PDA

View Full Version : Easy way to Balance AoS games?



Bede19025
24-07-2015, 21:47
1. Each player brings a whatever models he chooses.

2. One of the players creates two armies from the models brought by both.

3. The player who didn't create the armies chooses which of the two armies he will play.

This gives the player creating the army the incentive to make things as even as possible. Yes, you might end up playing the army the other guy brought, but maybe that would be fun.

Ayin
24-07-2015, 21:57
The "easiest" way is to simply play games, over and over again, until players have a solid understanding of what can reasonably be used against what to maintain a fun, fair game, and then use that experience to set up future games.

So, playtesting.

Whirlwind
24-07-2015, 22:07
The easiest way is just don't play it; no balancing required then...:D But I guess that is not what you want. More sensibly head over to the Development forum there are several methods showcased there pick the one that you prefer/easiest, but remember that the model/wound count ones heavily bias elite armies.

jet_palero
25-07-2015, 05:05
Easy way to Balance AoS games?

Or just play a game whose designer gives a crap.

Smooth Boy
25-07-2015, 05:25
Two above say it like it is. I'm sure what OP suggests is basically how Rick Priestly recommended people play Hail Caesar, we're going back to Rogue Trader days of having a GM. It works... but again if I'm paying hundreds of 's for a wargame I'd expect them to do this for me.

RandomThoughts
25-07-2015, 07:13
My concern: How the heck is the one guy who has to build both armies supposd to know what is or is not good balance? Are three Chaos Knights a good match for 6 elven Archers or not? How many Cultists to an elven wizard, etc.

Experience helps, sure, and someone who has played the game for ages will have a good sense for what is likely a good game and what isn't, but how do you get there? Playing hundreds of unbalanced games first?

GrandmasterWang
25-07-2015, 09:30
Easiest way to 'balance' AOS is based on carry case vs carry case.

Each player is limited by what they can fit into their carry case which has to be the same size as their opponents ;)

It's a better balancing system than "wounds" lol.

Want to take Nagash. ... sure but he takes up a lot of space in that case. ...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

RandomThoughts
25-07-2015, 13:43
Easiest way to 'balance' AOS is based on carry case vs carry case.

Each player is limited by what they can fit into their carry case which has to be the same size as their opponents ;)

It's a better balancing system than "wounds" lol.

Want to take Nagash. ... sure but he takes up a lot of space in that case. ...

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

This, by the way, also solves the summoning problem: You can only summon models you have with you, so once you run out of stuff that was in your bag, you're done.

GrandmasterWang
25-07-2015, 13:57
This, by the way, also solves the summoning problem: You can only summon models you have with you, so once you run out of stuff that was in your bag, you're done.

Indeed!

Hahaha :)

GW should take note!

Maybe they will include this brilliant idea in their next expansion for the low cost of $83. This scintillating expansion will include warscrolls for 3 different sizes of carry case and an additional 3 'legacy' carry case warscroll. If you order the limited edition book for the special low price of $175 you even get a bonus embossed warscroll for foam!

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Tokamak
25-07-2015, 14:14
That would pair well with extra deluxe limited edition greater capacity carry cases.

ihavetoomuchminis
25-07-2015, 14:16
But waacers would find ways of "fitting-models-indacase for advantage", and bring bigger cases...." oh, that 20 wheels truck? It's my casual games case....why are you looking at me like this?"

Spiney Norman
25-07-2015, 14:56
1. Each player brings a whatever models he chooses.

2. One of the players creates two armies from the models brought by both.

3. The player who didn't create the armies chooses which of the two armies he will play.

This gives the player creating the army the incentive to make things as even as possible. Yes, you might end up playing the army the other guy brought, but maybe that would be fun.

There are at least three problems with this
1. Since no-one has any idea how to balance AoS (including those who wrote the rules) how is anyone supposed to make a decent stab at designing balanced armies or choosing between armies that someone else has allegedly 'balanced'.

