07-2015, 00:11
How exactly do you self-regulate with no frame of reference for what any model is worth, it's like telling someone to self-regulate their caloric intake without giving them any nutritional information about what they're eating. Self regulation isn't possible without some kind of information to base that regulation on, but I've been over this same ground before and you completely ignored it.

There is no rhyme or reason Spiney.

We can't self-regulate ---- but that what GW wants ---- but we can't as there is no frame of reference --- but GW meant for AoS to be self regulated....talk to the player first --- but how do we know what is worth what? ---- self regulation is best!

Don't feed them, they don't provide any more info...the indoctrination has already worked.

Bigman
27-07-2015, 00:14
I'll go ahead and say I understand where your coming from, and also consider the premise of the game to be something of a mistake. I was just saying what it is, and what it isn't. Glad some do also believe that. They honestly should have had points, and I don't think many of the supporters can with all honesty say they don't think they borked this game up out the gate. As most of them are re tooling the rules to fix them and add balancing mechanics into it for army set up, that crys there is a problem. As any game you can add house rules, this one needs them just to function at even a loose competitive level.

Thanks for this.

I have also said before in previous threads that I don't doubt systems will spring up to support pick up games, I'm just suprised GW didn't do one themselves.

I hope in however long it takes for it to arrive, the community doesn't suffered greatly, or wither away.

Shandor
27-07-2015, 00:16
Once again, why couldn't they include points as well as narrative scenario balancing. Still waiting for someone to give a good reason apart from GW laziness or on purpose to alienate players.

Because its GREAT FUN! And everyone disagrees is a GW hater and didnt even play the Game! + a Toxic Veteran. ;-)

Fun aside. Its the same question that: Why didnt they make the 9th Edition and AoS simultanious? They could sell minis on both games and would not make so many peoples angry. They could even sell an Sigmarine Codex.

Dosiere
27-07-2015, 01:00
I don't know how you can think GW meant this game to be played only with close friends, you're assigning intentionality to the design of this game that I don't think is there. GW doesn't want a flagship product to only be played by people in their basements or by little cliques in a club. If you have to be good friends how is it going to be easy to attract new players?

It's true that Playing AoS RAW essentially requires a social contract between the players, one that can be both difficult and tiresome between strangers or gamers where the type or scope of a game is in doubt. Forget tournaments, I'm talking about simple pick up games, which are now way too hard to set up. I doubt this was intentional.

No, I think it far more likely that the two people assigned to design this game simply thought it was a superior system and went with it. The thought of the impact it might have on gamers not exactly like them never occurred to them. GW is notoriously insular with little outside contact and their employees are according to them all "yes men". So, unless something changes at GW, this game is not going to suddenly turn into something it's not. If you like it awesome, play your hearts out. But if you are clinging onto some hope that this is all just a joke and GW are about to release the "real" rules I think you're kidding yourself.

I personally like AoS for what it is. A completely non competitive excuse to put your models on a table and use them. But when I want a real war game experience between games of AoS I'm going to look elsewhere.

plantagenet
27-07-2015, 01:21
GW designers are always searching for simple elegance in rules the problem is that if they become to simple then there isn't the engagement for the player when he isn't playing.

I am not saying this is the case for AoS just saying in general.

Mr_Foulscumm
27-07-2015, 02:33
GW designers are always searching for simple elegance in rules the problem is that if they become to simple then there isn't the engagement for the player when he isn't playing.

I am not saying this is the case for AoS just saying in general.
I wonder when it will actually sink in that GW doesn't actually want to be a gaming company any more.

Skargit Crookfang
27-07-2015, 02:37
Lord knows they've stated it enough.

llort
27-07-2015, 02:42
The lack of a point system or a system to replace it is a deal breaker for me for AOS. It's just common sense that a balancing system would exist within the design of the game.

I do wonder what the motivation was for removing the point system? Was it in the hopes that, without points, players would collect larger armies than they would otherwise. That would be a silly expectation.

The presence of a points system does not make the game more complex, it simplifies it. A "game" is supposed to be "fun," and what is fun about deciding on nebulous rules. It doesn't help, too, that the issue messes up the start of an AOS game. If a fly is going to be in my soup, I'd rather it nearer the end of the meal than the start. Let's talk for 30 minutes about balancing the game before we play...

Here is another take on points that the higher ups at GW could,if given the chance, appreciate. I would argue that the points system is part of the IP of GW fantasy gaming, and that to exclude it is too far "off brand." That is, it doesn't make sense to exclude points from AOS from a business perspective...for that reason alone. Figures on brand? check-- more or less. (I must confess that I like the Stormcast models-- not so much Khorne. Some of them are a bit...ahem, a bit... "Khorney" looking.) Box/2D art? Done. Points/rules...off brand...fail (for now).

One more thing:
If the motivation of removing the points was to simplify the game to attract new players outside of those who currently play table top strategy-- ones not used to point systems, then AOS is still too complex for those players to embrace. And even if they did embrace the game as much as they do games like RISK or Monopoly, then the first thing that they might ask is, "How do we make a fair and balanced game?"

