PDA

View Full Version : AoS - Sudden Death

Spiney Norman
19-08-2015, 22:15
How do you calculate the sudden death threshold for AoS?

Rules text:
"If one army has a third more models than the other, the outnumbered player can choose one objective from the sudden death table"

Is it
1. [Models in smaller army] < 2/3 x [models in larger army]

Or is it

2. [Models in large army] > 4 x ([models in smaller army] / 3)

Perhaps in more direct terms
If the smaller army contains 30 models does sudden death kick in when the larger army exceeds 45 models (method 1) or when the larger army exceeds 40 models (method 2)

19-08-2015, 22:41
third more than the smallest and in your example 41 would be the threshold i think

Choombatta
19-08-2015, 22:41
We use method 2 (when we use it).
So with 45 models, the larger army would have to be 60 or more models.
Of course, chances are we are going to be using a lot of judgement here also.

15 Stormcast Liberators vs. 20 Bloodreavers, there should be no Sudden Death bonus, in our judgement (This would be 30 wounds vs. 20 wounds as another way to look at it).

Spiney Norman
19-08-2015, 22:52
We use method 2 (when we use it).
So with 45 models, the larger army would have to be 60 or more models.
Of course, chances are we are going to be using a lot of judgement here also.

15 Stormcast Liberators vs. 20 Bloodreavers, there should be no Sudden Death bonus, in our judgement (This would be 30 wounds vs. 20 wounds as another way to look at it).

Except there is only one 'way of looking at it', sudden death counts models not wounds, the rules are pretty clear on that (one of the few things they are clear on).

Choombatta
19-08-2015, 22:58
Except there is only one 'way of looking at it', sudden death counts models not wounds, the rules are pretty clear on that (one of the few things they are clear on).
RAW, agreed.
That does not mean we cannot choose to play it differently.
I only added the last part about wounds to explain why we may not use the strict Sudden Death rules in all situations.
For example, our very first try of AoS was OK vs. Empire. We used the alternate deploy rules and very quickly realized, no matter how many units I (as OK) deployed, I was going to get the Sudden Death bonus.
After a couple of rounds, it became very obvious that OK was rolling over Empire, so decided to ignore the Sudden Death rule for the game.

Spiney Norman
19-08-2015, 23:07
RAW, agreed.
That does not mean we cannot choose to play it differently.
I only added the last part about wounds to explain why we may not use the strict Sudden Death rules in all situations.
For example, our very first try of AoS was OK vs. Empire. We used the alternate deploy rules and very quickly realized, no matter how many units I (as OK) deployed, I was going to get the Sudden Death bonus.
After a couple of rounds, it became very obvious that OK was rolling over Empire, so decided to ignore the Sudden Death rule for the game.

With respect, I'm asking a question in the rules forum, do I really have to specify that I'm talking about the official rules that GW have written for the game and not your personal house rules?

Of course I could play it differently if I could get my opponent to agree, but that wasn't what I was asking.

Choombatta
19-08-2015, 23:19
With respect, I'm asking a question in the rules forum, do I really have to specify that I'm talking about the official rules that GW have written for the game and not your personal house rules?

Of course I could play it differently if I could get my opponent to agree, but that wasn't what I was asking.

With respect, did I not answer your question at the very beginning of my post?
I only added to my answer that sometimes, we may not go strictly by the rules, but if we do, we use method 2.
No harm, no foul.

theunwantedbeing
20-08-2015, 10:06
Perhaps in more direct terms
If the smaller army contains 30 models does sudden death kick in when the larger army exceeds 45 models (method 1) or when the larger army exceeds 40 models (method 2)

With option 1 the larger army has 50% more models.
With option 2 the larger army has 33% more models.

So it's option 2.

thesoundofmusica
20-08-2015, 12:12
Cant you just divide the smaller army by three? Then you'll see right away how many more models is the breakpoint right?

Spiney Norman
20-08-2015, 12:25
Doesn't it strike anyone else that sudden death is quite a powerful advantage for a relatively small difference in size between armies? Conceding sudden death is basically giving away the game before you start.

Dosiere
20-08-2015, 16:50
Doesn't it strike anyone else that sudden death is quite a powerful advantage for a relatively small difference in size between armies? Conceding sudden death is basically giving away the game before you start.

