PDA

View Full Version : AoS: Synergy & ********, where do you draw the line?



Spiney Norman
08-10-2015, 14:29
So those that play AoS are probably aware by now that there is some pretty bonkers synergy to be had in AoS if you dig deep enough, things like blocks of 30 skeletons (+2 attacks per model) with a death hero nearby (+1 to hit) combined with Krell's command ability (+1 attack) and vanhels danse macabre (pile in and attack twice in one turn).

You end up with a unit that piles in, attacks with a potential 120 attacks, hitting on 4s (assuming we went for spears to allow more models to attack) depending on placement at the size of the unit it is attacking, then they get to do the same thing again because of the spell. Even Phoenix guard (afaik the most resilient unit in the game) are going to have a tough time standing up to that.

At what point does 'synergising' just become '********'? I've seen plenty of comments deriding summoning, and chain-summon of horrors/LoC in particular as being gamey and the height of ********, but where do you actually draw the boundary between utilising the synergy that the designers have deliberately built into the game and exploiting the rules to squash your opponent?

NOTE: this is intended to be a discussion between people who actually play the game, based on actual experience of the available combos, it's not an opportunity to bash a game you don't play.

HelloKitty
08-10-2015, 14:34
Thats a hard one. I think that so long as all factions have the ability to pull off extreme combos like that that at least that is the first steps in everyone being able to do it (so if everyone can do it, then it is not a special thing)

It really only becomes ******** to me when only one side can do something.

That being said, I'm not a fan of extreme gaming of the system but I don't have a suitable solution to curb something like that other than to go after the heroes and kill them and to use artillery to lower the skeleton's numbers.

Tokamak
08-10-2015, 14:41
Okay, to get this out of the way, I hate AoS and I think it leaves lots of ways to exploit and be a douche to the point of it being part of the actual gameplay.

HOWEVER, I think it's absolutely fair to say that chain-summoning clearly isn't something GW intended. All the other onoxious sutff definitely is, but chain summoning is just a game-breaking mechanic due to poor wording of the rules rather than the complete lack of rules.

So although I think it's hilarious that players try to police all the other crap, I think its' completely reasonable to disallow chain-summoning for all games you play. Players who want to do that are indeed **********.

Herzlos
08-10-2015, 14:48
It's only really ******** if it's one-sided somehow - i.e. there's no effective counter or balancing mechanic.

Malifaux has some incredible combos but they aren't game breaking for those reasons.

Personally, I'd draw the line when I felt like my opponent had no come-back, either for the unit or in general. I don't want to just steamroll my opponents as those are the worst games I've played.

GrandmasterWang
08-10-2015, 14:50
Using super powerful synergies in AOS becomes ******** when used repeatedly against an opponent who does not approve.

Things like the skeleton thing are actually pretty cool and should be used/tried at least once by those with the units.

Also, looks like skeleton spears got a buff in AOS :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Vladyhell
08-10-2015, 14:56
As good as all that skeleton buffery sounds reality is most times you can't get anywhere near enough models into combat to use all those attacks and more importantly unless they are fighting equally poor troops they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

In my little AoS bubble rend is king and as such 20 grave guard with extra attack from vamp lord and van hels cast on them is a good one or the same unit but getting the +1 wound roll from Vlad,to trigger double damage on 5+ and van hels is also sweet.

Settra+Tomb King+Royal Warsphinx+Liche Preist+Necrotect+ Tomb Guard(halberds) = Tomb Guards hitting on 2+,wounding on 2+,reroll wound rolls of 1 and get extra attack on hit roll of 4+ and get double damage on 4+wound roll .....awesome :)

Krenz
08-10-2015, 15:00
When AoS first came out I played a few games against some of my old warhammer buddies. We had played losts of games of warhammer before, from 5th to 8th.

We immediately recognized that the game could only function even rudimentarily if neither player really tried to win.

If I wanted to really compete vs my friend I could use my tzeentch demons and summon more models from the shelf behind me than he could carry to my house.

We noticed that whomever was hosting the game had a massive advantage. I played a few games with old vet friends and we tired of having to decide who was going to hold back more as that decided the victor.

So some of us quit and some switched systems.

GrandmasterWang
08-10-2015, 15:01
Also it's not like synergies are 'unstoppable' in the same was the BS (summoning, chaos lord ability etc) is.

I have not faced the skeleton Spiney formation however every army except maybe Khorne Bloodbound have options to 'take it down'.

For example. .. as Stormcast Eternals the prosecutors (flying shooters) (unit of 6 for example or 2 of 3) or Judicators could be used to shoot/snipe Krell or the hero before/during combat which would 'debuff' the skeletons

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Dosiere
08-10-2015, 16:05
For me, there was no line. Either agree to a comp system beforehand or play the game as written. Most of the crazy stuff is related to the collections each player has. If I brought enough of my model collection so that I could counter whatever was being put down across the table it was fine. When I didn't bring enough models to have real options is when AoS completely fell apart.

The only time I drew a line was when it came to proxying models. You want to put down an army of blododthirdsters? Sweet, I've got a few griffon and dragon riders and 15 pieces of empire artillery right here, but don't put down 15 unpainted pink horrors and tell me the are really lords of change. Not gonna fly. Other than that I really didn't care, if you have the models go ahead and chain summon away.

artisturn
08-10-2015, 19:10
I brought the 30 Skeletons and Krell combo, I brought Heinrich Kemmler since he can cast two spells per turn,Arcane Bolt to make up for the lack of shooting in my list and Mystic Shield to protect Krell.

It was only one round where I was able to get three attacks,but that was enough to inflict some serious damage,It was the first time my Skellies killed an unit of 3 Kroxigors.

SuperHappyTime
08-10-2015, 19:47
So those that play AoS are probably aware by now that there is some pretty bonkers synergy to be had in AoS if you dig deep enough, things like blocks of 30 skeletons (+2 attacks per model) with a death hero nearby (+1 to hit) combined with Krell's command ability (+1 attack) and vanhels danse macabre (pile in and attack twice in one turn).

You end up with a unit that piles in, attacks with a potential 120 attacks, hitting on 4s (assuming we went for spears to allow more models to attack) depending on placement at the size of the unit it is attacking, then they get to do the same thing again because of the spell. Even Phoenix guard (afaik the most resilient unit in the game) are going to have a tough time standing up to that.

At what point does 'synergising' just become '********'? I've seen plenty of comments deriding summoning, and chain-summon of horrors/LoC in particular as being gamey and the height of ********, but where do you actually draw the boundary between utilising the synergy that the designers have deliberately built into the game and exploiting the rules to squash your opponent?

NOTE: this is intended to be a discussion between people who actually play the game, based on actual experience of the available combos, it's not an opportunity to bash a game you don't play.

So a few things I notice from the rules:
-Skeletons don't regenerate models in a unit when you "Raise Dead". That's an entirely new unit summoned, not a 10/20 model boost.
-Considering Zombies have the Shambling Horde rule, this would indicate that any other unit can't combine.
-The Necromancer spell goes into affect for only that player's next combat phase, so not during yours. So getting the first charge and attacking them down a little matters a lot.
-As mentioned, you need to snipe Krell.
-But you may need to focus on getting the Skeletons down to 19/29 models because that's 19/38 less attacks and 4.75/9.5 wounds to deal with.

Who'd figure there was that much complexity and strategy to AoS. Really the big issue here is seeing whether your opponent is putting down a 30 model unit, or a 60 model unit (and since he's an undead player, he likely had the models to put down a 60 model unit)

Skargit Crookfang
08-10-2015, 22:05
It certainly makes some long for the days of the 7th ed. Tzeentch Flying circus... I, for one, because I only recently picked up a Tz Daemon army on ebay super cheap...

Like I've said a billion times here: AoS could be a great system in between tight knit groups that enjoy the pace of the game, and comp to their needs. PU games are a recipe for /ragequit.

Spiney Norman
08-10-2015, 23:13
Has someone adjusted the swear filter or something, I'm sure I used a relatively non-offensive term in the title and that it was visible earlier in the day.

Vulgarsty
08-10-2015, 23:49
Has someone adjusted the swear filter or something, I'm sure I used a relatively non-offensive term in the title and that it was visible earlier in the day.

Ah, i wondered why you were all asterixed out, i thought maybe i had a swear filter switched on and was looking to turn it off (i'm an adult and cant bear such bowdlerisation). Nm its a highly subjective area and we live in an age where the professionally offended, are all too quick to cry to teacher and get indulged rather than be told to man up.

Aezeal
08-10-2015, 23:57
So those that play AoS are probably aware by now that there is some pretty bonkers synergy to be had in AoS if you dig deep enough, things like blocks of 30 skeletons (+2 attacks per model) with a death hero nearby (+1 to hit) combined with Krell's command ability (+1 attack) and vanhels danse macabre (pile in and attack twice in one turn).

You end up with a unit that piles in, attacks with a potential 120 attacks, hitting on 4s (assuming we went for spears to allow more models to attack) depending on placement at the size of the unit it is attacking, then they get to do the same thing again because of the spell. Even Phoenix guard (afaik the most resilient unit in the game) are going to have a tough time standing up to that.

At what point does 'synergising' just become '********'? I've seen plenty of comments deriding summoning, and chain-summon of horrors/LoC in particular as being gamey and the height of ********, but where do you actually draw the boundary between utilising the synergy that the designers have deliberately built into the game and exploiting the rules to squash your opponent?

NOTE: this is intended to be a discussion between people who actually play the game, based on actual experience of the available combos, it's not an opportunity to bash a game you don't play.

Don't know the anser.. but... just kill the heroes first. And not all armies have such synergy. (or are the woodelves the only ones without it).

Col. Tartleton
09-10-2015, 01:49
Wood Elves have synergy with trees...

SuperHappyTime
09-10-2015, 03:08
Wood Elves have synergy with trees...

Barely. It's mostly the other Tree People.
Treepeople
Treeple

Spiney Norman
09-10-2015, 07:12
Don't know the anser.. but... just kill the heroes first. And not all armies have such synergy. (or are the woodelves the only ones without it).

Wood elves have a little synergy, Orion combined with wild riders for example, and the forest dragon has a pretty insane area effect ability which massively helps out its kin in combat.

Aezeal
09-10-2015, 10:18
Wood elves have a little synergy, Orion combined with wild riders for example, and the forest dragon has a pretty insane area effect ability which massively helps out its kin in combat.

Yeah but it's not the same.

I know a few others:
Spellweavers healing D3 wanderer models & warhawkriders : potential there
Shadowdancers and high move units (warhawks again) for 34" move to attack warmachines. Sadly the numbers on warhawks mean that even my 6 Hawks cannot reliably kill a warmachine (you could kill crew but that isn't enough vs my regular TK opponent). Also AoS movement being what it is it means you will have the whole enemy on army if you do it right away.

Kherith
09-10-2015, 11:21
To be honest I don't mind too much about the synergy. There are obviously ways you can make certain units overpowered but realistically if someone's taking a combo like any of the above they can't really complain about me taking 4 bolt throwers and un-synergising them 48 bolts at a time.

The only issue I've had with AoS so far is certain players who field an army usually in doubles games where all four players have agreed a roughly even balance and then they deploy an extra hellpit abomination or Lord Kroak.

Or worse an undead player who grinning like an idiot because he just tabled you in three turns says "it wasn't really a fair fight you should have taken more models" of course when I'd thrown my army at taking out his morghasts and skeletons in turn two I didn't see anyone put a gun to his head and make him re-summon the exact same models to crush me...

Summoning is far more problematic than the synergies in my opinion, but I will concede that synergies do mess up pretty much every comp system I've seen that doesn't remove or amend them.

BramGaunt
09-10-2015, 11:26
So those that play AoS are probably aware by now that there is some pretty bonkers synergy to be had in AoS if you dig deep enough, things like blocks of 30 skeletons (+2 attacks per model) with a death hero nearby (+1 to hit) combined with Krell's command ability (+1 attack) and vanhels danse macabre (pile in and attack twice in one turn).

You end up with a unit that piles in, attacks with a potential 120 attacks, hitting on 4s (assuming we went for spears to allow more models to attack) depending on placement at the size of the unit it is attacking, then they get to do the same thing again because of the spell. Even Phoenix guard (afaik the most resilient unit in the game) are going to have a tough time standing up to that.

At what point does 'synergising' just become '********'? I've seen plenty of comments deriding summoning, and chain-summon of horrors/LoC in particular as being gamey and the height of ********, but where do you actually draw the boundary between utilising the synergy that the designers have deliberately built into the game and exploiting the rules to squash your opponent?

NOTE: this is intended to be a discussion between people who actually play the game, based on actual experience of the available combos, it's not an opportunity to bash a game you don't play.

I don't play AoS, but I apply the following to listbuilding in all other games, so I guess it will work for AoS aswell.

When the list is finished, I line up all the models on my desk, go outside of the room, have a cup of coffee or tea to clear my mind, then go back in. Take a good look at the miniatures, reflecting on what each of they can do. If I ever feel that my opponent would roll his eyes when he sees the list, I tone it down.

Niall78
09-10-2015, 12:06
Aren't these synergies just another form of netlist? The person who can afford the models can build a much better force with great advantages before the models are even put on the board? No strategy or tactics involved - just deep pockets and a list of the best combos possible for your army pulled from the internet?

I thought one of the strengths of AoS was the lack of such lists that are nearly an auto-win before the game begins?

Spiney Norman
09-10-2015, 12:38
Aren't these synergies just another form of netlist? The person who can afford the models can build a much better force with great advantages before the models are even put on the board? No strategy or tactics involved - just deep pockets and a list of the best combos possible for your army pulled from the internet?

I thought one of the strengths of AoS was the lack of such lists that are nearly an auto-win before the game begins?