I'm not sure what the fix is at this point. Hats off for GW taking such a bold step with AOS, but I'm not sure you can "get there from here." If points are added, they need to be added to both a casual and advanced rule sets (another topic).

minionboy
27-07-2015, 05:00
How can you possibly play a pick up game?

1. Show up to the store with your models.
2. Find someone to play.
3. Eyeball what each other brought and come to to an agreement.
4. ????????
5. Profit.

Bigman
27-07-2015, 09:08
How can you possibly play a pick up game?

1. Show up to the store with your models.
2. Find someone to play.
3. Eyeball what each other brought and come to to an agreement.
4. ????????
5. Profit.

3. eyeball what each player brought:-
A) realise you didn't bring the right models/amount of models - play a much smaller game and be sad or play a normal game and get stomped into the ground. Repeat ad - infinitum as everyone is in the same position and unless you communicate before making the 1 hour journey to play at the FLGC, you will not be able to get get close to eye-balling the correct amount.

4) play game -

players have amazingly balanced armies and the game is enjoyable (unlikely to happen regularly)
Players have slightly unbalanced armies, then the game becomes annoying for one guy who knows a few turns in he is at a disadvantage, but can't do anything about it.
Players have massively unbalanced forces, one guy wins and feels hollow inside, not happy for outsmarting someone with an equal force.

All the different scenarios are likely to happen a fair bit, more so with pick up games. Games between friends WILL become more balanced as they chat and house rule army combinations/number of scrolls etc.

Pick up games by their nature I don't really think are supported by AoS. The rules aren't condusive to it. The question is, did GW realise that when they made it, and do GW have a clue about how gamers interact outside of their stores-how spread out gaming communities can be.

Spiney Norman
27-07-2015, 09:55
Because its GREAT FUN! And everyone disagrees is a GW hater and didnt even play the Game! + a Toxic Veteran. ;-)

Fun aside. Its the same question that: Why didnt they make the 9th Edition and AoS simultanious? They could sell minis on both games and would not make so many peoples angry. They could even sell an Sigmarine Codex.

I think because the whole motivation behind AoS was to reduce the work required to create the system, even for a wobbly points system like 40k or wfb you still have to do a certain amount of play testing to confirm the points values, AoS literally requires no play testing at all because there is nothing to balance. I guess GW came to the conclusion that paying people to sit around and play games all day was probably not the best use of their corporate funds.


How can you possibly play a pick up game?

1. Show up to the store with your models.
2. Find someone to play.
3. Eyeball what each other brought and come to to an agreement.
4. ????????
5. Profit.

Or more likely in my experience
5. Fail to craft a balanced game and spend the next 3 hours either getting crapped on from a great height or stomping your opponent so hard you feel sorry for them. 3 thoroughly unenjoyable hours of your life you won't get back.

If you could explain how your 'eyeballing' works to create a balanced game I'd be grateful, because it really hasn't been working for me.

Give me an example how you would balance this Ogre army with an army of your choice by 'eye-balling'
1st drop - character on stonehorn
2nd drop - 6 iron guts
3rd drop - 12 bulls
4th drop - 8 lead belchers
5th drop - 6 mournefang riders
6th drop - 1 Iron blaster

Deadhorse
27-07-2015, 10:24
GW designers are always searching for simple elegance in rules the problem is that if they become to simple then there isn't the engagement for the player when he isn't playing.

Ummm... Really? My experience with GW is that they have no consistent philosophy for writing rules, but if we were to find something that defines their rules, it would be the exact opposite of the above.

WH40k and 8th ed. are huge bloated systems, where each of the bigger shinier models has a full page of rules, because most designers prefer to be creative than to simply use a combination of special rules from the core rulebook. Then, they slap on some random tables for good measure.

Unlike Warmachine, where the special rules provide balanced synergies, the GW special rules are thoughtlessly slapped onto whatever.

And if you think AoS is "simple elegance", then you're badly mistaken. The core rules are short, but not elegant at all, with big holes and redundant player actions. Brevity ends once you start reading the dozens of warscrolls, which all have special rules slapped onto them just because they had space... For the most part, these rules do not provide any elegance, they're just confusing filler (20+ shield types). This is a game where they managed to combine short with bloated and make it unengaging as well.

Shandor
27-07-2015, 10:54
I think because the whole motivation behind AoS was to reduce the work required to create the system, even for a wobbly points system like 40k or wfb you still have to do a certain amount of play testing to confirm the points values, AoS literally requires no play testing at all because there is nothing to balance. I guess GW came to the conclusion that paying people to sit around and play games all day was probably not the best use of their corporate funds.



Or more likely in my experience
5. Fail to craft a balanced game and spend the next 3 hours either getting crapped on from a great height or stomping your opponent so hard you feel sorry for them. 3 thoroughly unenjoyable hours of your life you won't get back.

If you could explain how your 'eyeballing' works to create a balanced game I'd be grateful, because it really hasn't been working for me.

Give me an example how you would balance this Ogre army with an army of your choice by 'eye-balling'
1st drop - character on stonehorn
2nd drop - 6 iron guts
3rd drop - 12 bulls
4th drop - 8 lead belchers
5th drop - 6 mournefang riders
6th drop - 1 Iron blaster

Nagash? :p

I dont know maybe im to noob to play AoS. I hear alot stuff like "As a Veteran palyer you know what to field if you see the others army to make a balanced Game!" Well i dont.