Totally depends on the power of the two forces, and especially the speed and shooting power of the two. I have seen a case where it was entirely appropriate for the armies involved, but most have not been. It's a great idea actually, giving you the ability to in theory put down two very different types of armies that are not balanced and have a game. Keep in mind that RAW, you don't HAVE to use the rule, it just gives the option to the outnumbered player. As I said, in most situations it really is not appropriate to use. You would be far better off either not using it at all, or adding or subtracting to one of the armies instead if you're looking for balance.

The problem is that sometimes the apparent power differences in the armies aren't readily apparent from deployment, and it's not until turn 2 or so that a clear picture of who has the upper hand appears. It gets easier as you play the same armies and learn what units do what, but it's still rough, at least for now. My experience is that most games of AoS are actually "over" by round 2, 3 at the most, unless a serious effort at balancing the forces is attempted. For example, I have a large enough Empire collection that I can mirror two decent armies, so each side has exactly the same thing. The games are much more fun and come down to the occasional good decision and luck of the dice rather than an accidental imbalance at deployment. Sudden Death doesn't seem to really solve much, and in fact often makes it worse. Remember, it's very optional.

Spiney Norman
20-08-2015, 17:53
Totally depends on the power of the two forces, and especially the speed and shooting power of the two. I have seen a case where it was entirely appropriate for the armies involved, but most have not been. It's a great idea actually, giving you the ability to in theory put down two very different types of armies that are not balanced and have a game. Keep in mind that RAW, you don't HAVE to use the rule, it just gives the option to the outnumbered player. As I said, in most situations it really is not appropriate to use. You would be far better off either not using it at all, or adding or subtracting to one of the armies instead if you're looking for balance.

With respect, that is absolute nonsense, why would a player intentionally choose not to use a legal rule which gave them a significant advantage at no cost? That's like only bringing 1000pts to a 2k wfb game, or choosing not to cast any spells with the L4 wizard you selected as part of your force.

'The power of the two forces' is not taken into account when determining who has SD, only the number of models, this is exactly why so many people are saying that AoS is poorly designed, because it is.

The problem is that sometimes the apparent power differences in the armies aren't readily apparent from deployment, and it's not until turn 2 or so that a clear picture of who has the upper hand appears. It gets easier as you play the same armies and learn what units do what, but it's still rough, at least for now. My experience is that most games of AoS are actually "over" by round 2, 3 at the most, unless a serious effort at balancing the forces is attempted. For example, I have a large enough Empire collection that I can mirror two decent armies, so each side has exactly the same thing. The games are much more fun and come down to the occasional good decision and luck of the dice rather than an accidental imbalance at deployment. Sudden Death doesn't seem to really solve much, and in fact often makes it worse. Remember, it's very optional.

In my experience it's usually pretty easy to tell after deployment who is going to win, but by that point there isn't much you can do about it except concede. From the games I have played deployment is where the real 'game' happens, in most cases one player ends up manipulating the deployment in his favour sufficiently that victory in the actual game is all but inevitable.

thesoundofmusica
20-08-2015, 19:04
C'mon Spiney. There are plenty of reasons not to use the Sudden Death rule. Maybe not in a cut-throat tournament game or if you think AoS is serious business... But use your imagination, you cant really think of a situation where you wouldnt use Sudden Death?

Choombatta
20-08-2015, 20:27
It probably depends on if your gaming group is made up of close friends, or randoms you meet to play against.
If it is close friends (like ours), no one is going to mind ignoring the sudden death rule in most games.
If it is strangers, one is more likely to want to enforce the rule with no exceptions.

Either way, what some are calling an "incomplete" or "unusable" rule set, our group is viewing as more open ended and available for adaptation.

Grontik
20-08-2015, 23:53
To answer your original question,method 2. Take the number of models the larger army has over the smaller army and if that number is a third or more of the smaller army's total then Sudden Death.

Multi wound models (like Ogres) have a real advantage here but it could be this rule was intended to blunt the natural inclination to take hordes for every warscroll selected. Not sure where the sweet spot is for single wound unit types is yet but if you know or feel like you are going to get sudden death regardless then nothing stopping you from going big. I figure it is one of those rules that may take some time to see the value of or it could just be a silly rule meant to force some semblance of balance.

Choombatta
21-08-2015, 01:33
The rules also state, in relation to Sudden Death.....
"...the outnumbered player can choose one objective from the sudden death table..."
So it is up to the player with the smaller force if he wants to use the option or not.
AoS seems to have all but removed the word "must" from the rules, allowing for a lot more adaptation.