Not really, if an opponent feels the synergy in your list is greater than his he can always add more models to compensate, because there is no limited army-building resource in AoS like the points systems of warhammer or 40k (which in those two games, are rarely particularly accurate) so adjusting your army to create fairer match-ups becomes much, much easier.

Of course you might need to 'suck it and see' for a few games, adjusting your force accordingly each time, but I refuse to believe that anyone seriously trying to create a balanced game state by sight in AoS can do a worse job of it than the current points values in the most recent crop of 40k codexes.

Niall78
09-10-2015, 13:00
Not really, if an opponent feels the synergy in your list is greater than his he can always add more models to compensate, because there is no limited army-building resource in AoS like the points systems of warhammer or 40k (which in those two games, are rarely particularly accurate) so adjusting your army to create fairer match-ups becomes much, much easier.

Of course you might need to 'suck it and see' for a few games, adjusting your force accordingly each time, but I refuse to believe that anyone seriously trying to create a balanced game state by sight in AoS can do a worse job of it than the current points values in the most recent crop of 40k codexes.

So like I said it is pay to win or even compete. If you see these synergy net lists hitting the table you need to add more models to your own forces to compete.

The only possible way to stop a pay to win escalation is if the players agree to a comp system. The rules as written actively encourage a pay to win style game. If you can afford the best miniatures with the best synergies you've won before a dice has rolled.

Spiney Norman
09-10-2015, 13:10
So like I said it is pay to win or even compete. If you see these synergy net lists hitting the table you need to add more models to your own forces to compete.

The only possible way to stop a pay to win escalation is if the players agree to a comp system. The rules as written actively encourage a pay to win style game. If you can afford the best miniatures with the best synergies you've won before a dice has rolled.

That's only true if you are both trying to screw each other over to get the advantage, if you're both trying to create a fun, balanced experience for yourself and the other person you could just both... take smaller armies ;) Balance doesn't just have to be about my opponent adding more stuff to balance up my army, it could be about me putting down less stuff to balance out his.

I think I understand where you're coming from, the old wfb/40k mindset of squeezing every last drop off efficiency out of your points allowance and calling that 'legitimate army building tactics' just doesn't work well at all with the AoS style of game (I'd argue it doesn't work with the way 40k is designed now either, but GW are still determined to push it). It took me a while to get my head out of 'efficiency mode' as well.

I guess I see 40k and wfb as far more 'pay to win' than AoS is, those games worked by releasing a new army book/codex every 2-6 years, altering the power balance between units so that there were a whole new different bunch of units you had to buy in order to stay competitive. That drive is no longer there in AoS, and most people I play with have enough wfb miniatures that they don't need to buy anything to play a game larger than our tables can accommodate, so pay-to-win is not something that applies at all to our AoS experience.

HelloKitty
09-10-2015, 13:11
Thats pretty much how GW has always been unfortunately and is how WHFB and 40k have been for a great many years and is why list-building is probably the most important part of playing 40k or WHFB - or at the very least plays a very significant role.

Niall78
09-10-2015, 13:52
That's only true if you are both trying to screw each other over to get the advantage, if you're both trying to create a fun, balanced experience for yourself and the other person you could just both... take smaller armies ;) Balance doesn't just have to be about my opponent adding more stuff to balance up my army, it could be about me putting down less stuff to balance out his.

I think I understand where you're coming from, the old wfb/40k mindset of squeezing every last drop off efficiency out of your points allowance and calling that 'legitimate army building tactics' just doesn't work well at all with the AoS style of game (I'd argue it doesn't work with the way 40k is designed now either, but GW are still determined to push it). It took me a while to get my head out of 'efficiency mode' as well.

I guess I see 40k and wfb as far more 'pay to win' than AoS is, those games worked by releasing a new army book/codex every 2-6 years, altering the power balance between units so that there were a whole new different bunch of units you had to buy in order to stay competitive. That drive is no longer there in AoS, and most people I play with have enough wfb miniatures that they don't need to buy anything to play a game larger than our tables can accommodate, so pay-to-win is not something that applies at all to our AoS experience.

As I said it is a pay-to-win system. If you have the money - or in your case already have the models - you can compete at an entirely different level to other players with less money or less models.

That your group is able to mitigate some of the balance issues by comping, test games, gentleman's agreements and tying one hand behind your back does not mean this isn't a pay-to-win system. It just means you've been able to - after much effort - get rid of some of the systems inherent flaws. Outside of a very tight group such agreements are unenforceable and impracticable. Even then one player within the group can break the game either intentionally or unintentionally without much effort.

You yourself posted this thread because you are afraid of gaming the system. So even within a tight group that uses agreement before a game players fear breaking the game and imposing broken armies or synergies on their opponents. Not a great place for a system to be.

Niall78
09-10-2015, 14:07
Thats pretty much how GW has always been unfortunately and is how WHFB and 40k have been for a great many years and is why list-building is probably the most important part of playing 40k or WHFB - or at the very least plays a very significant role.

I agree that both systems have had major flaws that have went unresolved for years. GW have relied on customer loyalty rather than good product for ages. That's why GWs killing of their fantasy setting has lead to major problems for AoS. They've spat on their loyal customers by killing the setting they loved. Those customers now have nothing to hold them to GW - the rules are terrible and have been for years, the prices insane and getting crazier by the month. All that many had left was their love of the setting and that is now gone as well. There's exactly zero reason for a fantasy player to buy anything from GW at the moment.

SuperHappyTime
09-10-2015, 15:30
Aren't these synergies just another form of netlist? The person who can afford the models can build a much better force with great advantages before the models are even put on the board? No strategy or tactics involved - just deep pockets and a list of the best combos possible for your army pulled from the internet?

This isn't really netlisting, mostly because the synergies are way too obvious. Now when I start spamming one synergy over and over because it's the best my army has to offer, that's an attempt at netlisting. When I put it on the boards and someone copies it to win, then its a netlist.

Back on Topic: The line is set up where I've put everything down, he puts down the synergy, I don't think it's going to be a fair game, and he tells me to screw off. Of course it doesn't have to be a synergy either.


Not really, if an opponent feels the synergy in your list is greater than his he can always add more models to compensate, because there is no limited army-building resource in AoS like the points systems of warhammer or 40k (which in those two games, are rarely particularly accurate) so adjusting your army to create fairer match-ups becomes much, much easier.

Of course you might need to 'suck it and see' for a few games, adjusting your force accordingly each time, but I refuse to believe that anyone seriously trying to create a balanced game state by sight in AoS can do a worse job of it than the current points values in the most recent crop of 40k codexes.

Point values in these games were never math-hammered by the designers. They start with an estimate and then get balanced based on game experience (your elves are crushing me, lets up their point cost by 1 each). The problem is GW doesn't listen to their players issues, or have a testing team to know why those things are bad ideas. It shouldn't surprise us when good units get point reductions.

Deus_Vult
09-10-2015, 16:47
I have played against combos like the one mentioned above and it doesn't bother me at all. It's very easy to disrupt. Killing a character like Krell or a Necromancer is easy. Reducing the number of skeletons to the point where they lose their extra attacks is also easy to do with practically any army. If you use a nice balancing system they have to pay so much pts for those comboes that its balanced anyway, if you use vanilla AoS then just discuss the limits of their comboing beforehand.

Spiney Norman
09-10-2015, 17:35
As I said it is a pay-to-win system. If you have the money - or in your case already have the models - you can compete at an entirely different level to other players with less money or less models.

That your group is able to mitigate some of the balance issues by comping, test games, gentleman's agreements and tying one hand behind your back does not mean this isn't a pay-to-win system. It just means you've been able to - after much effort - get rid of some of the systems inherent flaws. Outside of a very tight group such agreements are unenforceable and impracticable. Even then one player within the group can break the game either intentionally or unintentionally without much effort.

You yourself posted this thread because you are afraid of gaming the system. So even within a tight group that uses agreement before a game players fear breaking the game and imposing broken armies or synergies on their opponents. Not a great place for a system to be.

When not being a super-competitive jerk is described as 'playing with one hand tied behind your back' is the point in the conversation when it's clear our view points on the game are not going to find common ground, thanks for your input but it was not out of a sense of fear that I initiated this discussion, it was out of curiosity as to how other people are playing the game.

HelloKitty
09-10-2015, 17:54
For me I find it important to codify expectations as well. Having a set of written compromises makes things very explicit. Not being a jerk is something everyone understands, but everyone has their own degree of what that means.

Niall78
09-10-2015, 22:39
When not being a super-competitive jerk is described as 'playing with one hand tied behind your back' is the point in the conversation when it's clear our view points on the game are not going to find common ground, thanks for your input but it was not out of a sense of fear that I initiated this discussion, it was out of curiosity as to how other people are playing the game.

You say in your OP - 'Where do you draw the line?'. By implication you are afraid there is a line you'll cross if you use the synergies in the rules as written to maximum effect. So you are wondering here how to go up to that line but not cross it in case you are seen as that guy.

Any game where you have to wonder such things is broken. You are willing to not use the rules to their full effect as you know they are broken and maximising your use of such rules will make your opponent unhappy. Maybe you need more comp or more effective testing to ensure the game is fun for both parties? You are tying one arm behind your back though by not utilising these synergies if they are available. You are basically saying the synergies aren't balanced and you'll have to modify you play-style at the table to minimise this lack of balance.

I notice you don't address the pay-to-win issue at all. Those who can afford to buy all the miniatures and grab all the available synergies have an inherent advantage over those that can't. Your only solution for a player to deal with these synergies is to put more miniatures on the table themselves - paying to stay competitive.

Spiney Norman
10-10-2015, 02:08
I notice you don't address the pay-to-win issue at all. Those who can afford to buy all the miniatures and grab all the available synergies have an inherent advantage over those that can't. Your only solution for a player to deal with these synergies is to put more miniatures on the table themselves - paying to stay competitive.

What of it, every collectable game is like this to some degree, even the much vaunted x-wing and KoW, it's how the game designers keep you coming back to buy more stuff. 40k is certainly much worse than AoS in this regard with its 'buy these twelve units and two characters and you can have transports for them all without paying any points for them'. It'd be funny if it wasn't so transparent, forcing people to buy more models so that they can buy even more models and add them to their army without paying the points costs.

Dosiere
10-10-2015, 02:23
At least with 40k though you have a build to list. With AoS, assuming you are tailoring your deployment, you could easily have 4-6k WFB points worth of models there to use. This isn't some weird hypothetical either, it's how AoS was played here many a time. I would just bring a case or three of my models and we would have at it. Depending on the opponent, I would sometimes only use a few models or maybe a hundred or more. It was annoying as heck, because if I left too much at home I would always wish I had brought it after a game or two. That way you can tailor.

Also, I don't see your example about the battle company bei different from anything else. Instead of making something better they just made it cheaper, which happens all the time in the lists just not usually with a formation. I'm not saying it's the best solution but it's no different from giving you bonuses for having x amount of models or encouraging you to have the equivalent of 2-3 armies just so you will have options during deployment.

Ken52682
10-10-2015, 03:13
Funny how GW tried to imitate Warmahordes by implementing synergy into this game, but then completely fail at it. This is how you do synergy wrong.

Niall78
10-10-2015, 06:01
Funny how GW tried to imitate Warmahordes by implementing synergy into this game, but then completely fail at it. This is how you do synergy wrong.

Warmahordes has properly balanced synergies - AoS has a pay-to-win system masquerading as synergies.

I can't imagine there's many posts on the Warmahordes website asking the player base what synergies will or wont get the player punched in the face because they are so unbalanced and broken. Any such nonsense tends to be acted on quickly by the developers when discovered by the players. I suppose sometimes it helps to have customer feedback, FAQs and errata.

scruffyryan
10-10-2015, 06:23
Warmahordes has properly balanced synergies - AoS has a pay-to-win system masquerading as synergies.

I can't imagine there's many posts on the Warmahordes website asking the player base what synergies will or wont get the player punched in the face because they are so unbalanced and broken. Any such nonsense tends to be acted on quickly by the developers when discovered by the players. I suppose sometimes it helps to have customer feedback, FAQs and errata.

Page 5 is a thing in warmahordes. Its intended to leverage powerful combos and strong units.

nosebiter
10-10-2015, 06:33
Warmahordes has properly balanced synergies - AoS has a pay-to-win system masquerading as synergies.

I can't imagine there's many posts on the Warmahordes website asking the player base what synergies will or wont get the player punched in the face because they are so unbalanced and broken. Any such nonsense tends to be acted on quickly by the developers when discovered by the players. I suppose sometimes it helps to have customer feedback, FAQs and errata.

Ohh, there are warmahordes combos and caster that generate intense feeling of hate, because they are broken mess. Warmahordes is not nearly as balanced as people might want you to think, it has its own share of useless and broken.

HelloKitty
10-10-2015, 13:45
Agreed. Wm is better balanced than say whfb or 40k, but not by large, and ultimately it has its own always takes and never takes. I wouldnt call it a mess but neither would i hold it to be the pinnacle of balance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ihavetoomuchminis
10-10-2015, 14:24
Well, for me the main problem with these synergies lay with the fact that AoS has no points. There are several broken combos in 8th (we know most deathstars around), but they are within boundaries. The fact that you can include 50 skellies with krell, heinrich kemmler and a vampire around and make an army from that (including some other nasty combos on top like the GG unit) is only because of the lack of points and army structure.

On topic: a big Empire Greatsword unit with a free people hero close to them and the empire general on griffon command ability. 2 attack's each, hitting on 2+, wounding on 2+, and rend -1.

Ogres don't have many combos. It's not thay they need them.

Dosiere
10-10-2015, 15:04
I don't understand why people even think there IS such a thing as a nasty combo or " OP synergy" in the first place.

Guys, there is no sense of balance in the first place. Arguing that something is OP in AoS is like trying to hold water in your hands. There is simply nothing to measure it by in the game or to lock it down to something tangible. Both of these armies listed could easily be beaten by someone who just throws down a bunch of heroes/monsters/artillery and claims a sudden death objective. There are no army lists in the first place for heavens sake, you can literally put down whatever you want to based on what your opponent is putting down or what you simply want to play with.