Thats a list i usualy played pre AoS: I dont know what to field to make it fair against me:



Dreadlord
- General
+ - Shield
- Heavy Armor
- Seadragon Cloak
+ - Dark Steed
+ - Giantsblade
- The other tricksters schard
- Dawnstone

Archmage
- Upgrade to Level 4.
+ - Dark Steed
+ - Dark Magic

*************** 3 Heroes ***************

Sorceress
+ - Anti Magic Scroll
+ - Lore of Beasts

Adliger (darkelf Hero)
+ - Shield
- Heavy Armor
- Seadragon Cloak
+ - Dark Steed

Edler (highelf Hero)
+ - Elven Steed
- Shield
- Dragon Armor
- Lance
+ Army Standard Bearer
- Banner of Blades

*************** 3 Core ***************

20 Silverhelmets
- Shields
- Musican
- Standartbearer
- Champion


5 Dark Riders
- Musican
-Crossbow
-Shield

5 Schwarze Reiter
- Musiker
-Crossbow
-Shield


*************** 1 Elite ***************

10 Wild Riders
- Shields
- Musican
- Standart
- Herrn der Jagd

*************** 4 Special ***************

10 Doomfire Warloks
- Meisterhexer

Frostheart Phoenix

1 Great Eagles

1 Great Eagles



I removed the point cost to make it not too easy. Would it be a fair matchup against those Ogres up there? I know Magic items are gone. I was lazy and used the last list i made.
If i wanted to play hard i changed the Banner against a BotWD. Mage in the 2nd Rank and add an Darkelf Hero to the list to get AS 1+ in the first rank. 4++ against shooting.
In AoS it would be very static as long i dont add no Named Charakter. No matter if i add or leave something. If i want to play Hard or soft i would need to field another list.. not just minor changes.

Deadhorse
27-07-2015, 11:07
I've heard that mournfangs are pretty broken and it just might be your entire list would be the equivalent of 6 of these. Ooogeroos, or whatever they're called these days, are very strong.

Bigman
27-07-2015, 11:21
I think because the whole motivation behind AoS was to reduce the work required to create the system, even for a wobbly points system like 40k or wfb you still have to do a certain amount of play testing to confirm the points values, AoS literally requires no play testing at all because there is nothing to balance. I guess GW came to the conclusion that paying people to sit around and play games all day was probably not the best use of their corporate funds.



Or more likely in my experience
5. Fail to craft a balanced game and spend the next 3 hours either getting crapped on from a great height or stomping your opponent so hard you feel sorry for them. 3 thoroughly unenjoyable hours of your life you won't get back.

If you could explain how your 'eyeballing' works to create a balanced game I'd be grateful, because it really hasn't been working for me.

Give me an example how you would balance this Ogre army with an army of your choice by 'eye-balling'
1st drop - character on stonehorn
2nd drop - 6 iron guts
3rd drop - 12 bulls
4th drop - 8 lead belchers
5th drop - 6 mournefang riders
6th drop - 1 Iron blaster

See the wfb player would say:-

General on chicken or war altar
4-6 Demi gryphs
2 x 30 state troops / 2 x 10-12 knights plus warrior priests
Steam tank
Cannon

Spiney Norman
27-07-2015, 13:03
Nagash? :p

I dont know maybe im to noob to play AoS. I hear alot stuff like "As a Veteran palyer you know what to field if you see the others army to make a balanced Game!" Well i dont.

There are no veterans of AoS, the game has only existed for a few weeks, and anyone who thinks that because they knew WFB well instinctively knows how units balance each other in AoS is deluding themselves, the games are completely different, it's like saying that being a chess grandmaster prepares you for being a champion at tiddlywinks.

Wishing
27-07-2015, 13:38
I personally like AoS for what it is. A completely non competitive excuse to put your models on a table and use them. But when I want a real war game experience between games of AoS I'm going to look elsewhere.

Hurrah, I agree entirely.

Lord_Crull
27-07-2015, 14:05
I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally find the lack of points in Age of Sigmar to be a dealbreaker. One of my favorite activities in the game is army building and customizing heroes. I often just put together a 2000pt 40k list just to pass the time. Building and customizing my own HQ choices with different wargear options was one of the things I realy liked about my Vampire Counts.

I've recently gotten the chance to look over the Age of Sigmar book at my store and while the lore and some of the rules do seem interesting, without any kind of points system, I really have no interest. If Age of Sigmar had a points system I would probably be interested.

Captain Idaho
27-07-2015, 15:35
It's tragic really that there are multiple points of "deal breaker" moments for different players. In other words, there's so much to fix to bring customers back I think GW will really regret this move.

Kyriakin
28-07-2015, 05:35
It's tragic really that there are multiple points of "deal breaker" moments for different players. In other words, there's so much to fix to bring customers back I think GW will really regret this move.
Fluff changes broke the deal for me much more than the game.

Bigman
28-07-2015, 21:06
Played a game today of AoS...a combat empire vs beast men.