2. It requires me to potentially use models owned by someone else, and infinitely worse...

3. It requires that other people might potentially end up using my models.

I spend hundreds of pounds and even more painting hours building my army and I want to use my own stuff. If I wound up controlling an army of badly painted sigmarines because my opponent chose to play with my force the experience would be a compete failure for me however 'balanced' the game may or may not be.

some_scrub
25-07-2015, 17:55
There are at least three problems with this
1. Since no-one has any idea how to balance AoS (including those who wrote the rules) how is anyone supposed to make a decent stab at designing balanced armies or choosing between armies that someone else has allegedly 'balanced'.

2. It requires me to potentially use models owned by someone else, and infinitely worse...

3. It requires that other people might potentially end up using my models.

I spend hundreds of pounds and even more painting hours building my army and I want to use my own stuff. If I wound up controlling an army of badly painted sigmarines because my opponent chose to play with my force the experience would be a compete failure for me however 'balanced' the game may or may not be.

Agree with Spiney. Balanced can mean 2 different things: 'fair' ie evenly matched for the players and 'even' ie. evenly matched armies. This is guaranteed to be 'fair' in the sense that it doesn't give either player an advantage, but you can also achieve that by switching sides after the game. The problem is that I mostly care about the game being 'even' and with Age of Sigmar, every game has just been insanely lopsided. Even the starter set which is supposedly balanced has started to seem pretty thoroughly lopsided (in favor of the Sigmarines, since they get always get Sudden Death).

It's actually just really really hard to balance 2 armies in AoS if you're using certain armies (eg Ogres, Skaven, Goblins) and certain kinds of models. It's also hard if you're playing on the super asymmetrical scenarios in the big book.

Cheeslord
26-07-2015, 10:16
I agree with the OP's idea...the player who builds the armies will pretty quickly LEARN what is balanced in practice, since his opponent will always be trying to pick the more powerful army.

Only problem is that it requires everyone to bring 2 armies (though for pick up games this has a hidden benefit;- you can get new people into the game who didn't bring any kind of Warhammer army at all).

If your models are so good that you can't bear the thought of anyone else touching them, would it not be better to keep them safe at home and make a less well painted set for battling? After all, however good your carry case is there is always a danger someone might nudge your models or drop something on them on the table (especially now they might need to stick their filthy bases on top of your highly detailed ones to reach melee range).

On the other side, the people with unpainted/1 colour models might be more encouraged to at least do them up to a modest standard so as not to be completely shamed when offering to share their miniatures. Remember you can always refuse a game on grounds of the other player having inferior models ... or dirty fingers.

Mark.

Kherith
26-07-2015, 10:24
I'm really enjoying AOS it's revitalised fantasy in my area our player base has at least doubled (at least for the short term). I quite like the new background so far and really enjoy the games I've played.

However there is not an easy way to balance the game let's not pretend there is. Lack of points is an issue particularly for competitive and tournament players.

The method described is fine for a couple of players who know each other and their armies well, but if I were playing our current campaign with these rules with my Dark Elves i could get to the end of my campaign having never used my Dark elves once.

This wouldn't happen because the truth is if my opponent built the armies I'd pick my Dark elves every time even if I knew I was at a disadvantage.

I doubt any but extremely obsessive gamers or people trying to develop house rules for balance/points systems have spent enough time studying every single war scroll to be able to pick two balanced armies in any case.

I applaud everyone's efforts at trying to enhance AOS with a quick fix, but i genuinely don't think there is one. The only way to balance AOS for competitive games or tournaments is a lot of trial and error, or comprehensive points/force organisation house rules.

cotillion989
27-07-2015, 00:35
My buddy sent me this link on friday and this system worked well for my group this weekend.
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofsigmarsdk/pointtables

cotillion989
27-07-2015, 00:37
My buddy sent me this link on friday and the points worked well for us this past weekend. https://sites.google.com/site/ageofsigmarsdk/pointtables

SanDiegoSurrealist
27-07-2015, 03:01
Go by dollar amount.
I will bring $300 worth of models vs your $300 worth.

Gharak
27-07-2015, 12:46
Bring all your stuff, you each place your warscrolls upsidedown on the side of the table and agree how many scrolls to take, deal said amount of scrolls out from your pile then roll a scenario.

Randomised forcelists is the way forward.