Besides, why it matters who wins or loses in a game of AoS is beyond me. Have some fun, drink a beer, throw some dice, and crash some miniatures together and call it a day.

All of this is assuming that you are playing it RAW however. If you play with a bunch of house rules or comp systems then its entirely possible that some things need to be addressed to maintain a sense of balance in the game.

Spiney Norman
10-10-2015, 16:09
Well, for me the main problem with these synergies lay with the fact that AoS has no points. There are several broken combos in 8th (we know most deathstars around), but they are within boundaries. The fact that you can include 50 skellies with krell, heinrich kemmler and a vampire around and make an army from that (including some other nasty combos on top like the GG unit) is only because of the lack of points and army structure.

On topic: a big Empire Greatsword unit with a free people hero close to them and the empire general on griffon command ability. 2 attack's each, hitting on 2+, wounding on 2+, and rend -1.

Ogres don't have many combos. It's not thay they need them.

Synergy like that is actually the bane of a well balanced points system because getting additional attacks for being near a character, for example, can't be accounted for in a points cost.

You can't really say a skeleton is worth 5 pts base, unless it is within 6" of Krell, then it is worth 7 pts



Besides, why it matters who wins or loses in a game of AoS is beyond me. Have some fun, drink a beer, throw some dice, and crash some miniatures together and call it a day.

Pretty much this, AoS is a much better experience for everyone if you're both just trying to have fun.

Scribe of Khorne
10-10-2015, 17:14
Round Peg -> Square Hole.

I cannot fathom why this would even be discussed. Run a comp, or give it up because there is no line, there is no balance, there is no restrictions other than your wallet, table space, and transportation.

Gonefishing
10-10-2015, 18:28
Synergy like that is actually the bane of a well balanced points system because getting additional attacks for being near a character, for example, can't be accounted for in a points cost.

You can't really say a skeleton is worth 5 pts base, unless it is within 6" of Krell, then it is worth 7 pts



I have to disagree there Spiny, in the hands of any half decent games designer the points cost for any passive/active buffing effect would be placed on the buffing unit. Ie. Skeletons that may or may not be buffed, remain at 5 points - the Krell (as the unit that could potentially buff them) is set a points cost consummate with the potential power of the ability, not just priced on his own stats.

Cheeslord
12-10-2015, 10:54
Agreed. Wm is better balanced than say whfb or 40k, but not by large, and ultimately it has its own always takes and never takes. I wouldnt call it a mess but neither would i hold it to be the pinnacle of balance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

However, Warmahordes hit on a stroke of genius when they made complaining about game balance against the rules of the game.

Mark.

HelloKitty
12-10-2015, 12:58
That is very true.

Spiney Norman
12-10-2015, 12:59
However, Warmahordes hit on a stroke of genius when they made complaining about game balance against the rules of the game.

Mark.

I've witnessed a lot of warmahordes games at my local club, and it seems to me that rule is generally honoured more in the breach than in the observance ;)


I have to disagree there Spiny, in the hands of any half decent games designer the points cost for any passive/active buffing effect would be placed on the buffing unit. Ie. Skeletons that may or may not be buffed, remain at 5 points - the Krell (as the unit that could potentially buff them) is set a points cost consummate with the potential power of the ability, not just priced on his own stats.

Again, it would be impossible to point Krell correctly for his ability without knowing exactly how many models it was going to affect. For example Krell's ability would be much more powerful when cast on a unit of 50 skeletons than on a unit of 10. Area-effect abilities like the Bloodsecrator's portal of skulls is even harder in that regard because the variance of the number of units and models it could affect is intensely variable.

Tokamak
12-10-2015, 13:06
For me I find it important to codify expectations as well. Having a set of written compromises makes things very explicit. Not being a jerk is something everyone understands, but everyone has their own degree of what that means.

The problem with AoS is that such a thing is actually necessary to have a good time.

Twido
12-10-2015, 13:09
I have to disagree there Spiny, in the hands of any half decent games designer the points cost for any passive/active buffing effect would be placed on the buffing unit. Ie. Skeletons that may or may not be buffed, remain at 5 points - the Krell (as the unit that could potentially buff them) is set a points cost consummate with the potential power of the ability, not just priced on his own stats.

This is a very good point. However, the problem would then come with how the game scales. Krell would be underpowered in a small game, balanced in a game played at the intended size and overpowered in a large game. There are ways around this of course but it requires sensible game design.

HelloKitty
12-10-2015, 13:11
The problem with AoS is that such a thing is actually necessary to have a good time.

That could be a problem for some absolutely. I may be a bit desensitized from having to do this with whfb and 40k for so long that it seems par for the course with gw games for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tokamak
12-10-2015, 13:28
It's not as necessary for WFB. Obviously table top always need some degree of mutual understanding but the amount that AoS takes makes as much a part of the game as the actual ruleset.

Overtninja
12-10-2015, 14:38
SAny time you set up to play a game, you establish the parameters of the game. In a points-based game, you deploy a set number of points. In an AoS game, you decide on the size of your game using whatever system your gaming group, or your partner, deems appropriate based on desired size and time frame. It's a matter of semantics whether you deem simple size of the game to be a comp system or not, but you're going to do it anyway, regardless of what system you play. What is undeniably a comp system is deciding what sort of units should be fielded (0-2 monsters, capped unit size, etc). That's certainly a comp, and probably reasonable, because once again, players always set the parameters of their game before they play. Points-based systems do this by making it impossible to bring certain models in games of a given size - or impossible to bring more than x number of them in a given game, or bring too many of the same category of unit, etc. Basically, points-based games are their own comp system, and without such a framework players make their own, which is, frankly, not much of a burden at all.

It does, however, have to be done before you play, I think, to ensure that everyone playing is on the same page and understands the scale and nature of the game about to be played. Problems arise when one player expects one kind of game and the other expects a different sort of game and they don't bother to talk to each other beforehand. Points-based systems provide this before you start, points-less systems don't, so you have to establish the parameters before you play.

scruffyryan
12-10-2015, 17:37
SAny time you set up to play a game, you establish the parameters of the game. In a points-based game, you deploy a set number of points. In an AoS game, you decide on the size of your game using whatever system your gaming group, or your partner, deems appropriate based on desired size and time frame. It's a matter of semantics whether you deem simple size of the game to be a comp system or not, but you're going to do it anyway, regardless of what system you play. What is undeniably a comp system is deciding what sort of units should be fielded (0-2 monsters, capped unit size, etc). That's certainly a comp, and probably reasonable, because once again, players always set the parameters of their game before they play. Points-based systems do this by making it impossible to bring certain models in games of a given size - or impossible to bring more than x number of them in a given game, or bring too many of the same category of unit, etc. Basically, points-based games are their own comp system, and without such a framework players make their own, which is, frankly, not much of a burden at all.

It does, however, have to be done before you play, I think, to ensure that everyone playing is on the same page and understands the scale and nature of the game about to be played. Problems arise when one player expects one kind of game and the other expects a different sort of game and they don't bother to talk to each other beforehand. Points-based systems provide this before you start, points-less systems don't, so you have to establish the parameters before you play.

Points based systems also allow a baseline of expectations when travelling from area to area. If i head 200 miles north with 50 points of Warmahordes, I'm aware that those 50 points are acceptable and at least somewhat in line with what the game group up north plays in a 50 point game. I can pull 50 points out and be ready to play without at the table negotiations and feeling out what this particular environment judges as unfair. This is not a thing thats available with AoS. Which isn't as much of a problem in local groups, but becomes an issue when picking up games outside your local area.

Gonefishing
12-10-2015, 22:03
Again, it would be impossible to point Krell correctly for his ability without knowing exactly how many models it was going to affect. For example Krell's ability would be much more powerful when cast on a unit of 50 skeletons than on a unit of 10. Area-effect abilities like the Bloodsecrator's portal of skulls is even harder in that regard because the variance of the number of units and models it could affect is intensely variable.

Which is precisely why ye games designers of olde had a whole set of rules regarding unit sizes, categories of unit etc. With that in place it is far easier to balance buffing abilities and combos, as you know the maximum effect that ability can have on the units available for selection. If you do want to balance abilities, and price them consummate to their potential in game effect that's how i'd do it anyway, it sounds sort of like the way GW used to do it as well.

Points do, and can act as a very good balancing mechanic in a game, in larger scale games (like Warhammer for example), points balanced within a defined framework do allow you to cost both units and abilities appropriately - I don't think that's an arguable issue. Of course, GW frequently did this imperfectly, but I suspect that was because of a lack of actual play testing and a desire to sell many models, but GW not doing properly is vastly different to saying that the points system is incapable of doing it.

Of course the issue with buffing abilities does become a lot more problematic, with games like AOS where you can take anything, from any codex, in any number, and the only balancing mechanic is player opinion. That can make some buffs incredibly OP, and also allows potential for some truly evil combo buffs with the right units on the table.


This is a very good point. However, the problem would then come with how the game scales. Krell would be underpowered in a small game, balanced in a game played at the intended size and overpowered in a large game. There are ways around this of course but it requires sensible game design.

As above really, the game manages this - for example some special characters only being allowed at X points, and there being a limiting framework to what that player can field. Good games design can solve these issues.

HelloKitty
12-10-2015, 23:45
The biggest problem with points, especially at a precision level, is that they are also really only balanced against a set scenario.

Go outside that scenario and suddenly the balance falters.

A model pointcosted against a pitched battle may be worth something different in an objective grab, for example.

Which leads to people only wanting to play the same type of scenarios and saying others arent balanced for their army (sounds very familiar)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ronin[XiC]
13-10-2015, 06:11
Warmachine still works with a variety of Scenaries AND point costs.

Your argument is bad, has always been bad and will never be not bad.



If you want to ignore points, ignore points, if you want to have a balanced game, get points in yor system.

Synergy is a spell in Warmachine. It is super, super, super strong. That's why it is LIMITED to VERY few Warcasters who are quite limited in their choices and other abilities. IF you had given Haley 2 the spell Synergy or had given it to one of the other Hordes factions, the game would imidiately be broken.

But PP playtested the game, you know. They actually used the restrictions in their game (you know, armies and no mixing like AoS) to make it properly balanced.

HelloKitty
13-10-2015, 12:09
Warmachine - you mean the game where every game ends when you kill the caster? That game with its plentiful scenarios? That all basically have the same win condition?

Yeah warmachine lmao it works because all of their "scenarios" can be bypassed by killing the caster. Effectively making all games the same so the point cost appears to always work. The same as warhammer players only wanting to do a version of pitched battle. The same as age of sigmar players always wanting to use sudden death to bypass scenario win conditions.

If you have the same basic win condition every time thats not really a scenario and points can work because those points are geared around that win condition.

I was talking about the downside of precision point system as i see it. 15 years of being told anything but pitched battle is unbalanced and maelstrom 40k missions are unbalanced because their armies were point costed for a standard game not for running around taking objectives is why i think that way, despite how condescending you may try to be.

A model pointed for a pitched battle may not be worth those points in a speed scenario. A fast yet weak model will be much more valuable in a speed scenario.

If player can ignore the speed scenario and revert to pitched battle thats essentially playing the same scenario over and over. A scenario has specific win conditions. Kill the caster being in all scenarios means you are playing the same basic scenario with ancillary extras that you can ignore. Thats not a wide variety of scenarios. Thats the same.

I am talking specifically about scenarios that do *not* have universal win conditions that you can just always go after, ignoring the scenario parameters.

You know who else feels precision point systems had that flaw? Alan Bligh, the lead forge world designer who had a *conference on this very subject at a games day*




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Herzlos
13-10-2015, 12:55
The biggest problem with points, especially at a precision level, is that they are also really only balanced against a set scenario.

Go outside that scenario and suddenly the balance falters.

A model pointcosted against a pitched battle may be worth something different in an objective grab, for example.

Which leads to people only wanting to play the same type of scenarios and saying others arent balanced for their army (sounds very familiar)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Assuming your point about points balancing only working for a single pointed scenario is valid (which it isn't*), you're still going to be in a better position with points than no points.

*Anyone releasing stats and scenarios will have calculated the points based on all of those scenarios. Sure some points might not make much sense in some scenarios (like a fast light unit being expensive where mobility isn't required) but it's a terrible argument to use to claim points are bad.

Folomo
13-10-2015, 13:03
While I am not a great WMH players, caster kill is definitely not the only way used to win. Some people may focus only on it, but they are clearly hampering themselves if they think they can win the game only by trying to kill the enemy caster. Ignoring the scenario is a FAST way to defeat in WMH.
At least in the last WTC tournament only half the games where won by killing the enemy general/caster.

221243

IME, one of the things that bring balance to WMH is the dual list format. No matter how good a specific list is, it can be countered. And dual list makes it possible to have counters to most lists. It prevents the rock-sissor-paper scenario. After trying it, I would have loved if GW had implemented it in WHFB. It would help reduce the amount of skew list.

HelloKitty
13-10-2015, 13:20
Assuming your point about points balancing only working for a single pointed scenario is valid (which it isn't*), you're still going to be in a better position with points than no points.

*Anyone releasing stats and scenarios will have calculated the points based on all of those scenarios. Sure some points might not make much sense in some scenarios (like a fast light unit being expensive where mobility isn't required) but it's a terrible argument to use to claim points are bad.

Let me clarify a few things.

I'm not in any way, shape, or form saying that precision points ONLY WORK for one scenario. I'm saying that they are balanced for one type of scenario. Other scenarios may only be slightly imbalanced (for example pitched battle vs the fortitude mission which was basically pitched battle that ended when you lost enough banners) while others like missions where you only score from tactical objectives, or can only win if you get off the table etc will have the points mechanics be totally out of whack.