Things I liked:-

A) not having to bother about spells
B) game moved quickly - no long turns
C) using models I wanted without worrying about army slots

Things I didn't like:-

A) not knowing if my army was balanced against my opponents (turns out I was short a few units)
B) summoning monsters on a straight 9+ for the beastmen (hello second free gorgon)
C) the mess of models during the combat - models just all chucked together to get most pile ins
D) the after combat stupidity of not being able to move because you're 1" away from a unit, so all you can do is fall back d6"
E) the "every unit can pile in within 3" even if said unit wasn't charged.
F) the fact that ungor Raiders can wound KF with a 4+
G) that minotaurs wound steam tanks and state troops on the same 3+
H) the lack of importance for movement
I) the complete removal of any semblance of tactics for two combat armies ( mess in the middle )
J) the long list of terrain rules to remember
K) random turn sequence. No way to build movement or combat traps because you don't know who will move first.


More importantly was the (correctly predicted by myself) hollow feeling my opponent felt when he won, and my confused feeling of why I hadn't won.

"This game is just about who rolls dice better...if I roll more 3+ / 4+ than you, I win" (my opponent)

On my side I just wasn't sure what I had done wrong...quite possibly nothing. And that's the problem for me with AoS. I don't know what to do to make my list better, or even if I need to because I am sure the next game my same list would beat his...simply by luck.

This hollow and disjointed feeling after a game of not knowing what to do to make my army better, which units to change, or if it was simply already unbalanced against me and I should be happy to have done so well...I don't know.

So I just wanted to post that I have it a shot, but the game is far too random and not tactical enough for me.

Buddy Bear
28-07-2015, 21:37
On my side I just wasn't sure what I had done wrong...quite possibly nothing. And that's the problem for me with AoS. I don't know what to do to make my list better, or even if I need to because I am sure the next game my same list would beat his...simply by luck.

I know exactly what you did wrong. You didn't spend enough money on your army. If you'd spent more money, brought more units, you could have overpowered your opponent. That's what this game is: pay-to-win.

As for eyeballing an army, that presumes you know, in intricate detail, how every single unit works in the game and how they interact with each other. Barring that, I'm sorry to say that, no, "eyeballing" will never result in a balanced game.

Captain Idaho
28-07-2015, 22:30
How on earth could someone like Warhammer Fantasy and be happy with no magic phase.

HammerofThunor
28-07-2015, 22:33
I rarely take wizards (or shaman as I played Beastmen in 8th). I never have since I first started about 25 years ago. Never been interested. I never played spell casters in D&D and I never use spells in computer games like Eldar Scrolls. Just not interested.

Katastrophe
28-07-2015, 22:37
Bigman

Your looking at the game wrong. The only measure is whether you had fun. That's all that matters. In the narrative your guys were outgunned and still fought valiantly. Your unfortunately looking at it as a game designed for the competitive spirit when in fact it's a RPG scenario where it tells a story based on what occurred during the game. Thinking about winning and losing is the wrong approach. Don't try to "balance" the forces facing off. That's contrary to the design and will never result in satisfactory results. Just bring models push em together fight and talk about the story. It's not a game and don't go into it thinking of it as such. You'll enjoy it more that way.

big squig
28-07-2015, 23:00
GW designers are always searching for simple elegance in rules the problem is that if they become to simple then there isn't the engagement for the player when he isn't playing.

I am not saying this is the case for AoS just saying in general.

Never, in GW's entire history, have they ever searched for simple elegance in their rules. Or if they have, they failed horribly.

Bigman
28-07-2015, 23:49
I know exactly what you did wrong. You didn't spend enough money on your army. If you'd spent more money, brought more units, you could have overpowered your opponent. That's what this game is: pay-to-win.

As for eyeballing an army, that presumes you know, in intricate detail, how every single unit works in the game and how they interact with each other. Barring that, I'm sorry to say that, no, "eyeballing" will never result in a balanced game.

I have 4000 points of Empire, so I guess I could have slapped down some artillery.

Is point 1 tongue in cheek sarcasm ? I'm tired and having trouble deciding lol

Bigman
28-07-2015, 23:54
Bigman

Your looking at the game wrong. The only measure is whether you had fun. That's all that matters. In the narrative your guys were outgunned and still fought valiantly. Your unfortunately looking at it as a game designed for the competitive spirit when in fact it's a RPG scenario where it tells a story based on what occurred during the game. Thinking about winning and losing is the wrong approach. Don't try to "balance" the forces facing off. That's contrary to the design and will never result in satisfactory results. Just bring models push em together fight and talk about the story. It's not a game and don't go into it thinking of it as such. You'll enjoy it more that way.

I didn't enjoy they game precisely because of that.

I don't care if I win or lose a game as long as I Can understand why. I don't with AoS.

Also, my opponent was open minded, but I asked him afterwards, and he wasn't that happy at all. When I asked he said he just wasn't sure how what HE (the player) had done to win.

If the game is just about mashing models together, then why is the player even there? If the impact of your participation is simply to get models out and that's it...where is the player interaction.

I can see you are enjoying the new way, hats off to you honestly, because if I could I would be on here saying how much fun it was...but it's not for me.

for me to have fun with a wargame/strategy game I need to know that I am implementing a plan. Once combat starts in AoS, that's it...nothing happens until one side wins the combat.