G

The_Real_Chris
27-07-2015, 12:58
Play identical sides. And insist everyone is clean shaven.

Voss
27-07-2015, 13:19
Go by dollar amount.
I will bring $300 worth of models vs your $300 worth.
So... player with biggest discounter wins? Or does the older player get more since they bought their models before multiple price hikes?
Ooo. I bought my original sculpt Bloodthirster and GUO for $8.50 each out a bargain bin. I'll put them both (and several units) up against a current BT!

theunwantedbeing
27-07-2015, 13:27
So... player with biggest discounter wins? Or does the older player get more since they bought their models before multiple price hikes?
Ooo. I bought my original sculpt Bloodthirster and GUO for $8.50 each out a bargain bin. I'll put them both (and several units) up against a current BT!

$300 worth can easily mean current GW rate, not the amount you actually paid for them.

SanDiegoSurrealist
27-07-2015, 14:28
$300 worth can easily mean current GW rate, not the amount you actually paid for them.

Yes, the current box price on the GW site is the cost of the unit. Not the I bought it on sale, eBay, bargain bin, traded for it, was given to me as a gift, I work in a game store employee discounted prices.

Holier Than Thou
27-07-2015, 14:33
Yes, the current box price on the GW site is the cost of the unit.

So your army list will get progressively smaller as GW increase their prices?

Sexiest_hero
27-07-2015, 14:39
So your army list will get progressively smaller as GW increase their prices?
That's pretty much how it happens anyways. :P

Holier Than Thou
27-07-2015, 14:49
That's pretty much how it happens anyways. :P

I would hazard the last thing GW wants is people to set a limit on how much they are going to spend.

Quiet Sage
27-07-2015, 14:52
The easiest way is to use the Scroll of Might: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?411805-Point-values-for-WHF-AoS-scrolls-the-Sage-of-Sigmar-Scroll-of-Might

SanDiegoSurrealist
27-07-2015, 14:56
So your army list will get progressively smaller as GW increase their prices?

Not true, over the 10+ years I have been playing armies have gone from 1150 points to 3000 points.
Game sizes will expand to meet inflation.

ElOrso
28-07-2015, 20:32
1. Each player brings a whatever models he chooses.

2. One of the players creates two armies from the models brought by both.

3. The player who didn't create the armies chooses which of the two armies he will play.

This gives the player creating the army the incentive to make things as even as possible. Yes, you might end up playing the army the other guy brought, but maybe that would be fun.



This idea would clearly balance the game 100% and anyone who claimed otherwise in this thread pretty much doesn't get it (sorry guys!)

The only 2 possible valid arguments against something like this are:
1) I don't want to others to touch my figures / I want to play my own figures
2) The host has to have 2 armies

There is actually an alternative idea but you still have to be willing to play your opponents' models and he has to be willing to play yours. I call it "Auctionhammer".
- Both players make a list of some similar size (for example you can agree to both bring a 50 wound army, or a 40-60 wound army
- After setting up terrain and deployment zones, players hold an auction to see which army they control
- The player who wins the auction gets to play the army he bid on but has to pay the price he offered


An auction might work like this:
- You bring your 50 wounds of ogres and I bring my 50 wounds of orcs & goblins
- I secretly write down "Ogres for 5 wounds" meaning I prefer ogres and am willing to discard 5 wounds worth of models of my choice in order to play them
- You secretly write down "Ogres for 7 wounds"
- You iwn the auction, get to play the ogres, and have to discard 7 wounds worth of ogres before we begin the game. Alternatively, you can agree that the average of bids is paid instead of the winning bid.

Knarg
28-07-2015, 20:51
We found "place one unit at a time" and "don't be a dick" to work just fine. The sudden death conditions helped tremendously.

Griefbringer
28-07-2015, 20:58
Yes, the current box price on the GW site is the cost of the unit. Not the I bought it on sale, eBay, bargain bin, traded for it, was given to me as a gift, I work in a game store employee discounted prices.

One problem with this MoneyHammer point system at the moment is the Sigmarine models from the AoS starter set, since the only ones that have a price on their own at the moment are the Liberators (6 per model), the others are only available at the starter set.