Second - I am in no way, shape, or form saying points are bad. I've never said that. Never will say that. Not arguing points are bad or good. Not arguing that no points are the best. I said the flaw with PRECISION POINT systems is the above. Stating that I feel it has a flaw is not the same as saying that its bad. Yes even no points have their advantages and disadvantages and whether or not you like no points will depend on what you are trying to get out of the game.

Everything you can think of has a flaw. The reason our comp system for AoS is not precision points is because of the above - in a game driven by scenarios - precision points don't work very well because the points would need costed for each scenario type for them to really give you balance. Otherwise people will complain and not play them, like they have complained about FW scenarios and back of the book scenarios since the beginning of time, and want to play the scenarios that the points were balanced for and pretty much only play that.

As to the WM data given in the next response - that's good to know. I last looked at that data a couple years ago, and then it was like 85% ended in caster kill (when I watch our locals play its nearly 100% ends in caster kill). Perhaps its the dual list format that also helps with that balancing act.

Regardless - I'm dealing exclusively with scenarios that do not have an ignore option, where you have to solve that scenarios specific win objectives to win and cannot just bypass them.

Ronin[XiC]
13-10-2015, 14:35
Warmachine - you mean the game where every game ends when you kill the caster? That game with its plentiful scenarios? That all basically have the same win condition?

Yeah warmachine lmao it works because all of their "scenarios" can be bypassed by killing the caster. Effectively making all games the same so the point cost appears to always work. The same as warhammer players only wanting to do a version of pitched battle. The same as age of sigmar players always wanting to use sudden death to bypass scenario win conditions.

If you have the same basic win condition every time thats not really a scenario and points can work because those points are geared around that win condition.

I was talking about the downside of precision point system as i see it. 15 years of being told anything but pitched battle is unbalanced and maelstrom 40k missions are unbalanced because their armies were point costed for a standard game not for running around taking objectives is why i think that way, despite how condescending you may try to be.

A model pointed for a pitched battle may not be worth those points in a speed scenario. A fast yet weak model will be much more valuable in a speed scenario.

If player can ignore the speed scenario and revert to pitched battle thats essentially playing the same scenario over and over. A scenario has specific win conditions. Kill the caster being in all scenarios means you are playing the same basic scenario with ancillary extras that you can ignore. Thats not a wide variety of scenarios. Thats the same.

I am talking specifically about scenarios that do *not* have universal win conditions that you can just always go after, ignoring the scenario parameters.

You know who else feels precision point systems had that flaw? Alan Bligh, the lead forge world designer who had a *conference on this very subject at a games day*


wow, you've seriously never played Warmachine.

No, the scenarios are not all the same. They play completely different. Yes, Casterkill is always an option, but why is that even a bad thing?
99% of all WHF Scenarios have been utterly imbalanced. Watch Tower was a huge diasters, the other implemented in the rulebook were nothing but worse deployment options.

You quote a Forge World Designer.. why? What game has FW ever released?
On the other side we have SEVERAL long time game designers like Privateer Press, all the Kings of War guys, Infinity guys etc who have a point system AND scenarios.

FW has done nothing to prove your blessing.

HelloKitty
13-10-2015, 14:51
Forge World has released several dozen scenarios in over a dozen books, which is 100% exactly what I'm referring to - scenario design and how precision points are flawed for moving beyond the scenario that those precision points were created for. I don't see how FW has done nothing to "prove my blessing" when that is exactly what I'm discussing - scenario design and precision points being hard to work around, as also discussed by Alan Bligh - a professional game designer.

To take my comment about scenario design and then reply with "what game has FW ever released?" blows my mind.

I've played warmachine for three years. They were all kill the king scenarios. Every sunday during our gaming get togethers there is a warmachine group that plays as well. They use scenarios. And nearly all of the games end with a caster being killed.

All of the kings of war players here play the one scenario which is basically pitched battle. Do other scenarios exist? Yes. Are they as balanced as the pitched battle? I don't know I haven't played them, but the fact that my community doesn't want to touch them like they didn't want to touch forgeworld scenarios and like they didn't want to touch non-pitched battle whfb scenarios is telling to me that they probably aren't as balanced as gamers that demand balance require.

"yes casterkill is always an option, but why is that even a bad thing?"
"No, the scenarios are not all the same. They play completely different."

Because it lets you ignore whatever scenario you are playing and not care about the mission parameters and just build lists to kill casters so you don't have to worry about ever dealing with other parameters. A scenario is a set of rules that define a victory condition.

How do the scenarios not play all the same when the same kill the caster mechanic is seemingly so dominant? If I want to ignore a scenario and kill the caster, I'm playing the same way over and over again - I'm going after the caster kill. I dn't care about your scenario or the win objectives of the scenario. I can simply ignore it and make the game just another kill the caster game.

So again - the premise is that precision points flaw is that they are only good for the scenario that they are balanced against, and not as balanced in other scenarios. Show me otherwise if you are going to counter argue other than just saying "lol your argument is bad lol". Show me exactly HOW precision points are totally separate from scenarios when designing them.

Folomo
13-10-2015, 15:34
I have to back HelloKitty on this.
In mi initial days of WMH the game almost always ended in caster kill. It takes a bit more of experience to understand how to make the use of scenario and how to pull a win with it. Caster kill is pretty easy to do for new (and old) players. Go forward, smash armies, smash caster when opportunity arises.
Scenario play on the other hand requires you using things like throws, sacrificing units and other similar moves. It requires knowing more rules and long term planing to achieve it.

It is similar to what happened in 8th. Most people commented how deathstars where dominant, but after a time some people discoreved that cheeap units could be used to neuter the deathstar and win the game elsewhere. Some places started using this and the meta shifted. Others didn't and where stuck in sumo-hammer (moving forward and smashing bellies/armies in the middle).

So, it is possible that some metas simply don't make use of scenario even if presented in the rules. But that has more to do with the players mentality than the game.


99% of all WHF Scenarios have been utterly imbalanced. Watch Tower was a huge diasters, the other implemented in the rulebook were nothing but worse deployment options.
The only time I had to play against a list of 11-12 WoC chariots spam was when we played without scenarios (predefined battleline). Scenarios IME where necessary to play fantasy without too much skew. Watchtower was a big deterrence against chariots and 1+ AS spam.

HelloKitty
13-10-2015, 15:38
So, it is possible that some metas simply don't make use of scenario even if presented in the rules. But that has more to do with the players mentality than the game.

Thats very true. And I find in my experience most players will go for whats easiest to achieve. Judging by the gruop that plays every sunday at our store, killing the caster is infinitely the easiest option to build for, and what the points seem to be balanced against.

This is why I like playing multiple scenarios (taht don't have a way to just ignore the scenario) - such as the scenario we're playing this weekend in our campaign which is purely tactical objectives. Killing stuff doesn't score you points unless thats the objective you roll up.

Or scenarios that make you need to get off the table. It doesn't matter how much you kill, if you don't get off the table you lose.

Last week it was you have to have a model on the gate after 6 turns. It was a draw because the two models that were on it were knocked off by a geyser during the final turn.

In any of those instances there is no way to ignore the scenario's win condition by just killing the entire enemy army. You have to think differently and build differently.

Spiney Norman
13-10-2015, 17:59
That is the main reason I got out of WMH, the whole caster kill thing just seems like the most stupid rule ever

Ronin[XiC]
13-10-2015, 18:03
Like.. kill the king in Chess?

HelloKitty
13-10-2015, 18:04
I don't mind assassinate the king / general as a victory condition some of the time. Just please don't make me play a game where that is the defacto objective ALL of the time. But thats me getting off topic :)

scruffyryan
13-10-2015, 18:57
Played WM/H since it came out. My meta sees a roughly equal scenario/caster kill ratio. Caster kill usually happens when people aren't playing the steamroller scenarios, are new and don't realize the threat ranges on their opponents models, have made a poor decision on when to attempt a caster kill with their own caster or have already put themselves into a position where enough of their army has been ground down that they have to move their caster up or lose on scenario.

Caster kill is a win objective, but once you play enough games its one that only really becomes available if you're new, are already losing on attrition, or make a bad judgement call.

Captain Marius
13-10-2015, 19:06
One of the things i liked in 8th wfb was how the chance of rolling fortitude or watchtower influenced your army list, and thus what to buy for your army. I read a fair bit on warseer about how these scenarios were ignored as they screwed certain armies, defeating the point of this balancing measure.
I like how AoS encourages you to use models appropriate for the scenario.
Regarding the insane synergies available, that seems to be the new way of doing themed armies these days. To counter them its generally best to kill the characters, which makes sense to me!

Sephillion
13-10-2015, 19:20
That is the main reason I got out of WMH, the whole caster kill thing just seems like the most stupid rule ever

Not even if you exclude the mess that is AoS.

Quite the contrary. Since it allows someone to reverse the situation, it keeps both players engaged until the very end. When I play a game where there is no such condition, it happens that one player has the upper hand and I see no way of reversing the situation.

In WMH, the caster kill means it’s not over until it’s over.

It might **** people off when they cannot keep their caster alive, but that’s on them – don’t overextend your most important piece.

However, it doesn’t mean scenarios aren’t important, and “scenarios” don’t only mean Steamrollers.

Gonefishing
13-10-2015, 20:05
Not to put to fine a point on it....but pretty much every war game I can think of has a "I WIN" button of varying description that is separate from the normal game parameters, in Fantasy and 40K terms that is tabling your opponent (and that's something I have seen done endless amounts of times). Do that and regardless of what scenario you are playing, you have won the game. As an example, back in my 40K days, playing Tau I used to find the "Capture and control mission" difficult - as for Tau it was a very, very, tricky match up. There were quite a few games (depending on my opponent / his army composition) of capture and control, where I did just ignore the mission and focus on victory by wiping out my opponent - because I had more chance of achieving that then achieving the terms of the mission.

From a Scenario V Points standpoint, I do agree that a correctly detailed Scenario can be a more effective balancing mechanic (in terms of game design) than points, specifically where the scenario in question defines every parameter of the game, including the exact army list you are taking / playing against. This would be because the designer of the scenario would have balanced these forces for you (in a perfect world), so the balance between the two sides should be equally attributed. However, where a scenario lays out the parameters of the game, but not the forces that will fight in it then this becomes a lot murkier, and objectively - a lot easier to "break". Where the game is laying down both a points cost / and defining the parameters in which you can spend those points you can only break a scenario so far, where the game is saying "use whatever you like" you can break it as much as you want to.

When a scenario does not detail the exact forces applicable to fight in it (or at least, place limitations such as "units no larger than X", or no more than "3 units from selection pool Y") then points are a far more (albeit imperfect) balancing mechanic.

Yes, a scenario can affect the "in game" value of certain units or abilities, but that is easily presupposed. If for example, you have paid 100 points extra to give your character "magical powerz", yet the scenario you are playing states the for [narrative reason Z], magic cannot be used during this battle you have over payed for that model, as it has 100 points worth of abilities you cannot use. The first counter to this, is that if a player knows he is going to be playing this scenario, the obvious thing for him to do, is not to pay the 100 points for the ability/character that cant use it, the 2nd counter (if he does not know he is going to be playing this Scenario) is that his opponent may have overspent on characters with magical powerz as well, so is at an equal disadvantage / or that he is 100 points down on his opponents points total (which in game terms is not a particularly huge advantage) - not perfect, but the end of the day, if players are using Precision points from a limited (defined) selection pool and choosing relatively balanced forces - then the effects of the scenario on the precision pointing are fairly negligible.

Granted if an opponent builds a list to ONLY play scenario X, but ends up playing scenario Y then this imbalance could be far greater, but I would argue that is the players choice for choosing a bad list rather than a major fault with the precision pricing of units.

HelloKitty
13-10-2015, 20:08
We had a lot of players in the past that would only build for scenario x and flat out refuse to play anything but scenario x. Or if they agreed to roll on the scenario chart, if something other than a derivative of scenario x came up they'd concede before unpacking their models and ask to roll again until scenario x came up.

Gonefishing
13-10-2015, 20:16
We had a lot of players in the past that would only build for scenario x and flat out refuse to play anything but scenario x. Or if they agreed to roll on the scenario chart, if something other than a derivative of scenario x came up they'd concede before unpacking their models and ask to roll again until scenario x came up.

Fine, all I can say to that is that your 25 years + of gaming experience is vastly different to my 25 years + of gaming experience - because I have never either seen that happen, or had it happen to me (if we are talking about the main rulebook scenario's anyway). Either way though, that is a choice of (and a fault of) the player in question, not the points or scenario systems. Under either system they can do exactly the same thing.

HelloKitty
13-10-2015, 20:25
It happened pretty regularly here. It happened so often that the tournament organizers would never use anything but scenario x in any of their events because it happened so regularly. (the two biggest scenarios that were ignored or re-rolled was the one involving banners and the watchtower)

I was discussing the flaw of precision points and how they can affect scenarios. It wasn't just here as well - there are dozens upon dozens of threads on this forum you can look up now that talk about the same thing - that forgeworld scenarios or narrative scenarios suck because they aren't balanced and that armies aren't balanced to play those, and its not fair to players to have to buy other models when they bought models for x scenarios (aka "real" 40k/fantasy, aka standard 40k/fantasy, aka what they do at tournaments) and they'd be at a big disadvantage.

If it was one person or maybe even two, i'd concede that point, but it was dozens upon dozens of people combined with dozens upon dozens of forum postings.

that still does not make what I'm saying wrong. That being precision points are typically only pointed for a certain set of scenarios and that in other scenarios they may be wrong, and in some cases drastically so and that people spend a lot of money on an army and usually do so against the standard scenario and don't want to deviate from the standard set of scenarios because the points start breaking down outside of those scenarios (faster models are worth more in scenarios where you need to take objectives or get off the board, more defensive models are worth more in scenarios where you have to hold a piece of terrain, etc)

The players in question not wanting an imbalanced game is their preferred playstyle. I wouldn't call that a fault of theirs.