It just doesn't offer any fun to someone who wants a fun game with a winner or loser.

Bigman
28-07-2015, 23:56
How on earth could someone like Warhammer Fantasy and be happy with no magic phase.

I took a combat army, but I did have a fire wizard and warrior priest

Buddy Bear
28-07-2015, 23:59
I have 4000 points of Empire, so I guess I could have slapped down some artillery.

Is point 1 tongue in cheek sarcasm ? I'm tired and having trouble deciding lol

Yes, it's sarcasm. :p That seems to be the general gist of what GW wants, however. If you lose, then spend more money so that next time you can dominate.

Bigman
29-07-2015, 00:24
Yes, it's sarcasm. :p That seems to be the general gist of what GW wants, however. If you lose, then spend more money so that next time you can dominate.

Of course all new models will have better dice rolls to hit and wound and also do more damage.

Sothron
29-07-2015, 01:11
The OP has one thing right and that is all: What IS the point of AoS? Who would want to play a game set in...what, exactly? The most flimsy IP out there? The renamed races with some of the most laughable names to be used by any company? Steamhead dumdums anyone?

There IS no point to play AoS. It fails as a setting, it fails to inspire, it fails to ignite the imagination, it fails as an actual game system because hey, who needs rules or balance? Just toss some models on a table, hold them up and clash them together while shouting PEW PEW! and you have the perfect game that GW wants to sell you.

I pity anyone that thinks this is a genuine game system or a good use of their time, funds and entertainment value.

Dosiere
29-07-2015, 04:31
Bigman

Your looking at the game wrong. The only measure is whether you had fun. That's all that matters. In the narrative your guys were outgunned and still fought valiantly. Your unfortunately looking at it as a game designed for the competitive spirit when in fact it's a RPG scenario where it tells a story based on what occurred during the game. Thinking about winning and losing is the wrong approach. Don't try to "balance" the forces facing off. That's contrary to the design and will never result in satisfactory results. Just bring models push em together fight and talk about the story. It's not a game and don't go into it thinking of it as such. You'll enjoy it more that way.

Why not just play an actual RPG? There are tons of them out there from simple board game types to super complicated pen and paper ones to satisfy. If the game is about the narrative only why are you playing AoS which is devoid of it in your typical pick up game? If the game is about the narrative where are the campaigns, the battle plans, interesting characters? Guidelines for a game master? How about a game of AoS where there is no fighting? A tavern scene with your stormcast externals? A game consisting of nothing but dialogue? Yeah.....

It's a game of miniature battles brother, let's not pretend it's more or less than it is. It's a game, or it was supposed to be. The fact that almost everyone, from the huge fans of AoS on down, are using various forms of army composition rules should tell you it's both desirable and necessary in a tabletop wargame.

Kherith
29-07-2015, 07:50
For the record I have played AOS several times and have not used army comp rules once yet although I have downloaded the list of might thing to try out at some point.

Anyway on to the point I came on here to make....

Can't we all dial back a bit on the arguments.

I really like AOS I enjoy the games and I like some of the initial background. I really hope that it continues to develop in a way that holds my interest, but i am aware that it might not.

To all the people who are supportive of AOS, good for you I'm glad you're having fun, me too, but try and put yourself in the shoes of people who are bored to tears by it. Not everyone is going to like AOS even though I like it I can acknowledge it's flaws. Implying or outright stating that people who don't enjoy AOS are doing it wrong is insulting and insensitive. If AOS is as much fun as we think it is then surely we don't need to go around trying to convince people?
Lord knows Gw staffers will be giving it the hard sell to all and sundry!

To those who don't like AOS, nay hate it, nay loathes, nay etc etc....
I get it you don't like it Gw killed 8th and you feel betrayed and let down. I feel your pain right up until I played AOS I was in your camp I was convinced this was going to be utter garbage and that I'd have to find an oldhammer group or quit. I'm sorry that AOS doesn't do it for you, and I also understand you might be confused that others fo enjoy it. However I don't understand how anyone can enjoy baseball that doesn't mean that millions of people who do enjoy it are wrong and have to be educated by my superior opinion it means we're different.
None of the people who enjoy AOS are going to be convinced that it's bad no matter how logical your arguments might be, so why not just let us enjoy it we're not hurting anyone.

The worst part of AoS has nothing to do with points or flimsy rules or poor background.

The worst thing is unquestionably how devisive it is and the damage it's done to the community. Its the one issue I have with it and would be enough to make me quit WH had I not already invested so much time and effort.

In short can't we all just get along?

Horace35
29-07-2015, 08:01
I can see you have not been on these forums long have you? :)

Tbh AoS should be cast out into another section of the forum in my opinion like has been done elsewhere

Bigman
29-07-2015, 08:04
Well said and I agree, it wasn't really needed at all, to divide us like this.
Edit -- I mean the longer post above the last one.

Wishing
29-07-2015, 08:31
Can't we all dial back a bit on the arguments.

Unlikely at the best of times - impossible at a time of great upheaval like this one. It's a discussion forum after all. :)

Kherith
29-07-2015, 09:06
Unlikely at the best of times - impossible at a time of great upheaval like this one. It's a discussion forum after all. :)

I agree it's impossible not to discuss or for everyone to agree, but it seems every thread here or in news and rumour no matter the subject inevitably turns to the discussion of AoS is bad vs AoS is good and steadily escalates into a very repetitive argument, which neither side can (or should) win.