Sephillion
28-07-2015, 21:11
This idea would clearly balance the game 100% and anyone who claimed otherwise in this thread pretty much doesn't get it (sorry guys!)


Not sure if this is meant in jest, but no, it wouldn’t. The player making the armies would need to know how to make two lists that are more or less fairly balanced. Without any starting point like a points system (no pun intended), how does he know that? Player A brings High Elves. Player B brings Skaven. Player A has never played Skavens. Player B has never seen a High Elves army. Nothing changed, only now the balance is decided by one guy.

Also, I fail to see why I should play somebody else’s models. That’s a stupid way of balancing the game.

Maybe I’m missing some humor in the thread? If it’s serious, then it’s seriously *********.

thesoundofmusica
28-07-2015, 21:19
@ElOrso

Cmon, balance the game 100%? Lets not pretend a game of Warhammer was ever balanced. Yes having a semblance of balance was possible but not mainly due to points but because of the experience we got after playing loads of games and having an understanding of game mechanics etc. Two new players could easily make a 2000 point list each where one would thrash the other without them knowing. Player A buys a couple new units, shifts the "local meta", and player B follows. Nothing has changed in that department.

I think that with some experience and effort you can balance games of AoS, somewhat. No worse than it used to be.

IF the complaint is that Warhammer has always been unbalanced then certainly AoS is no different.

ElOrso
29-07-2015, 06:36
@Sephillion, making a balanced matchup will require some knowledge and experience in the game. After a while it actually becomes fairly simple.
When working with point values you are basically told what models to bring if you want to win in a game. I know it's an extremely simplified statement but if skinks are cheap compared to Saurus Warriors we will all bring a lot of skinks. This is a problem that has existed for a long time and people are now trying to implement again for AoS by assigning points. We believe AuctionHammer is able to solve all of this.
Playing with the other players' models doesn't balance the game, it is just something you have to be willing to do in this system. I think you maybe misunderstood this part.

@thesoundofmusica, i agree completely that balance comes from knowledge and experience in the game. This is why AuctionHammer also worked fine in 8th edition and now also in AoS.
A couple of friends that play each other regularly will gain the experience needed in no time.
Also the fact that that the GW point system was never balanced is a correct statement. It was just a way to sell their new models. Have a look at everything they released lately, you will see they make it more "attractive" by assigning a "cheaper" point cost.
This makes list building for competitive play rather dull. Similar lists are seen all over the place.

AuctionHammer gives you the possibility to quantify the imbalance that you see, based on your experience, between both lists. For us it has provided more balance than any point system we have seen online. They just bring back what was wrong in the past.

But as stated before it requires 2 things:
- Being able to play both armies
- Giving AoS a shot to build experience

What does help is if you start small and discuss afterwards.

scruffyryan
29-07-2015, 22:45
Simply Put AoS really needed to be marketed the same way as HeroQuest. Scenario expansions like the starter box, with models included and GW trying to include balanced forces in the box.

Kahadras
29-07-2015, 23:11
How about something like Batchall? The 'defending' player announces what he's going to take and the 'attacker' has to bring a force that he feels can win but will provide a challenge in order to do so (the bigger the challenge the greater the glory when you suceed). You could make it even better by having you and your friends 'bid' to see who can bring the most reasonable force with an arbitrator to referee the bidding.

Well bargained and done.

big squig
29-07-2015, 23:38
We found "place one unit at a time" and "don't be a dick" to work just fine. The sudden death conditions helped tremendously.

As far as I can tell, those have been the games with the worst results. Unusually with one person being crushed by turn 2.

HelloKitty
30-07-2015, 00:10
I am not a fan of sudden death for one main reason - it makes scenarios pointless. If the scenario is about holding a watch tower, then I can just game the game by showing up with a very tiny model count army to bank on sudden death instead. I don't have to worry about holding a watch tower in a scenario that is all about that... I just have to pick some easier to accomplish goal and totally make the scenario useless.

75hastings69
30-07-2015, 08:57
Player 1 fills a shoe with models and tips them out again. Player 2 uses the same shoe and repeats. Bigger shoes or even boots for apocolypse games. Clowns = instantly barred from playing.