Spiney Norman
21-08-2015, 13:55
The rules also state, in relation to Sudden Death.....
"...the outnumbered player can choose one objective from the sudden death table..."
So it is up to the player with the smaller force if he wants to use the option or not.
AoS seems to have all but removed the word "must" from the rules, allowing for a lot more adaptation.

We have been through this, you're still talking about a player giving up a significant advantage that he is entitled to as per the rules for no other reason that to make it easier for his opponent to beat him.

Choombatta
21-08-2015, 14:16
We have been through this, you're still talking about a player giving up a significant advantage that he is entitled to as per the rules for no other reason that to make it easier for his opponent to beat him.

Which is exactly why I brought up your gaming group's composition.
Choosing not to use Sudden Death is still within the rules, as the player can choose.

A group of close friends will easily give up an advantage to have a good game.
A group of strangers, who are power gamers, and only concerned with winning will take the sudden death option every time.

Both options are fully supported by the rules.

Grontik
21-08-2015, 17:10
We have been through this, you're still talking about a player giving up a significant advantage that he is entitled to as per the rules for no other reason that to make it easier for his opponent to beat him.

Or that player already has an apparent advantage but would still receive Sudden Death so chooses to pass on it to make the game as fair as possible. Example ... I put down 50 skaven slaves, a unit of 30 clanrats with weapon teams, a unit of 20 stormvermin and a warlord. My opponent puts down 2 units of 10 Ogre Bulls, 2 units of 5 Leadbelchers, 1 Thundertusk, 1 Tyrant and hell let's give him a Butcher just for fun. It's pretty clear the Ogre army is going to curbstomp the skavens and isn't even close to half the army size. Some people might be gracious enough to pass on the Sudden Death just to keep it fair. Some people wouldn't.

Spiney Norman
21-08-2015, 17:19
Or that player already has an apparent advantage but would still receive Sudden Death so chooses to pass on it to make the game as fair as possible. Example ... I put down 50 skaven slaves, a unit of 30 clanrats with weapon teams, a unit of 20 stormvermin and a warlord. My opponent puts down 2 units of 10 Ogre Bulls, 2 units of 5 Leadbelchers, 1 Thundertusk, 1 Tyrant and hell let's give him a Butcher just for fun. It's pretty clear the Ogre army is going to curbstomp the skavens and isn't even close to half the army size. Some people might be gracious enough to pass on the Sudden Death just to keep it fair. Some people wouldn't.

That is a whole other question though, it's pretty obvious that in that example the game is already decided whether sudden death is taken or not, so whether the ogre player asserts his rights or not is largely irrelevant. Really abusing sudden death is something like this:
Deploy a chaos Lord, a chaos sorcerer, ten pink horrors and two hell cannons. Your Lord can bring on a mortal unit of any size every turn for free using his command ability, the sorcerer and horrors can chain summon more horrors to their hearts content. There's a very good chance with only 14 models on the table you'll get sudden death so pick assassinate then bombard the chosen target from 48" away with your two hell cannons.

Choombatta
21-08-2015, 17:38
That is a whole other question though, it's pretty obvious that in that example the game is already decided whether sudden death is taken or not, so whether the ogre player asserts his rights or not is largely irrelevant. Really abusing sudden death is something like this:
Deploy a chaos Lord, a chaos sorcerer, ten pink horrors and two hell cannons. Your Lord can bring on a mortal unit of any size every turn for free using his command ability, the sorcerer and horrors can chain summon more horrors to their hearts content. There's a very good chance with only 14 models on the table you'll get sudden death so pick assassinate then bombard the chosen target from 48" away with your two hell cannons.

Yes, it is well within the rules to do this.
Do you think your opponent will be willing to play another game with you after using such a tactic?

Again, both options are supported by the rules, you can choose to use it or not.
The real question is, what is the main reason you are playing a game of AoS?
To win or to have fun?
If you are playing to win, take sudden death every chance you get.
If you are playing for fun, taking sudden death becomes situational.

Grontik
21-08-2015, 17:49
Yeah most of the time if you qualify to take Sudden Death then you would be foolish not to. And from that perspective I like the options available as it can turn the game into a challenging scenario that you could possibly pull off instead of feeling defeated before taking your first turn. So I get what they were trying to do but haven't really played it enough to know if it works as intended.

Spiney Norman
21-08-2015, 17:50
The real question is, what is the main reason you are playing a game of AoS?
To win or to have fun?

My point is, it should be possible to play to win AND still have fun in the process.