...sigh

Kherith
29-07-2015, 09:08
I can see you have not been on these forums long have you? :)

Tbh AoS should be cast out into another section of the forum in my opinion like has been done elsewhere

I do think a separate forum might help reduce arguing, butvthat kind of highlights the fact that the release of this game has been devisive.

EagleWarrior
29-07-2015, 09:39
To those who don't like AOS, nay hate it, nay loathes, nay etc etc....
I get it you don't like it Gw killed 8th and you feel betrayed and let down. I feel your pain right up until I played AOS I was in your camp I was convinced this was going to be utter garbage and that I'd have to find an oldhammer group or quit. I'm sorry that AOS doesn't do it for you, and I also understand you might be confused that others fo enjoy it. However I don't understand how anyone can enjoy baseball that doesn't mean that millions of people who do enjoy it are wrong and have to be educated by my superior opinion it means we're different.
None of the people who enjoy AOS are going to be convinced that it's bad no matter how logical your arguments might be, so why not just let us enjoy it we're not hurting anyone.

For me, it's not really about AoS itself. I don't think it's fantastic, but I've seen worse, and they don't bother me. I have nothing against people who like it and want to play it.

What bothers me is that they scrapped Warhammer, a game I've been playing for fifteen years and put a lot of time, care and money into. To take your analogy it's as if the organisation that runs baseball introduced a new game that was a bit like it and at the same time ended all official playing of baseball ever. Hence forth all official teams will be disbanded or converted to the new game. Baseball may only be played unofficially and the fans that want to know that even that will slowly die as other teams and clubs with pitches become harder and harder to find. I'm not a fan of baseball myself, but I can see that this would make a lot of people very unhappy. Whether the new game is any good isn't really the point, its that they were fans of the old game and it got taken away from them.

Panzer MkIV
29-07-2015, 10:29
Never, in GW's entire history, have they ever searched for simple elegance in their rules. Or if they have, they failed horribly.

The existence of Epic: Armageddon, Warmaster, Blood Bowl and the Lord of the Rings SBG tells me that you're horribly wrong.

Disclaimer: I'm not equating the above with the mess that is AoS.

HammerofThunor
29-07-2015, 11:28
The baseball analogy only works if there were no official baseball teams. The equivalent would be if the guys who run baseball (MLB? I'm English, I don't know) sold fancy books of the rules and high quality bats and other equipment. Various groups set up to run competitions and leagues, some with slightly different variations of the rules. Then MLB said, baseball is gone. We're moving on to BASEketball, here are the free vague rules and some kit you may not want. Then all the various leagues saying, this BASEketball is rubbish but we can't continue because we're no longer official and we would be stuck with the kit and rules we currently have with no updates (which we usually complain about anyway). I'm going to burn all my kit and go to BASEketball games to heckle.

Captain Idaho
29-07-2015, 11:34
Bigman

Your looking at the game wrong. The only measure is whether you had fun. That's all that matters. In the narrative your guys were outgunned and still fought valiantly. Your unfortunately looking at it as a game designed for the competitive spirit when in fact it's a RPG scenario where it tells a story based on what occurred during the game. Thinking about winning and losing is the wrong approach. Don't try to "balance" the forces facing off. That's contrary to the design and will never result in satisfactory results. Just bring models push em together fight and talk about the story. It's not a game and don't go into it thinking of it as such. You'll enjoy it more that way.

This is the problem I'm afraid. It's us, the customers, who are looking at it wrong?

This is GW attitude. In the next year, does anyone really think AoS will draw big numbers into the hobby? Really? 40K is declining and it's miles more popular. What makes AoS so different and special?

It's us, the customers looking at their product wrong. Never mind them selling customers what the customer wants.

Holier Than Thou
29-07-2015, 11:37
This is the problem I'm afraid. It's us, the customers, who are looking at it wrong?

This is GW attitude. In the next year, does anyone really think AoS will draw big numbers into the hobby? Really? 40K is declining and it's miles more popular. What makes AoS so different and special?

It's us, the customers looking at their product wrong. Never mind them selling customers what the customer wants.

I'm pretty sure Katastrophe's post was sarcasm, I don't think he's a fan of AOS.

Captain Idaho
29-07-2015, 12:03
Lol I'm sure it was but he was commenting on GWs very real salrs philosophy unfortunately.

Katastrophe
29-07-2015, 13:01
Lol I'm sure it was but he was commenting on GWs very real salrs philosophy unfortunately.

Yes and that's th shame really. It appears they've actually decided that we should take whatever they give us and enjoy it how they want us to, rather than making something that we want. That's very disheartening. And unfortunately that maybe be there approach to all their games over the next couple years to bring it all in line with this philosophy pretty much ruining the gaming experience we used to have with our GW models.

And no, I find no merit or joy in AoS for many reasons, most of which revolve around the game not being a game and definitely not a tactical game in the sense it was (some claim the tactical aspects have shifted to other things which I'm yet to see).