As I said earlier there was an entire workshop on this from the guy that heads the forgeworld team who held a big lengthy discussion on how the point system was something that was at times difficult to work with because it hamstrung their ability to write more varied scenarios because the points would be off and he had sometimes wished there were a more general point system at work (or none at all).

Ronin[XiC]
13-10-2015, 20:59
And still AoS is in all aspects worse than any system with a point system, flawed or not.

AoS Scenarios do not even say ANYTHING about maximum of models in a unit. I could easily play 1000 Bloodcrushers and make ANY scenario pointless.
That cannot happen in a system with points.

Choombatta
13-10-2015, 21:17
;7551104']And still AoS is in all aspects worse than any system with a point system, flawed or not.

AoS Scenarios do not even say ANYTHING about maximum of models in a unit. I could easily play 1000 Bloodcrushers and make ANY scenario pointless.
That cannot happen in a "Well-balanced" system with points.

Added the words to make this an accurate statement.

Also, I find it hard to believe you can "easily" play 1000 Bloodcrushers in anything. Are you really trying to say you own 1000 Bloodcrusher models?
Points on their own do not make a balanced system, which I think is exactly what HelloKitty is saying.
A system that places a 1pt cost on goblins and a 1pt cost on Bloodcrushers would be far from balanced, but it still uses points.

Gonefishing
13-10-2015, 21:37
I was discussing the flaw of precision points and how they can affect scenarios. It wasn't just here as well - there are dozens upon dozens of threads on this forum you can look up now that talk about the same thing - that forgeworld scenarios or narrative scenarios suck because they aren't balanced and that armies aren't balanced to play those, and its not fair to players to have to buy other models when they bought models for x scenarios (aka "real" 40k/fantasy, aka standard 40k/fantasy, aka what they do at tournaments) and they'd be at a big disadvantage.


That I (personally) would view slightly differently, I too have seen people refuse to play the scenarios in "Expansions" / Scenarios for things outside of the core game rules or people refuse to use forgeworld etc - but that to me is a completely different thing from "I only want to play pitched battle from the core rule book". In some cases it's even perfectly valid, as if someone has turned up with an army taken from the standard codex, expecting to play one of the standard game types from the core rules he may well not have the list to play scenario X from book Y (at least, not with any chance of having a challenging and enjoyable battle). They may also (quite understandably) not want to play against FW units, when their list has no access to those units themselves (and lets face it, historically FW's idea of precision pointing has been called into question more than once on this forum as well).



that still does not make what I'm saying wrong. That being precision points are typically only pointed for a certain set of scenarios and that in other scenarios they may be wrong, and in some cases drastically so and that people spend a lot of money on an army and usually do so against the standard scenario and don't want to deviate from the standard set of scenarios because the points start breaking down outside of those scenarios (faster models are worth more in scenarios where you need to take objectives or get off the board, more defensive models are worth more in scenarios where you have to hold a piece of terrain, etc)

Indeed - but neither does that make you right, and I think you are mixing arguments between that of precision pointing / and getting people to accept non standard games - which I personally think are two different things. If you want to play a non standard game, then really your opponent should have a chance to construct an army list that can compete in a radically different setting to that of the standard game, ie. If you want to use FW models in your battle, your opponent should also have the chance to select them - not just rock up with a standard list and be forced to play against them. That's a different thing than points not balancing across scenario's, that's introducing different things into the core game, which your opponent may be quite unprepared to face. At that point it becomes less an issue of points v scenario, and more of an issue with the fact your both playing different games.

However, my counter argument would be that generally the deviation in the precision pointing between varying scenarios is far more negligible than you are implying. IE, that faster unit may no longer be as successful as an objective capturer, but I am sure it would be very useful as a flanking attacker or a last turn objective contester - their in game role / value will vary in terms of standard scenario's but never by an amount significant enough to substantially either depreciate or appreciate their general points cost.

When however you are talking about "Non Standard" scenarios, ie. Expansions / Forgeworld etc, then precision pointing could lead to a more substantive advantage / disadvantage in non standard scenario's - but only when playing against someone who had turned up expecting a standard game, with a standard army for playing the default scenarios in the book. I would expect however, that if you wanted to play a non standard game, giving your opponent (if they want to play it) a chance to select an appropriate list for that scenario would only be fair - and that allows him (and you) to choose the correct forces to play the game scenario you have chosen (and indeed, if the precision pointing had been done correctly both players would have roughly the same ratio's of precision pointing, so both armies fast and defensive units would be overpaying/underpaying at roughly the same rate).

I would also argue, that this would be the case no matter what method of army selection you were using - unless the scenario in question specified precisely what units each player should take.



The players in question not wanting an imbalanced game is their preferred playstyle. I wouldn't call that a fault of theirs.


Indeed, when I said fault, I thought you were talking about the core game scenarios - which to my mind players should be prepared to face, so if they have selected a bad list to do so - that their fault. If we are including expansions and the non standard missions in that, then of course that's not applicable as it would be impossible (under any system) to construct a list capable of playing all the existing scenarios in a balanced way, and a player who knows they stand no chance in additional scenario X is likely to refuse it if they have turned up with a standard list and actually wants to have a balanced and fair game (which is completely understandable). This could be the case under any system of army building however.

At the end of the day, a player who in the old days built his army to play only Scenario X (and refused to play any other scenario), could today build his Army only to play scenario "Assault on the floating islands of shimmertam" and refuse to play any other scenario. However that point has little to do with precision pointing or alternative methods of army selection pertaining to balance, and more to do with optimising a list to play one particular scenario. So I have to say, that personally I find that precision pointing within a defined structure is a more effective way of achieving game balance across scenarios, unless we are saying that the scenario itself chooses the units that are eligible to fight in the battle.

GrandmasterWang
13-10-2015, 22:07
I don't mind the Caster kill mechanism of WMH even though i don't play the game.

I love points. ... hence adding and pointing things to include in 8th/Chillhammer.

Regarding points though and WMH.... the very fact that WMH events use a 'dual list' format proves that points alone are NOT enough to balance that game the way they are currently utilized. If every 50 point army was roughly balanced there would be no need for people to bring 2 lists.

WMH has tight rules, but it really isn't the 'shining example of balance' that people try to paint it as.


Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
13-10-2015, 23:32
WMH has tight rules, but it really isn't the 'shining example of balance' that people try to paint it as.
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

It has tight rules because it's designed for a highly competitive format, which is cool if that's what you like.

There is no such thing as a 'shining example of balance' people always complain about imbalances in whatever game they play, at least with AoS and its emphasis on balancing games yourself, the only person you can complain to about an game imbalance is yourself ;)

BDJV
14-10-2015, 00:21
Personally I love the whole synergy thing in AoS, finding ways to counter them is part of the fun.

GrandmasterWang
14-10-2015, 10:55
It has tight rules because it's designed for a highly competitive format, which is cool if that's what you like.

There is no such thing as a 'shining example of balance' people always complain about imbalances in whatever game they play, at least with AoS and its emphasis on balancing games yourself, the only person you can complain to about an game imbalance is yourself ;)

Spiney mate i must say i have enjoyed seeing you slowly shift closer to my viewpoint of AOS :)

I even saw you recommending the "eyeball it" method of AOS a while ago.

I agree with you that people complaining about a the balance of AOS don't really get it. I love points as i said but find the 'create your own balance' approach of AOS refreshing.

I will add that in AOS you can also very validly complain about game balance to your opponent in addition to yourself. If 2 AOS players BOTH WANT to have a balanced game then it should really only take a couple of games max before they can work with each other to get it pretty close.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Ronin[XiC]
14-10-2015, 11:11
Doesnt make any sense.

When 2 players of ANY GAME want to have a balanced game, they will figure out a way to do it. Doesnt matter which game.

AoS is unfortunately a guessing game for many many games while most other game will give you a massive headstart thanks to .. you know.. points.



You can play AAAANNNNYYY game with scenarios, AoS is nothing at all special in that case. Any. Historicals, Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Kings of War, Checkers, Chess etc etc etc.

Your argument is bad, it has always been bad and it will never ever be good.

Losing Command
14-10-2015, 11:51
At which point synergy becomes cheese is a matter of the perspective of those judging it, much like a lot of rights and wrongs in reality.

Not really on topic, but it worries me how much Spiney seems to have been brainwashed by AoS, to the point where his views are now the same as those of GW (points are bad, balance should be done by players etc.)

Dosiere
14-10-2015, 12:00
It's true you CAN achieve a rough balance in AoS if you work hard at it. One of the reasons I dislike AoS though is the fact that you have to work so hard at it. Coming from a pick up gamer perspective here. It's really annoying to have to go through the pre-game balancing game developer motions every single game.

It's also true any other game is going to have some imbalance, especially with scenarios and list building being what they are. However, you can get much, much closer in that first game with these other systems than you can with AoS without all the effort.

AoS was much more enjoyable for me when I stopped trying to make it behave like WFB, KoW, X-Wing, etc.... When I simply accepted what it is and what it isn't the whole experience was more enjoyable. Still not a game I really ever want to play again, but I understand why some people really like it at least. That being said, let's not pretend that the lack of a decent balancing mechanic is actually a feature of AoS. At best it's a tradeoff between freedom in army selection vs playability.

Since it is incredibly easy to take ANY game and simply ignore a point based system, all these things that are being said of AoS can be applied to literally any game.

Herzlos
14-10-2015, 12:06
If 2 AOS players BOTH WANT to have a balanced game then it should really only take a couple of games max before they can work with each other to get it pretty close.

That's a couple of games too long. My gaming buddies probably wouldn't want to play game 2 or 3 if games 1 and 2 were totally imbalanced/unfair/boring to one of the players, and I don't see why we should waste an evening figuring out how to compensate for a game when we can just pull out 100 points of X-Wing or whatever and start with a good game.

If it's a largish gaming group that plays a lot then it's maybe worth trying to get it to work, but for 3 casual gamers on a Friday night that sounds like too much work. Especially when it's up against board games as well.

It's also a complete pain for those of us that do pick-up games in a club with tight time limits - realistically 3 hours from bag down to bag packed - I want to just get on with it instead of lengthy negotiations.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 12:22
My average game has taken about an hour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GrandmasterWang
14-10-2015, 12:23
That's a couple of games too long. My gaming buddies probably wouldn't want to play game 2 or 3 if games 1 and 2 were totally imbalanced, and I don't see why we should waste an evening figuring out how to compensate for a game when we can just pull out 100 points of X-Wing or whatever and start with a good game.

My first ever game of AOS was pretty balanced. I am not an AOS fan by any means (8th/Chillhammer for life!), however i don't think it would take anywhere near an evening to have a balanced game of AOS if that was the objective of both players.

Small AOS games seem to be very fast to play.

The lack of points in AOS 'IS' a feature of the game.... it's just a 'feature' that many gamers hate hahaha.

Imo where AOS fails big time is in pick up games between randoms where both may have very different perspectives/objectives for the game going into it.

I understand your perspective Herzlos hence why i prefer 8th Edition WHFB. However having tried AOS with war gaming noobs and veteran gamers alike, i don't have a problem with its approach to balance.... it's just..... different.

"Finding the balance in AOS is part of the fun"

The above was an actual quote someone said to me in a GW when i was watching a very lobsided game featuring Nagash and Undead rolling some Empire.... by the Empire player no less!

Different strokes for different folks.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Niall78
14-10-2015, 12:29
That's a couple of games too long.

It isn't a couple of games. Even taking at face value the laughable suggestion that whole WFB armies can be eyeball balanced in their entirety over the course of two or three games. When you consider all the armies in the game even if it takes 'two or three' games to balance them against each other you are still taking about hundreds of games. We had fifteen different unique faction armies in our club (not including multiple armies of the same faction or factions that are discontinued). We'd be looking at months of play-testing just to test this eyeball balancing method. No thanks.

Spiney Norman
14-10-2015, 12:31
Spiney mate i must say i have enjoyed seeing you slowly shift closer to my viewpoint of AOS :)

I even saw you recommending the "eyeball it" method of AOS a while ago.

I agree with you that people complaining about a the balance of AOS don't really get it. I love points as i said but find the 'create your own balance' approach of AOS refreshing.

I will add that in AOS you can also very validly complain about game balance to your opponent in addition to yourself. If 2 AOS players BOTH WANT to have a balanced game then it should really only take a couple of games max before they can work with each other to get it pretty close.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

I find that in any game with points, (warhammer, 40k, x-wing, WMH) people come to the game with the intention of maximising their points as efficiently as possible. People examine the available units to determine which is the best value and build their army out of only those units. In general when playing a points-matched game you instinctively approach the game trying to unbalance it in your favour as much as possible within the contraints of the point system. It becomes apparent quite early on that you can't do that with AoS because there is no existing points framework to exploit to begin with and instead it encourages players to balance the game themselves, which means players are trying to balance the game, rather than trying to unbalance it, which in my experience makes for a more positive interaction (at least for me).

I think it's very telling that the majority of people who complain about imbalance in AoS don't even play it.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 12:48
I find that in any game with points, (warhammer, 40k, x-wing, WMH) people come to the game with the intention of maximising their points as efficiently as possible. People examine the available units to determine which is the best value and build their army out of only those units. In general when playing a points-matched game you instinctively approach the game trying to unbalance it in your favour as much as possible within the contraints of the point system. It becomes apparent quite early on that you can't do that with AoS because there is no existing points framework to exploit to begin with and instead it encourages players to balance the game themselves, which means players are trying to balance the game, rather than trying to unbalance it, which in my experience makes for a more positive interaction (at least for me).

That only takes into account pure point match-ups - even then it doesn't hold if the players are fluffing it up, joking around, trying new tactics or testing new units . Once you start adding scenarios, objectives, terrain, win conditions, campaign play or anything else to the game such aggressive tournament list building becomes unproductive or impossible. Points do however become a very valuable tool for building and balancing scenario, objective and campaign play.