If you're not trying to win at some level I'm not sure what the point is in playing at all, you'd be better off playing a game that didn't have victory conditions if you're not actually trying to meet those conditions.

Choombatta
21-08-2015, 18:10
My point is, it should be possible to play to win AND still have fun in the process.

If you're not trying to win at some level I'm not sure what the point is in playing at all, you'd be better off playing a game that didn't have victory conditions if you're not actually trying to meet those conditions.
You are correct. I could have worded that better.
Maybe, playing to win at all cost or playing to win for fun.

21-08-2015, 18:15
A smart opponent would probably table you with that before you could assassinate.My mate takes the Chaos Lord most games and sure he has a powerfull ability but it's still a 50% chance and summoning isn't guaranteed either.A smart player would have a tough character to assassinate and just stack mystic shield it on it and would have fast flyers or cav to go deal with the hell cannons. Such a game would be a good fun tho I reckon as the Chaos player would have a chance as would the opponent who would,assuming he has the models keep deploying untill he had a force that could table you quickly.

When opting for sudden death or planning to get it you got make sure you got enough to get the job done,I just think with what you have taken above it would be a tall order,doable but tough.If you don't assassinate in the 1st turn your opponent could potentialy have 2 turns in row which would probs be devastating.

edit- I just realised the hellcannons do mortal wounds which makes it tougher but still impossible :)

Dosiere
21-08-2015, 18:18
My point is, it should be possible to play to win AND still have fun in the process.

If you're not trying to win at some level I'm not sure what the point is in playing at all, you'd be better off playing a game that didn't have victory conditions if you're not actually trying to meet those conditions.

Agreed but I would also ask what is the point of playing a game you know you have a 99% chance of winning? Wouldn't the competitive side of you choose NOT to use sudden death if you know it will lead to a closer game where the satisfaction of winning is far greater for it? You seem to be saying that although using Sudden Death is optional RAW, it might as well not be.

I understand what you are saying Spiney, but your assertion that a competitive player should/would always, in every situation, choose to invoke the sudden death objective is wrong. There are going to be times when in the interest of both fun AND competitiveness (like you I do NOT consider the two mutually exclusive) you should not do so. I would say that keeping that in mind is both in the spirit and letter of the game as written.

There seems to be this thought in people like Choombata that talk about AoS that say you must either choose fun OR competitive gaming. The writers of AoS stupidly think that you should, apparently, based on the rules they are writing. However, I don't really think you can separate the two, and trying to do so leaves you with half a game. So when you have an optional victory condition that would lessen both aspects of play in a particular game, the option you should pick seems obvious.

21-08-2015, 18:35
Thinking some more,if it became obvious during deployment that is what you were going for it would probably be easier to just deny you sudden death and take up to 18 models with some serious clout.

Choombatta
21-08-2015, 19:02
There seems to be this thought in people like Choombata that talk about AoS that say you must either choose fun OR competitive gaming. The writers of AoS stupidly think that you should, apparently, based on the rules they are writing. However, I don't really think you can separate the two, and trying to do so leaves you with half a game. So when you have an optional victory condition that would lessen both aspects of play in a particular game, the option you should pick seems obvious.

I did admit my wording was incorrect, as I do believe they are not exclusive either.
You can play to win and have fun.
You can play to win at all cost and have fun.
You can play to win at all cost and make the game not fun.
Using a list and rules that mean you have won the game without playing a single round is not fun.
Choosing to use sudden death rules can lead to both outcomes, depending on the situation.

Spiney Norman
21-08-2015, 19:21
Thinking some more,if it became obvious during deployment that is what you were going for it would probably be easier to just deny you sudden death and take up to 18 models with some serious clout.

Yes absolutely, but that represents yet another facet to AoS which I don't really like, deployment is unquestionably the most tactical part of the game, if you don't react appropriately to your opponents deployments then you risk an unwinnable match up or conceding sudden death. What that generally means is your hands are tied even more tightly than they we're in 8th edition with regard to what you choose to put down.

If I bring my skaven army to the game and my opponent starts unloading ironguts and leadbelchers I need to reach for the rat ogres and stormfiends (or even bigger monsters) to stand any chance at all, no matter how much I wanted to break out my plague monks or storm vermin.

As maligned as points have been in recent times they do allow weaker units the opportunity to play even handed games against much stronger, more elite units, something AoS manifestly fails to do.