Bigman
29-07-2015, 16:57
Yes and that's th shame really. It appears they've actually decided that we should take whatever they give us and enjoy it how they want us to, rather than making something that we want. That's very disheartening. And unfortunately that maybe be there approach to all their games over the next couple years to bring it all in line with this philosophy pretty much ruining the gaming experience we used to have with our GW models.

And no, I find no merit or joy in AoS for many reasons, most of which revolve around the game not being a game and definitely not a tactical game in the sense it was (some claim the tactical aspects have shifted to other things which I'm yet to see).


I will have to point out that as a community our addictive personality disorders for buying the latest plastic bits has not helped them. We haven't, as a larger community, shown them with our buying habits what we like or dislike.

Yes fantasy was declining, but we didn't stop buying altogether, which is what needs to happen to send a message. As a company, without regular contact at board level with consumers at a range of locations (shops/cons/by God tournaments) it would be impossible for the board and senior members to make suitable decisions.

Really we should try and remember where they will be this year at cons, and go there and give them the feedback they have been missing.

Horses heads are still cool right? ;-)

Captain Idaho
29-07-2015, 17:31
I'd imagine GW are only sending reps to these events for promotional purposes, expecting people to be in awe of their latest release. And just like the old Games Developer seminars back in the 40K tournament days, it'll be dropped as soon as GW realise people who don't agree with them are there.

I'm voting with my wallet. I'm only buying 2nd hand stuff so GW doesn't get a penny. I've literally bought a whole Tomb Kings army the past month and GW haven't benefited by a single penny.

thesoundofmusica
29-07-2015, 17:45
This will be very unpopular I' sure, try to keep the hate at a minimum. Remember I'm just a guy playing Warhammer ;)
IF they decide to simplify 40k I would instantly buy into it. Me and my friends really like the models and the setting of 40k, we just cant be bothered learning another heavy ruleset.

theunwantedbeing
29-07-2015, 17:52
I'm voting with my wallet. I'm only buying 2nd hand stuff so GW doesn't get a penny. I've literally bought a whole Tomb Kings army the past month and GW haven't benefited by a single penny.

Out of curiosity....what did you buy and how much did it cost?

Captain Idaho
29-07-2015, 18:03
From various sources I bought:

10 Chariots
Warsphinx (box)
Necrosphinx legs and body (cheaper than 2nd)
30 odd Archers (re-esembling required before I know how many exactly as some might die on the operating table)
Bone Giant
10 Tomb Guard
20 Skeletons (Tomb Guard conversions here we come)
2 Liches
Tomb King on foot
A Reaper mummy (I think - 2 hand weapons. Count as Necrotect or just conversion fodder)
8 Skeleton Horsemen (conversions into Centaurs for Necropolis Knights)
Caliver Figures Pharaoh Tomb (here comes a Casket of Souls!)

***edit***

Now I know I won't bankrupt GW doing this, but I must point out I did this on a whim because my mate bought a Chaos Warrior army in a similar manner on ebay. Replicate that around the country and GW misses out on money.

Bigman
29-07-2015, 18:06
Just a heads up, a warhammer store in UK has just posted on FB saying "who wants to help me paint these amazing cool miniatures (his store AoS set).

Not one reply. Also pretty cheeky. I've been to Covent Garden recently, there stormcast models are only sprayed gold....

ooontrprzes
29-07-2015, 18:18
So you had one of these guys too? “18, 18, 16, 17, 14, 16. Yeah, you rolled these. Wow, you really were lucky.” The guy would famously hide his d20 rolls behind his hand or scoop his dice so fast we couldn’t check.

EDIT: I must admit that for a moment, I really thought he rolled high – we were using a homebrew rolling system that led to high stats (not that high) and I couldn’t conceive that someone would CHEAT in an RPG! It was just so… unreal. I mean… it’s an RPG’ not a competition.

The hand-cupping dice-scooper! I had a couple of ways of dealing with him (I've only had one, but it was consistent and brazen)- one, just plain lie right back, I have a dm screen and an astounding command of the law of averages, welcome to arbitrary gaming. Second, after that got boring, I conscripted our dwarf player to "observe" the rolls. Astoundingly, his luck departed shortly before he did.

Well, to try and nudge things back onto topic (curse you, mamary lane!), I think that, flawed or not, I have to agree with the sentiment that a points (or other basic scaling) system is if nothing else very helpful to the "gamer on the go". We have people in our group who are single parents, work 60 hour+ weeks, etc. Even when we game at a private residence we aren't able to go much later than about 1-2am, and aren't typically able to start until after all kiddos have gone to bed (giving us about one game worth of time on the dot). This has led to us determining things (like point value) ahead of time, as well as scenario (if there is one) and many other variables- typically immediately after the previous game or some point in the next day or so (weekly "meetings"). If we had to load up our entire collection into the "Mr. mom-mobile" (at least a minivan can fit all your skaven, right?), set up a table, and establish some form of arbitrary balance at the time of deployment, we'd never get to enjoy the medieval moshpit that is AOS (gasp and horror).

To summarize, the "common language", be it points or otherwise, is necessary in my opinion. It is far simpler to reverse engineer the narrative lack of balance than vice-versa if that is what you desire. Failure to provide this framework in a game is either poor planning, or willfully disregarding a large portion of your audience. Both are ill-advised.

theunwantedbeing
29-07-2015, 18:27
From various sources I bought:

And the price tag for those miniatures from not-GW?