I think it's very telling that the majority of people who complain about imbalance in AoS don't even play it.

You keep on making that assertion. I'd say most on this forum have played the game. Of course you yourself admitted to knocking the game for weeks without ever having played it. Maybe you are projecting your own experience of knocking without testing onto others?

Dosiere
14-10-2015, 12:52
I feel really sorry for people like Spiney who apparently have nothing but complete jerks to play WFB, X-Wing, and 40K with.

All of the things mentioned here as positives for AoS have absolutely nothing to do with the game itself or its "features", but everything to do with the people playing the game.

I've had bad games of 40K for all the reasons mentioned, it's true. Certainly some terrible games of WFB. Nothing compares to the mess that AoS can be though. And what really decided it for me was that the GOOD games of AoS were nothing, had nothing, on the good games of 40K or WFB or a good RPG experience.

So I'm not really sure what the point is of all this. Are you guys actually saying that if two people sit down to have a game that AoS is superior because it's easier to balance?! How the tables have turned.

El_Commi
14-10-2015, 12:55
I honestly tried.

But outside of the AOS starter, I haven't seen a balanced game yet. Even following the standard deployment rules, even using a points system, even making a bunch of house rules.
Usually one side gets flattened, or someone has to really tone down how they play so as not to steamroll the other. (I mean like, mid game changing strategy and purposely making bad decisions to give the opponent a hand up).

This is after at least 3 dozen games, using skaven/undead/storm cast. Against, khorne, lizardmen, goblins and undead...

Our group is now 5 players, two refused to touch AoS, the rest played it. Of us 3, I played more 8th than the others. I bowed out of AoS first (after really trying to make it work, honestly I tried). The other player started playing a lot of 8th with his brought her who recently cited to start h elves, we're talking at least 20 games in a few weeks of 8th.
He told me last Saturday, he doesn't want to play AoS anymore. Because after playing 8th and getting a better handle on how it works, AoS is broken and too hard to make work.
That has left my brother, with the Khorne half of the AoS starter and a bunch of extra units.... He is lukewarm on 8th, mostly because he thinks he can't field his army.
As it stands, our group is pretty fractured now. It's going to take a lot of work to figure out what system will work for everyone without leaving people out..
We're talking of running an 8th campaign soon, but we'll have to work on a way of allowing my brother to field his khorne/demon list together.
We thought of AoS, but frankly it was too much hassle...

Niall78
14-10-2015, 13:01
I feel really sorry for people like Spiney who apparently have nothing but complete jerks to play WFB, X-Wing, and 40K with.


I find it amazing that AoS arriving completely changed the way games are played in these areas. You had groups of players that tried to squeeze every last advantage out of systems that heavily restricted them suddenly not trying to take advantage of a system with no restrictions and zero balance. What a turn around.

Dosiere
14-10-2015, 13:04
Your experiences pretty much mirror mine El-Commi. It's a shame, since I think there is a market for a skirmish game from GW that alleviated the high barrier to entry that WFB had. Your brother is not alone in that regard, it IS hard to get started with WFB.

Herzlos
14-10-2015, 13:18
My average game has taken about an hour.

Using your comp system to take out all of the pre-game negotiations?


My first ever game of AOS was pretty balanced. I am not an AOS fan by any means (8th/Chillhammer for life!), however i don't think it would take anywhere near an evening to have a balanced game of AOS if that was the objective of both players.


Maybe that's our problem; our goal isn't to have a balanced game, our goal is just to have some nerdy fun for a couple of hours and some banter across the tabletop. If we're going to put in any serious work, then it'd be towards a campaign or something, rather than trying to squeeze something workable out of the rules. Like I said, the competition in the casual gaming space is far too fierce to waste time on iffy games unless they are hilariously bad like The Club (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/32260/club)

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 13:24
I find it amazing that AoS arriving completely changed the way games are played in these areas. You had groups of players that tried to squeeze every last advantage out of systems that heavily restricted them suddenly not trying to take advantage of a system with no restrictions and zero balance. What a turn around.

Well in our case the players that were squeezing every last advantage out of their systems *aren't* suddenly not trying to take advantage of the system anymore. They moved to other games so aren't part of the group any longer, leaving the people that aren't as hyper competitive who don't take advantage of the system left in the group.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 13:26
Using your comp system to take out all of the pre-game negotiations?

In my case yes. In the store overall, most of the people playing don't use any comp and they play about 60-90 minutes because they field smallish armies that are about 20-30 models or so. The only pre game arrangement I have ever seen them do is they ask if they are playing a certain scenario. Most of the time its no because most of the guys won't buy any of the books so they just do the default scenario from the 4 page rules. All told their pre game arrangement lasts about 60 seconds.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 13:34
Well in our case the players that were squeezing every last advantage out of their systems *aren't* suddenly not trying to take advantage of the system anymore. They moved to other games so aren't part of the group any longer, leaving the people that aren't as hyper competitive who don't take advantage of the system left in the group.

You've stated before you lost a few guys and gained a few guys out of quite a large group. That means a big chunk of the remaining players changed their outlook to gaming overnight. From WAAC gamers who would never play scenario or fluff games - only pure point match-ups using netlists - to 'narrative' gamers in only a few short days.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 13:37
In my case yes. In the store overall, most of the people playing don't use any comp and they play about 60-90 minutes because they field smallish armies that are about 20-30 models or so. The only pre game arrangement I have ever seen them do is they ask if they are playing a certain scenario. Most of the time its no because most of the guys won't buy any of the books so they just do the default scenario from the 4 page rules. All told their pre game arrangement lasts about 60 seconds.

How do they balance their games in sixty seconds?

It's a pity that even AoS players aren't playing the scenarios in the expensive books. Isn't that where the game supposedly shines? How it shines playing unbalanced scenarios I'm not sure but we've been told that is the case.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 13:40
You've stated before you lost a few guys and gained a few guys out of quite a large group. That means at a big chunk of the remaining players changed their outlook to gaming overnight. From WAAC gamers who would never play scenario or fluff games - only pure point match-ups using netlists - to 'narrative' gamers in only a few short days.

We lost our hyper optimized players. We gained new players that don't know what that means yet. The guys remaining are happy to play either hyper optimized or laid back. Without the hyper optimized guys "forcing peoples' hands" they are more laid back.

Most people aren't extremists that have to do things one way or the other at all times, they typically in my experience can do either. However I find when your group does include hyper optimization power gamers that will only play in the powergaming style, that the others will follow suit if only to have a good game and not get blown off the table.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 13:41
How do they balance their games in sixty seconds?

It's a pity that even AoS players aren't playing the scenarios in the expensive books. Isn't that where the game supposedly shines? How it shines playing unbalanced scenarios I'm not sure but we've been told that is the case.

How do they balance it? Typically they drop whatever models they feel like dropping on the table and then play. They don't scrutinize over balance nor seem to get that worked up over balance. For those that care about balance they either use azyr comp (mainly our campaign group) or the clash wound pool thing (since thats what GTs use so they feel thats the closest thing to "official") and show up with a pre determined list.

Yes the game definitely shines in scenarios. However given the choice between shelling out for the book or playing with free rules and just playing free... the vast majority of players here are choosing to just stick with the free rules and not play the scenarios unless one of the four or five people in the entire city that bought a book happens to be their opponent and they brought the book with them.

I suspect this will change when GW starts letting you buy the scenarios through the app directly but in my experience, players aren't going to shell more than say $20 for scenarios, and the pretty picture books did not move here at all because no one was going to pay what GW was asking for for a handful of scenarios since the majority (vast majority) where I am don't care about the fluff or the art enough to spend money on it unless they have to. The majority of players here would give a body part if GW would just sell the rules or give the rules away for free because they don't care about the other stuff as much.

UndeadKing
14-10-2015, 13:43
I'm getting an hour and a half a game time just playing straight out the rules sheet and books. Scenarios are fairly easy to work on. Either from books or making out own

Herzlos
14-10-2015, 13:50
Are these regular players?

I'm trying to figure out if they start with 60 seconds negotiaton or if it's evolved to that by gentlemans agreement, as it sounds as if any house-ruling will take a lot longer to figure out (bases/cover/wounds etc).

I might just stick with GM'ing it myself.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 13:52
We lost our hyper optimized players. We gained new players that don't know what that means yet. The guys remaining are happy to play either hyper optimized or laid back. Without the hyper optimized guys "forcing peoples' hands" they are more laid back.

Most people aren't extremists that have to do things one way or the other at all times, they typically in my experience can do either. However I find when your group does include hyper optimization power gamers that will only play in the powergaming style, that the others will follow suit if only to have a good game and not get blown off the table.

You've stated before that you couldn't get anyone to play scenarios or fluff games for years. Then suddenly more than half your group realise they aren't WAAC gamers any more and would love to play narrative games. All that was stopping them was what can only amount to years of brainwashing or mind control by a small group of 'hyper optimization power gamers'. Sounds like a very unhealthy and toxic environment that was allowed to fester for years. It's a pity someone didn't have the gumption to tell the bullies to clear out before AoS was released.

If you had arranged a scenario or fluff game with one of the many laid-back players what would the reaction of the 'hyper optimization power gamers' have been? If you'd have started a break-away group that focused on scenario, campaign or RPG style narrative play with the laid-back players how could anyone have stopped you?

This situation is completely alien to me. Where a diverse and large group of gamers get together in a group but allow a tiny minority to impose massive restrictions for years and years. And it takes the release of a buggy game to change the situation and not somebody shouting 'Stop!'.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 13:53
They don't sweat house ruling. They play RAW.

Literally it comes down to two guys are at the store, one says he brought his AOS army and asks for a game, the other says sure. They ask about scenarios. 99% of the time neither have one so they agree to do the basic scenario. 75% none of them mention house rules, they just drop models on the table and start playing. 25% of the time one will ask if they are using comp of any kind, and the vast majority of the time the other will say "i'd prefer not to" and they go from there.

When comp is used its typically an event or a campaign day so its known in advance and lists are pre made and they come in and again drop their list on the table and go at it.

GMing it is also pretty good though rare here (and again usually only in campaigns)

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 13:56
You've stated before that you couldn't get anyone to play scenarios or fluff games for years. Then suddenly more than half your group realise they aren't WAAC gamers any more and would love to play narrative games. All that was stopping them was what can only amount to years of brainwashing or mind control by a small group of 'hyper optimization power gamers'. Sounds like a very unhealthy and toxic environment that was allowed to fester for years. It's a pity someone didn't have the gumption to tell the bullies to clear out before AoS was released.

If you had arranged a scenario or fluff game with one of the many laid-back players what would the reaction of the 'hyper optimization power gamers' have been? If you'd have started a break-away group that focused on scenario, campaign or RPG style narrative play with the laid-back players how could anyone have stopped you?

This situation is completely alien to me. Where a diverse and large group of gamers get together in a group but allow a tiny minority to impose massive restrictions for years and years. And it takes the release of a buggy game to change the situation and not somebody shouting 'Stop!'.

I've explained this in great depth probably about six times now so if you don't understand by now I don't know what else to tell you. It involves most of our players having time for one game day a month or so due to having wives/girlfriends, and they will play where the majority of our players are playing, which used to be tournaments or league games which did not allow scenarios or fluff games because the guys that ran those events outnumbered the guys that wanted to do campaigns and narrative scenarios.

That when AoS dropped the guys that had that grip on the community dropped GW and went on to other games where they now run leagues and tournaments leaving the guys that don't care either way about what style they are playing but wanted to keep using their GW models and didn't necessarily want to jump on the KOW bandwagon; since now the majority of our GW crowd is playing narratively it is much easier to do those things. If those four or five tournament guys came back to GW games and started pushing tournaments or leagues, this would swing back to tournament/league only since the majority of our players can only play one day a month.

Its pretty much like politics. If you have 1 or 2 guys that want to run campaigns and 4 or 5 guys that are dead set on tournament play, the 4-5 guys that are dead set on tournament play are going to win with the guys that can only play one game a month because they have the most players and no one wants to play the same 2 or 3 guys every time. The guys that can only play one game a month are the vast majority here. They are going to play where most of the players are. Which was leagues and tournaments. Which exclude fluff and narrative and are all about winning games for standings and prizes.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 14:06
I've explained this in great depth probably about six times now so if you don't understand by now I don't know what else to tell you. It involves most of our players having time for one game day a month or so due to having wives/girlfriends, and they will play where the majority of our players are playing, which used to be tournaments or league games which did not allow scenarios or fluff games because the guys that ran those events outnumbered the guys that wanted to do campaigns and narrative scenarios.

That when AoS dropped the guys that had that grip on the community dropped GW and went on to other games where they now run leagues and tournaments leaving the guys that don't care either way about what style they are playing but wanted to keep using their GW models and didn't necessarily want to jump on the KOW bandwagon; since now the majority of our GW crowd is playing narratively it is much easier to do those things. If those four or five tournament guys came back to GW games and started pushing tournaments or leagues, this would swing back to tournament/league only since the majority of our players can only play one day a month.

Its pretty much like politics. If you have 1 or 2 guys that want to run campaigns and 4 or 5 guys that are dead set on tournament play, the 4-5 guys that are dead set on tournament play are going to win with the guys that can only play one game a month because they have the most players and no one wants to play the same 2 or 3 guys every time. The guys that can only play one game a month are the vast majority here. They are going to play where most of the players are. Which was leagues and tournaments. Which exclude fluff and narrative and are all about winning games for standings and prizes.

If you have two guys who want to play a scenario or fluff game you have a scenario or fluff game waiting to be played. You don't need a whole group to buy into such play only the very minimum required for such a game which is two people.

You couldn't manage that in your group for years now suddenly not only is it possible to find one other player - most of the group engage in such games.