Choombatta
21-08-2015, 19:33
Yes absolutely, but that represents yet another facet to AoS which I don't really like, deployment is unquestionably the most tactical part of the game, if you don't react appropriately to your opponents deployments then you risk an unwinnable match up or conceding sudden death. What that generally means is your hands are tied even more tightly than they we're in 8th edition with regard to what you choose to put down.

If I bring my skaven army to the game and my opponent starts unloading ironguts and leadbelchers I need to reach for the rat ogres and stormfiends (or even bigger monsters) to stand any chance at all, no matter how much I wanted to break out my plague monks or storm vermin.

As maligned as points have been in recent times they do allow weaker units the opportunity to play even handed games against much stronger, more elite units, something AoS manifestly fails to do.

This exactly.
If your opponent deploys first, and deploys a unit of 50 skaven slaves right off the bat, it will be hard for him not to give his opponent the sudden death option. All they have to do is deploy 1 model, and wait to see what the skaven player deploys next.
So deployment becomes much more tactical then we were used to in 8th, since now you not only need to think of matchups when you deploy, you have to think of numbers too.
This is almost exactly what happened in our OK vs. Empire army.
Once the Empire player deploys a large block (say 30 models), it becomes very easy for the Ogre player to keep deploying single models, or units with 6 or less models, and gain the sudden death advantage.
After a couple of rounds of play, it became obvious the advantage the Ogre player (me) had, so I decided to give up the sudden death option to try and make the game more enjoyable for both players.

Dosiere
21-08-2015, 21:25
Spiney, again you are stubbornly ignoring the fact that it is optional to use sudden death. Nothing you are saying is wrong per se, but you are assuming that sudden death is going to be used. It's very very true that AoS very stupidly punishes the players who want to bring larger armies composed of more regular models, IF you are using sudden death objectives.

Let me ask you a question - if that situation was reversed and you know your opponent wants to use his skaven clan rats and storm vermin in a game, would you after looking at the armies and seeing they are more or less even despite your opponent outnumbering you decide to invoke the sudden death objectives? Would you have a better game if you didn't? Would you at least make sure your opponent understands what is going on and give him an opportunity to place even more models on the table so that sudden death might actually be hard for you to achieve?

My point is that if are playing AoS and crave good games and not the "I win deployment/the game because of sudden death" you are going to have to make these decisions. If you are not willing to do so AoS is never going to be fun for you, or me RAW. The option to either use or not use sudden death is really the only decent balancing mechanic in AoS RAW, ignoring that it is indeed optional is foolish.

Unless you want to adopt one of the fan made point systems like azyr comp I think it's the only way to have consistently decent games of AoS. I wish GW just had a good balancing mechanic, but they don't, and we the players are left to figure it out depending on what type of games we wish to play.

Spiney Norman
21-08-2015, 22:23
Spiney, again you are stubbornly ignoring the fact that it is optional to use sudden death. Nothing you are saying is wrong per se, but you are assuming that sudden death is going to be used. It's very very true that AoS very stupidly punishes the players who want to bring larger armies composed of more regular models, IF you are using sudden death objectives.

Let me ask you a question - if that situation was reversed and you know your opponent wants to use his skaven clan rats and storm vermin in a game, would you after looking at the armies and seeing they are more or less even despite your opponent outnumbering you decide to invoke the sudden death objectives? Would you have a better game if you didn't? Would you at least make sure your opponent understands what is going on and give him an opportunity to place even more models on the table so that sudden death might actually be hard for you to achieve?

That is not the question, I'm not talking about a situation where I might be the player with the smaller force (and since I don't play any armies whee multi-wound elites are common that is unlikely to happen anyway). Sure I might decide to forego sudden death if I didn't believe it was appropriate, the point is, you cannot rely on your opponent being so gracious and self-effacing as to pass up an advantage he is entitled to just because you think he should.

If you are going to put down a quantity of models above the SD threshold you need to be prepared for your opponent to exercise his right as per the rules to invoke sudden death. If he doesn't, that's great but if you give him the opportunity there is absolutely no grounds for complaining if he goes for it.

Personally I don't like Azyr comp after reading it through, I feel it is overly restrictive on the amount of character points the can be taken in relation to troop points, which is one of the few big advantages that AoS has over WFB, you don't need to field hundreds of models before you can take a dragon lord/blood thirster, but Azyr comp has found a way of still making you do just that...

Aezeal
31-08-2015, 18:11
GW should really change the chaos lord rule ASAP btw.