Captain Idaho
29-07-2015, 18:40
And the price tag for those miniatures from not-GW?

Hard to tell at a glance. Much of it is split between euros, dollars and pound sterling.

200 quid? Maybe a bit more?

HelloKitty
29-07-2015, 18:47
Just a heads up, a warhammer store in UK has just posted on FB saying "who wants to help me paint these amazing cool miniatures (his store AoS set).

Not one reply. Also pretty cheeky. I've been to Covent Garden recently, there stormcast models are only sprayed gold....


That's not surprising. All of the GW stores I know get their local players to paint the box stuff.

Spiney Norman
29-07-2015, 19:03
Just a heads up, a warhammer store in UK has just posted on FB saying "who wants to help me paint these amazing cool miniatures (his store AoS set).

Not one reply. Also pretty cheeky. I've been to Covent Garden recently, there stormcast models are only sprayed gold....

Yep, the Lincoln store is still running with their sigmarites sprayed gold and the khorne models sprayed red, I'm not sure GW is even recruiting actual hobbyists to run their single-man stores any more.

Inquisitor Kallus
29-07-2015, 19:12
The existence of Epic: Armageddon, Warmaster, Blood Bowl and the Lord of the Rings SBG tells me that you're horribly wrong.



Indeed. Id also include BFG in this as well

Sothron
29-07-2015, 19:18
I can see you have not been on these forums long have you? :)

Tbh AoS should be cast out into another section of the forum in my opinion like has been done elsewhere

Trust me, I wish AoS would be cast into some sub forum to get it out of the way of real Warhammer discussion.

swordofglass
29-07-2015, 19:20
Trust me, I wish AoS would be cast into some sub forum to get it out of the way of real Warhammer discussion.

This, so much this

Sephillion
29-07-2015, 19:32
The hand-cupping dice-scooper! I had a couple of ways of dealing with him (I've only had one, but it was consistent and brazen)- one, just plain lie right back, I have a dm screen and an astounding command of the law of averages, welcome to arbitrary gaming. Second, after that got boring, I conscripted our dwarf player to "observe" the rolls. Astoundingly, his luck departed shortly before he did.



My players pushed him on a suscpicious tile on the floor to see if it was a trap. It was. He survived, though. « Push the elf on the trap » has remained a running gag. Then my Ropers suddenly got very, very powerful, and were able to pierce his BS psionic powers « I turn myself to hydrogen, they cannot hit me! » « Oh yes they can, they’re Magic Ropers ».

He never went back.

theunwantedbeing
29-07-2015, 19:49
From various sources I bought:

10 Chariots
Warsphinx (box)
Necrosphinx legs and body (cheaper than 2nd)
30 odd Archers (re-esembling required before I know how many exactly as some might die on the operating table)
Bone Giant
10 Tomb Guard
20 Skeletons (Tomb Guard conversions here we come)
2 Liches
Tomb King on foot
A Reaper mummy (I think - 2 hand weapons. Count as Necrotect or just conversion fodder)
8 Skeleton Horsemen (conversions into Centaurs for Necropolis Knights)
Caliver Figures Pharaoh Tomb (here comes a Casket of Souls!)


200 quid? Maybe a bit more?

That's pretty good going.
Buying all of that from GW would cost £350.50.
Although you would have 2 full Warsphinx kits and 2 additional chariots due to what it costs to make those things.

Holier Than Thou
29-07-2015, 19:51
Yep, the Lincoln store is still running with their sigmarites sprayed gold and the khorne models sprayed red, I'm not sure GW is even recruiting actual hobbyists to run their single-man stores any more.

Yep, the Manchester store also has the Sigmarines sprayed gold and nothing more. Same amount of effort as was put into designing the game.

mrknify
29-07-2015, 20:08
As far as I'm concerned aos is as unbalanced as 8th was.

That said: still have not played aos too busy playing games I love that are not gw. (Sad but true) still I feel I would try aos given the chance, just to see.

Aos looks pretty fun, you actually need to talk to your opponent before the game to come up with a game type. It was easier to show up with your 500pts ad jump in and play. Now movement is simple, not a lot of thought needed on How you should move.

So pack all your models go to a game and "build" your list there with whatever you and your opponent agree is fair.(that should not take too long... sure)

Or show up with your.... models? Put them on the table and hope your opponent is not playing chaos and can win in the first turn.

Still I feel if you take 150 d 6 and roll them 6 times and for every 6 you do a wound, its all good.

Oh and 150 dice is what, just one unit of my gnoblars needs for their attacks. I field two of those units. Best part is I get to do that twice for each unit in a turn.

Oh did I mention if you charge me you get auto mortal wounds.

I may not have played but I did read the rules. All 6 pages... (2 are the war scrolls for my army)

Cheers. Sure its all balanced.

Captain Idaho
29-07-2015, 21:41
That's pretty good going.
Buying all of that from GW would cost £350.50.
Although you would have 2 full Warsphinx kits and 2 additional chariots due to what it costs to make those things.

Cheers.

I'm really looking forward to my 1st game with them.