There are a thousand different varieties of politics for people to find like minded individuals to discuss their favourites with. Just like gaming. The idea that a small minority are able to impose their will on a majority in a hobby over years is both frightening and laughable at the same time. Why not just join another gaming group, launch your own or play in your basement with like-minded friends?

Maybe even say something like - "Hi John (or whoever). We've been gaming buddies for five years. I see and play you every week - we sometimes have a few beers. I think we are good mates. Fancy trying a few of these cool scenario games with me over the space of a few months?"

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 14:09
"no one wants to play the same 2 or 3 guys every time"

​At this point this has become a circular argument for the sake of arguing and being "right". I've explained the group dynamics in depth several times now. I'm not going to continue repeating myself.

I prefer not playing the same person over and over again. Before that wasn't possible. Now it is. Its not because the group suddenly changed overnight to accepting this style of play its because the source competing for their attention has removed itself and our player pool is now bigger because no body wants to run GW tournaments or leagues so that is not competing for the attention of the other players who are happy to do either way.

Pedantically arguing that it is technically possible for two people to play narratively is obvious and it is also willfully ignoring the part that i have red underlined for you above.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 14:27
"no one wants to play the same 2 or 3 guys every time"

​At this point this has become a circular argument for the sake of arguing and being "right". I've explained the group dynamics in depth several times now. I'm not going to continue repeating myself.

I prefer not playing the same person over and over again. Before that wasn't possible. Now it is. Its not because the group suddenly changed overnight to accepting this style of play its because the source competing for their attention has removed itself and our player pool is now bigger because no body wants to run GW tournaments or leagues so that is not competing for the attention of the other players who are happy to do either way.

Pedantically arguing that it is technically possible for two people to play narratively is obvious and it is also willfully ignoring the part that i have red underlined for you above.

You couldn't get scenario games for years by your own admission. I'd have thought two or even three guys willing to play such games would have been a massive bonus. And of course from small acorns do mighty Oaks grow. Very soon you might see your little band increasing as others see the benefits of scenario play. Any group I've ever played with would jump at the opportunities to play well made scenarios or well run campaigns no matter what the system. They knew how fun and rewarding such experiences are and how lucky they were somebody was organising such play within the group. I've had much more problems with over-subscription over the years than lack of interest. It can cause issues when too many people want to get involved namely increased work-load.

I can't dream of a situation where in a big group I'd fail to suck at least a few players into scenario or campaign play. All I need is one more player to get the ball rolling.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 14:31
That's cool. Thats not how it works here. How it works here is people play what everyone else is playing and going against that stirs up gamer-political arguments that no one wants to be a part of.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 14:42
That's cool. Thats not how it works here. How it works here is people play what everyone else is playing and going against that stirs up gamer-political arguments that no one wants to be a part of.

I've never encountered 'gamer-political arguments' when proposing scenario, campaign play or new systems within any group I've ever been involved with. I don't even know what they are to be honest.

"Want to play a few cool scenario with this game lads? If it goes well I might invest the time in starting a campaign. Anyone interested? I've got some cool ideas if we do decide on a campaign." - In my experience some guys say "Yes", some "No" and some "Maybe" and I take it from there. How do 'gamer-political arguments' develop after such a statement?

Spiney Norman
14-10-2015, 14:44
I feel really sorry for people like Spiney who apparently have nothing but complete jerks to play WFB, X-Wing, and 40K with.

All of the things mentioned here as positives for AoS have absolutely nothing to do with the game itself or its "features", but everything to do with the people playing the game.

I've had bad games of 40K for all the reasons mentioned, it's true. Certainly some terrible games of WFB. Nothing compares to the mess that AoS can be though. And what really decided it for me was that the GOOD games of AoS were nothing, had nothing, on the good games of 40K or WFB or a good RPG experience.

So I'm not really sure what the point is of all this. Are you guys actually saying that if two people sit down to have a game that AoS is superior because it's easier to balance?! How the tables have turned.

No, whether a game is 'easy' to balance or not is kind of beside the point, it's possible to balance any game if you are trying to do that, and it's also possible to unbalance any game if that is your aim. I think what I'm finding is that the sort of players I like to play games with are more attracted to the way AoS plays while the sort of players that I find give me a less positive experience are generally repulsed by AoS and don't bother with it. It is undoubtably the players that make the game, and that is true of any game, not just AoS.

And if points are that important to you, a quick search of Warseer will turn up half a dozen living comp packs for AoS which are all better balanced and more regularly updated than the best points-match system on the market from any company.

Regarding playing the same 2-3 people all the time, in my case there are 6-8 guys in our local club that have picked up AoS and I'd much rather play those guys continuously than present myself to the 40k WAAC crowd to be abused for a two hour game for the sake of variety. If it's a choice between playing the same 2-3 people over and over that will give me an enjoyable experience and playing one of 20+ different people whose attitudes make games stressful and unpleasant there is absolutely no contest.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 14:46
I've never encountered 'gamer-political arguments' when proposing scenario, campaign play or new systems within any group I've ever been involved with. I don't even know what they are to be honest.

"Want to play a few cool scenario with this game lads? If it goes well I might invest the time in starting a campaign. Anyone interested? I've got some cool ideas if we do decide on a campaign." - In my experience some guys say "Yes", some "No" and some "Maybe" and I take it from there. How do 'gamer-political arguments' develop after such a statement?

Thats very fortunate for you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 14:47
No, whether a game is 'easy' to balance or not is kind of beside the point, it's possible to balance any game if you are trying to do that, and it's also possible to unbalance any game if that is your aim. I think what I'm finding is that the sort of players I like to play games with are more attracted to the way AoS plays while the sort of players that I find give me a less positive experience are generally repulsed by AoS and don't bother with it. It is undoubtably the players that make the game, and that is true of any game, not just AoS.

And if points are that important to you, a quick search of Warseer will turn up half a dozen living comp packs which are all better balanced and more regularly updated than the best points-match system on the market from any company.

This is exactly my experience as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Niall78
14-10-2015, 14:51
No, whether a game is 'easy' to balance or not is kind of beside the point, it's possible to balance any game if you are trying to do that, and it's also possible to unbalance any game if that is your aim, I think what I'm finding is that the sort of players I like to play games with are more attracted to the way AoS plays while the sort of players that I find give me a less positive experience are generally repulsed by AoS and don't bother with it. It is undoubtably the players that make the game, and that is true of any game, not just AoS.

Do you seriously think AoS has a magical forcefield that filters out bad sportsmanship, insane fun wrecking WAAC players or general a-holes? Meeting such individuals is an occurrence in any form of participation hobby - from sports to tabletop games. There's nowhere they won't appear - from fluffy as hell RPG systems to basic boardgames.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 14:59
Thats very fortunate for you.


What are 'gamer-political arguments'? How do did they develop when you proposed a scenario game?

Spiney Norman
14-10-2015, 15:01
Do you seriously think AoS has a magical forcefield that filters out bad sportsmanship, insane fun wrecking WAAC players or general a-holes? Meeting such individuals is an occurrence in any form of participation hobby - from sports to tabletop games. There's nowhere they won't appear - from fluffy as hell RPG systems to basic boardgames.

I don't remember using the phrase 'magical force field', I just find that everyone in my group who has picked up AoS have an attitude that gives me a positive experience when I play them. I couldn't really say why that is, all I know is that all the people who made wfb and 40k such a chore to play against are the ones most loudly ridiculing AoS and won't touch it with a barge pole. That's not to say that everyone who plays other games is a terrible sport, far from it, because most of us that play AoS play other games like wfb and 40k as well.


What are 'gamer-political arguments'? How do did they develop when you proposed a scenario game?

I've also encountered resistance to playing wfb and 40k narrative scenarios, the argument usually goes something like

'But those objectives give the other guy a massive advantage, how am I supposed to win this game?'

Most competitive gamers rely on their proven 'killer list' to beat their opponent, changing the objectives of the game can 'pull the rug' so to speak, so they would rather decline the game than have to go back to the drawing board with their list. This is a particular problem for the more extreme lists which really struggle to adapt to narrative scenario objectives.

In 40k I've even heard people refuse 'standard games' because the points value is too low, especially if their 'killer list' is based on a Decurion formation or space marine battle company which requires a certain points level to fit all the compulsory units in.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 15:03
What are 'gamer-political arguments'? How do did they develop when you proposed a scenario game?

Being slandered, aggressively ripped into on our social media, aggressively ripped into at the store for promoting a style of play that isn't what the person deems "proper", attempts at dividing the community and creating an "us vs you" atmosphere in the area which makes people uncomfortable as its dramatic. Having players unofficially "banned from a store" if they were a part of outside events that weren't "proper".

They developed in the past when we created public narrative campaign events.

Again goes back to the red underlined piece prior about not wanting to play the same 2 or 3 people in someone's garage and wanting public events.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 15:09
I don't remember using the phrase 'magical force field', I just find that everyone in my group who has picked up AoS have an attitude that gives me a positive experience when I play them. I couldn't really say why that is, all I know is that all the people who made wfb and 40k such a chore to play against are the ones most loudly ridiculing AoS and won't touch it with a barge pole. That's not to say that everyone who plays other games is a terrible sport, far from it, because most of us that play AoS play other games like wfb and 40k as well.

That's just the individual composition of your group at the moment. It has nothing to do with the game. If ten a hole players joined your group in the morning it would also have nothing to do with the game. Unless AoS has a new type of invisible player filter it's the same as any game, sport or hobby - every now and then you'll run into 'that guy'.

Spiney Norman
14-10-2015, 15:18
That's just the individual composition of your group at the moment. It has nothing to do with the game. If ten a hole players joined your group in the morning it would also have nothing to do with the game. Unless AoS has a new type of invisible player filter it's the same as any game, sport or hobby - every now and then you'll run into 'that guy'.

Maybe, but what is your point? That I should stop playing AoS and sell all my stuff just in case I run into a hypothetical 'that guy' at some unspecified future date?

Niall78
14-10-2015, 15:35
Being slandered, aggressively ripped into on our social media, aggressively ripped into at the store for promoting a style of play that isn't what the person deems "proper", attempts at dividing the community and creating an "us vs you" atmosphere in the area which makes people uncomfortable as its dramatic. Having players unofficially "banned from a store" if they were a part of outside events that weren't "proper".

They developed in the past when we created public narrative campaign events.

Again goes back to the red underlined piece prior about not wanting to play the same 2 or 3 people in someone's garage and wanting public events.

That sounds very serious. I've never been exposed to that type of bile for suggesting or running scenarios or campaigns before.


Being slandered

You were exposed to some crazy stuff over a game. Slander is actionable. I'd certainly be taking legal advice if I was slandered - at the very least a cease and desist order from a lower court. Depending at the type of slander I'd be weighing up my options in small claims court or higher if necessary to rectify the situation. Reputation obtained over a lifetime can be destroyed by slander - the justice systems in most countries take this very seriously.


Being aggressively ripped into on our social media, aggressively ripped into at the store for promoting a style of play that isn't what the person deems "proper"

Behaviour like that goes beyond gaming to be honest. I'd have reported the abuse to the social media provider. They are very quick these days to ban accounts engaged in abuse or bullying. They'll also shut down any new sock accounts associated with the one complained about.


aggressively ripped into at the store for promoting a style of play that isn't what the person deems "proper"

Did the store owner see this aggression? He is liable if aggression erupts on his property. Most stores have a zero tolerance of this type of thing. On a basic level it makes their shop a scary place to be for the very customers they are trying to bring through the door. Personally if anyone aggressively rips into me in any field of life they'll be explaining why to the police. In many jurisdictions such abuse would be considered assault or a public order matter.


Having players unofficially "banned from a store" if they were a part of outside events that weren't "proper".

The management of this store would have freaked if they knew this was happening. Again if anyone tried to stop me walking anywhere in public they'd be explaining why to the police.

These issues go way beyond gaming systems Kitty. Truly horrible and beyond my experiences with any group I've ever come into contact with. Most actually require legal or police intervention rather than a tabletop game discussion.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 15:48
I don't think the police care about some gamer guys being ripped up and down. Thats one of those things where you just deal with it and handle it your own way.

Slander holds no liability or legal repercussions unless the parties can prove they lost wages over it. In this case - there are no wages being lost and there really is no case.

The drama is not worth the effort plain and simple. The drama left a bit ago and life is a lot more fun now.

Niall78
14-10-2015, 17:27
I don't think the police care about some gamer guys being ripped up and down. Thats one of those things where you just deal with it and handle it your own way.

You either call the police or walk away from the whole situation forever. Police will take a close interest in anyone disturbing the public peace. Especially a place where kids and teenagers congregate like a game store.


Slander holds no liability or legal repercussions unless the parties can prove they lost wages over it. In this case - there are no wages being lost and there really is no case.

Slander usually involves damages to reputation rather than monetary damages due to lost wages. Even small claims courts in most jurisdictions will hear minor slander cases.


The drama is not worth the effort plain and simple. The drama left a bit ago and life is a lot more fun now.

I'm glad to hear the situation resolved itself. I would contend though that it is always worth the drama to see such anti-social behaviour disrupted or destroyed. In any case I wouldn't take such outrageous carry on as the normal situation in most gaming groups. What you dealt with seems completely beyond anything I've ever seen or heard of in gaming before - a police and court matter rather than a gaming matter.

Sephillion
14-10-2015, 17:53
You either call the police or walk away from the whole situation forever. Police will take a close interest in anyone disturbing the public peace. Especially a place where kids and teenagers congregate like a game store.


I don’t know, the police of an island where people go on adventures might not be like the police elsewhere. :P

Captain Marius
14-10-2015, 18:11
The conversation seems to have gone a bit off topic... how about some more crazy synergies?

I found a big unit of daemonettes buffed by a slaanesh herald then attacking twice with the keeper of secrets' command ability was pretty insane. With the extra attacks they get for hit rolls of 5+ they were basically obliterating whatever they attacked in one combat phase!