*EDIT. To avoid injury and cheating ensure shoe is empty before putting back on foot. (Obviously flip-flops can be used for small skirmish games).

For tournaments the below device can be used to balance both sides equally. Obviously this will be made of pure Sigmarite or you can use the the limited edition Ur-gold one decorated in dragons.

217967

Holier Than Thou
30-07-2015, 10:00
Player 1 fills a shoe with models and tips them out again. Player 2 uses the same shoe and repeats. Bigger shoes or even boots for apocolypse games. Clowns = instantly barred from playing.

*EDIT. To avoid injury and cheating ensure shoe is empty before putting back on foot. (Obviously flip-flops can be used for small skirmish games).

For tournaments the below device can be used to balance both sides equally. Obviously this will be made of pure Sigmarite or you can use the the limited edition Ur-gold one decorated in dragons.

217967

I suspect most people will consider this suggestion ludicrous until GW release the Golden Boot of Sigmar at which point all the AOS die-hards will snap it up, proclaiming it the greatest balancing mechanism ever and if you don't like it you must be toxic and the wrong kind of measurer.

thesoundofmusica
30-07-2015, 10:48
That's funny. No seriously it was.
I can just see myself over at the Frostgrave forum making jokes all day simply because the setting sounds like a piece of ****. But its just not worth my time :)

I like Kahadras' idea, for well-knit groups.

75hastings69
30-07-2015, 11:28
As a rules system though should some kind of balance be included especially for brand new players? and by that I mean people that have NEVER played a wargame ever before? I know the points system wasn't without it's faults, BUT part of the reason for that was GW overpowering new models/units just for the sake of increasing sales, on the whole the points systems wasn't that bad. Whether it had points, wounds, shoes full, etc. it should have had something included already in the rules (although that may have pushed the rulebook to 5 pages and been too much for some people to comprehend).

My point is in theory AoS could have been great (notwhithstanding the need to destroy 25 years of background material), hell I even wanted it to be great, but it falls very short of the mark. Don't get me wrong I know some people like it, hell my own brother even likes it, and in some cases I can understand why (especially for those who placed restrictions on themselves during WFB days), but it COULD have been more appealing to a much wider audience had they for want of a better phrase - finished it. It just feels too sparse on rules to play a game without making a lot of stuff up yourself, which is fine, but at that point when it becomes a REQUIREMENT to do this just to have balanced play it becomes less of a "game" and more of an "idea" to use your miniature collection, which lets be frank is all that AoS is. If it were anything more then people here (and I'm talking about the pro AoS guys) wouldn't be discussing "how they can add balance to the game" because it should have already been a part of it.

Denny
30-07-2015, 11:47
BUT part of the reason for that was GW overpowering new models/units just for the sake of increasing sales.

I think this is a myth. Sure, some new units are OP, but some are considered pretty bad for their points (I know in 40K the pyrovore was terrible when it first came out and still is and the Maleceptor sucks, the Dark Angel flyers were awful first time around, the Tau flyers disappointing, Mandrakes totally sucked in the 5th edition Dark Eldar book etc).

My point is, if GW intentionally wants to make new releases OP, then they fail just as often as they succeed.

75hastings69
30-07-2015, 12:01
I think this is a myth. Sure, some new units are OP, but some are considered pretty bad for their points (I know in 40K the pyrovore was terrible when it first came out and still is and the Maleceptor sucks, the Dark Angel flyers were awful first time around, the Tau flyers disappointing, Mandrakes totally sucked in the 5th edition Dark Eldar book etc).

My point is, if GW intentionally wants to make new releases OP, then they fail just as often as they succeed.

I guess so, even if every example was 40k :) ), however I still thinkit's safe to say that AoS SHOULD have had some kind of balancing system in place in box.

Denny
30-07-2015, 12:18
I guess so, even if every example was 40k :), however I still think it's safe to say that AoS SHOULD have had some kind of balancing system in place in box.

I know 40K a lot better. :)
I suspect someone with a better knowledge of 8th edition could pull some examples.

I agree AoS would be a better product if it had some kind of balancing system (whether points or otherwise)

thesoundofmusica
30-07-2015, 13:02
The best example I can think of for Fantasy is the Jabberslythe and Ghorgon/Cygor. All terriblly overpriced in points and released long after the book without updated rules.

Edit: when I started playing Warhammer nobody, including myself, in our group had any knowledge about mathhammer or anything like that. We bought models and fought eachother. Sure over time we developed a rough idea of which units were good against what. But mostly it was about the fun, the models and the board. Dont get me wrong, we played to win! But it was from the cherry-picking mathhammered units of today (well... yesterday).

I think people on forums such as this think they are the vast majority of gamers. I'm not so sure.

75hastings69
30-07-2015, 13:15
The best example I can think of for Fantasy is the Jabberslythe and Ghorgon/Cygor. All terriblly overpriced in points and released long after the book without updated rules.

Fair enough, proves that the point I made was not always accurate, but I did say it was part of the reason that the points system wasn't totally perfect. But at least it gave us some semblance of balance, in fact we managed 8 editions and god knows how many tournaments and campaigns just fine with it.
With all the creatives and indeed hobbysists that GW employs to not include a balance mechanic just adds another tick in the box of "idea" rather than "game" for me. Don't get me wrong AoS isn't all bad, but it is most definitely NOT a replacement for WFB, it's a totally different product for a totally different audience. I guess that's what turns a lot of WFB vets off, the fact that it has not been made with them in mind, after so many years of being loyal to the brand.

Mateobard
30-07-2015, 13:15
The best example I can think of for Fantasy is the Jabberslythe and Ghorgon/Cygor. All terriblly overpriced in points and released long after the book without updated rules.

Edit: when I started playing Warhammer nobody, including myself, in our group had any knowledge about mathhammer or anything like that. We bought models and fought eachother. Sure over time we developed a rough idea of which units were good against what. But mostly it was about the fun, the models and the board. Dont get me wrong, we played to win! But it was from the cherry-picking mathhammered units of today (well... yesterday).

I think people on forums such as this think they are the vast majority of gamers. I'm not so sure.

A balanced game with good, tight rules is better for everyone - those who play as you describe above, and those who really want to squeeze everything they can out of their lists.

75hastings69
30-07-2015, 13:33
A balanced game with good, tight rules is better for everyone - those who play as you describe above, and those who really want to squeeze everything they can out of their lists.

I agree. At least then you get a choice. Not providing it (as AoS doesn't) makes (and I've said it already but I'll say it again) the product not a "game" but merely an "idea" of what you can do with you miniatures collection. It is an unfinished and as such flawed work, which regardless of what anyone here says is why there is a thread discussing "how to create balance". If there was NO NEED for any balance of any sort then this thread would not exist, therefore GW have released a "game" that does not contain all the mechanics that people feel is a basic requirement to play it.

@ the soundofmusica, it sounds to me that at least one point in time YOU were playing WFB correctly, it should have ALWAYS been about the fun. If every game outside of a tournament became math-hammer win with x army build etc. where is the fun in that?
WFB for me was always about fun, about telling a story, a story set in a world that was so detailed in it's landscapes, races, mythos, heroes, villains, character, motivation and feeling of belonging in a world that constantly teetered on the edge, a world that over 25 years was almost it's own living breathing being, it was about re-enacting that story through the plastic soldiers/monsters of that worl, with friends, with friends who also wanted fun. WFB worked for me just fine. It makes me sad that so many people restricted what WFB could have been to them, to the point where the actual shortcomings of a new system become valued as its best draw.

Voss
30-07-2015, 13:44
Funny, I come from the other end, where GW games are just stand alone pickup games with no real relevance to the world or characters. Not tournament WACC crunch, but just casual social games. And Age of Sigmar is also terrible for that. I have no idea how I'd go into a store and get a fun quick game of AoS- just a mass of wrangling debate and confusion.

thesoundofmusica
30-07-2015, 14:06
I'm not saying I prefer a no point system. But AoS is fun, I like it and I'm not gonna reject it on principle.