The bloodbound seem to be able to get some crazy attack bonuses too. Im finding bonus attacks are way more powerful than the bonuses that just modify hit or wound rolls!

Dosiere
14-10-2015, 18:14
Hmm ok, spiney, I think I at least understand. There are for example a few guys I simply do not have fun playing against, in any game. These are the guys who will throw down some crazy net list combo of doom no matter what force I bring, scenario that wants to be played, etc... The riptide lists plus a few Knights against someone who clearly can't handle it, the double steam tanks against someone who is playing their third game ever, etc...

Maybe worst of all they just aren't fun to play against unless you have exactly the same attitude, and they can't seem to change their gaming ways even temporarily to play a game. They can't seem to relax and have fun playing through a campaign or going easy on someone who obviously isn't ready or doesn't want to play like that.

Do I net list when I go to a tournament? Sure I do! It's fun and fine though because everyone is and that's the expectation. In fact some of my best games are at tournaments against very nice people. Still, you tailor your lists and games to your opponent and what typeof game you both want to play. The ones that don't will inevitably have some rough games.

I don't really understand why it took AoS for you and others to realize this though, and to identify the players you like playing.

helloKitty, I have no idea what you are talking about however. I'm trying to understand what an environment like that would be like and I just can't. What business is it what the dudes at the next table are playing? Or simply HOW a tiny number of players can actually stop others from playing a certain way?! It sounds really bad, but honestly it doesn't make sense. You seem to have had the worst but oddly active gaming club in the entire country. If someone tried to do any of that to another gamer I, and most gamers I know, would be quick to stick up for them.

I have never, in a lot of years at different clubs, different games, different age ranges, experienced anything like what you are talking about except at official GW stores. I was asked to leave once because I had some characters that were reaper models, although I admit that a younger me was kind of an ass at the time about it too, heh. Their social media stuff is policed heavily as well, at least back when. I don't think that's really what you are talking about its the closest I've got. I would have stopped playing their a long time ago but maybe it's the only place near you.

Dosiere
14-10-2015, 18:23
The conversation seems to have gone a bit off topic... how about some more crazy synergies?

I found a big unit of daemonettes buffed by a slaanesh herald then attacking twice with the keeper of secrets' command ability was pretty insane. With the extra attacks they get for hit rolls of 5+ they were basically obliterating whatever they attacked in one combat phase!

The bloodbound seem to be able to get some crazy attack bonuses too. Im finding bonus attacks are way more powerful than the bonuses that just modify hit or wound rolls!

The issue with synergies that require medium to large groups,of models is that you are never going to actually get that many attacks. i realized this after a few games with my empire models. Three large units of 40 state troops in a detachment sounds really mean, until you realize you can only get like 10-15 guys actually attacking a small elite enemy unit. The only time it could be done was through judicious base humping and dubious pile in moves, both of which I would not do.

So in your head you're thinking if you take a big group that gets buffed like this "hey that's 40 extra attacks or 40 auto-hits!" When in reality it's more like 15 and you've made it pitifully easy for your opponent to get a sudden death objective.

HelloKitty
14-10-2015, 18:34
helloKitty, I have no idea what you are talking about however. I'm trying to understand what an environment like that would be like and I just can't. What business is it what the dudes at the next table are playing? Or simply HOW a tiny number of players can actually stop others from playing a certain way?! It sounds really bad, but honestly it doesn't make sense. You seem to have had the worst but oddly active gaming club in the entire country. If someone tried to do any of that to another gamer I, and most gamers I know, would be quick to stick up for them.

I dont' see how its that crazy - you see this type of behavior on internet forums daily where people try to bash others for not playing how they do. My community is not one club or one store. We have six now active gaming stores in my region, each with its own clique of players and each run by the store's event organizer that largely sets the tone of what is and is not accepted in that store. Most of the stores in my area are very anti-GW.

As in areas outside of gaming, when you go against a cliques' desires, you will be sent to the outside. You can observe this behavior on this very forum.

If the event organizer for a store is anti narrative scenarios and you try to promote narrative scenarios, there is a good chance they are going to get hostile in some form. Either directly (rare) or passive aggressively. Regardless, most people don't want to deal with drama so they stay out of it. And in my experience most people are going to want to game with the group that has the most choices for different opponents.

Captain Marius
14-10-2015, 18:36
Agreed, that seems to be why when those 10-15 models are getting bonus attacks it seems to be much morr devastating! For example my aforementioned daemonette deathstar got slaughtered by a big unit of skellies that struck before it!

Dosiere
14-10-2015, 21:18
I dont' see how its that crazy - you see this type of behavior on internet forums daily where people try to bash others for not playing how they do. My community is not one club or one store. We have six now active gaming stores in my region, each with its own clique of players and each run by the store's event organizer that largely sets the tone of what is and is not accepted in that store. Most of the stores in my area are very anti-GW.

As in areas outside of gaming, when you go against a cliques' desires, you will be sent to the outside. You can observe this behavior on this very forum.

If the event organizer for a store is anti narrative scenarios and you try to promote narrative scenarios, there is a good chance they are going to get hostile in some form. Either directly (rare) or passive aggressively. Regardless, most people don't want to deal with drama so they stay out of it. And in my experience most people are going to want to game with the group that has the most choices for different opponents.

Weird, I've never seen a store with a dedicated event organizer that set the tone so heavily, to the point of actively discouraging other gamers. Seems like that would be bad for business. The reason I think it's strange is because the gamers here are not one little clique, although certainly there are cliques within each game. I guess I can see how if there was a more tightly bound community it would mean 1 or more people would have a lot of influence. The closest thing I can think of here would be if the store manager or owner decided to not stock a game for whatever reason. Anyway, you seem a very reasonable person I hope you can have a postitive influence on these shenanigans in your area. It's already a niche hobby, no one wins when you start taking it too seriously.

I'm not sure your comparison to an online forum is apples to apples though. I may disagree with you here, but that doesn't mean I would actively try to stop you from doing something IRL. Quite the opposite. This is just a place to have back and forth about the game, or to be doing something with/about the hobby when you cant be doing something else.

Spiney Norman
14-10-2015, 21:47
I don't really understand why it took AoS for you and others to realize this though, and to identify the players you like playing.

Well it didn't really, I have been playing wfb and 40k (well ok, 30k) with those guys for years, AoS just really appeals to 'my kind' of gamer so we play it because we enjoy playing it. It has some upsides in that we don't keep getting asked for games by people we'd rather not play and having to find polite ways of telling them why we don't want to ;)

NagashLover
14-10-2015, 23:41
Well I don't play AoS (my reasons stated in various other threads).

I do play plenty of other games that deal heavily with synergy. I simply beat the synergy. If the person I play keeps using the same "puzzle" then I will eventually solve it. In our meta we tend to throw curve balls just for the sake of challenge and unfamiliarity. I will beat the synergy/opponent by offering my own "puzzle" to solve, straight up using a counter to it or outplaying them.

So I guess I don't really draw a line because I have yet to find a line I can't cross. Furthermore, one thing I do like about synergies and open systems that allow them is the creativity some players are able to create within the system. Unfamiliarity often times tends to seem powerful because of the unknown element of it.

In regards to the balance of Warmahordes (been playing since MK1) it is not better balanced and points in no way make it better balanced (it makes it more structured for those that need it, but it doesn't make it magically more balanced). PP has the same issues as GW has with its games. They have to use errata's to fix point cost issues (animantarax is more viable but only because what is capable of appears to match its valued point cost now), they use infernals for rules clarification (RAW vs. RAI), even the discussion of synergies (are some of the combos or theme lists drawing the line? Did Brad draw the line?).


To bring it back a bit, I approach the games I play with generally the same mentality that I'm trying to play against myself as much as the person/people across the table. Though I was the guy in the arcade that would pick Dan/Servbot/Amingo against the Sent/Mags/Storm players.

Sephillion
15-10-2015, 14:31
In regards to the balance of Warmahordes (been playing since MK1) it is not better balanced and points in no way make it better balanced (it makes it more structured for those that need it, but it doesn't make it magically more balanced). PP has the same issues as GW has with its games. They have to use errata's to fix point cost issues (animantarax is more viable but only because what is capable of appears to match its valued point cost now), they use infernals for rules clarification (RAW vs. RAI), even the discussion of synergies (are some of the combos or theme lists drawing the line? Did Brad draw the line?).


That’s actually false. It IS better balanced. Not perfectly balanced. And errata are PART of the balance. It’s actually a GOOD thing. It doesn’t mean the game is not balanced, it means the game’s not perfect. Every main faction and even newer or subfactions can compete, making external balance much better than anything GW can write. There are much fewer duds per faction.

Having people (Infernals) to help with issues is also a good thing, but in all my years, I’ve never had to even consult them, because most are either clarifications for people who don’t get the way rules are written, or weird interactions. And again, that’s a GOOD thing. GW doesn’t even TRY to resolve issues. Unless you mean those ****-poor errata?

And if you think Brad is such an issue, you’ve probably just been seeing “sky is falling” type threads, in practice he’s been managed very well. He’s strong but he relies on a few tricks – if you know them, you can mitigate them; if you have some tools you can negate them; and the Bradigus player must be very experienced to get the most of the theme, like in fact most of the more popular tournament lists. It’s easy to have too much Fury, to leave a gap between clouds, or to get some crucial piece exposed if you don’t know exactly what you’re doing.

But I’ve seen this argument so often, if it’s not perfectly balanced, it’s akin to GW. Which is just pure *********** ********.

Ronin[XiC]
15-10-2015, 15:15
#2 @Sep

It's not perfect thus it's garbage.

No. It's not perfect bt they're working on it AND THAT makes it pretty much amazing.

Spiney Norman
15-10-2015, 16:37
;7551753']#2 @Sep

It's not perfect thus it's garbage.

No. It's not perfect bt they're working on it AND THAT makes it pretty much amazing.

The irony of this statement of course is that this has been the attitude of pretty much every anti-AoS post in the last three months. It's like people exaggerate the flaws they see in games they dislike to the point where they can't believe anyone would actually want to play the game.

Herzlos
15-10-2015, 17:03
Nah, AoS is garbage because it's garbage. There's barely anything you can say is good, let alone perfect, about it. No hyperbole; it's a 4 page phone-in effort.

Sephillion
15-10-2015, 17:05
The irony of this statement of course is that this has been the attitude of pretty much every anti-AoS post in the last three months. It's like people exaggerate the flaws they see in games they dislike to the point where they can't believe anyone would actually want to play the game.

I actually cannot believe someone would play a deeply flawed, overpriced game with horrible fluff that basically requires you to add your own errata, when there are so many better alternatives out there.

And no one needs to exaggerate AoS flaws. They are self-explicit.

HelloKitty
15-10-2015, 17:19
There still aren't really any good alternatives no, unless you're just in games for the sake of games.

If you want to play a game involving fantasy, more than a handful of troops, etc you have Kings of War and Warthrone or older WHFB. Thats pretty much it. Kings of War is a poor game to me that highlights everything i ever hated about 7th edition and why i quit whfb during 7th edition. Warthrone is interesting but no one here will touch it so makes it a non choice. Older versions of WHFB are "dead" so no one here will touch it and honestly I'm kind of over WHFB now anyway.

Saga is pretty cool and I like it a lot. High point games of saga kind of fulfil what I want but its still at the end of the day largely historical. Hail Caesar is pretty cool but no one hear wants to play it and it is again historical. Dragon rampant should be good but it is small number of models so not the big battles I want. Lion Rampant is what Dragon Rampant is based on and is historical (and small model count as well). Frostgrave is a lot of fun but more like D&D than tabletop warfare.

Niall78
15-10-2015, 17:24
The irony of this statement of course is that this has been the attitude of pretty much every anti-AoS post in the last three months. It's like people exaggerate the flaws they see in games they dislike to the point where they can't believe anyone would actually want to play the game.

You are comparing a game where the developers built a balancing system and keep it updated with FAQs, errata and fan feedback. With a game where the developers didn't bother building a balancing system and don't bother with FAQs, errata or fan feedback.

The first might be flawed but those flaws can't be compared to the non-existence of such a system in AoS. AoS hasn't a flawed balancing system - it has none in the first place to be flawed.

Sephillion
15-10-2015, 17:31
If you’re absolutely dead set on playing traditional fantasy (vs other fantasy subgenres) with a large number of models in a warfare setting, you have a few alternatives, notably Kings of War, Warthrone and WHFB like you said. But that’s only if you’re dead set on a very specific genre and a certain quantity of models. …and it still doesn’t remove any of AoS flaws.

Most people aren't as picky - they want to play a miniature wargame.

EDIT : That’s what I mean by I can’t actually believe someone wants to play the game – if I have the choice between a bad game that fit some preference criteria and a decent/good game that might not fit all these preferences, I’ll pick the second any time of day.

HelloKitty
15-10-2015, 18:14
I am pretty picky yes.

Ronin[XiC]
15-10-2015, 18:17
But still you play the worst game released in a decade...
Why don't you change Kings of War the way you changed AoS?
Or why didnt you chang Warmachien the way you changed AoS?

You completely changed a game and ignore half if its rules...

HelloKitty
15-10-2015, 18:24
Because the guys that play kings of war here won't use any alterations so changing it is like *********** into the wind. The guys that are open to playing AoS are open to changing it.

Then there's the little matter that I largely cannot stand the mantic aesthetic.
I also don't mind the AoS narrative.

Really the only thing I don't like about AoS is lack of official balancing mechanism and GWs allowance for summoner armies to break the game. Fix those two things and I'm content with the system, which is what we did.

Warmachine - same thing the guys that play warmachine wouldn't allow that and then there's that I really am not a fan of steam punk settings so have no emotional investment in warmachine as a setting.

Ronin[XiC]
15-10-2015, 18:26
It's always "the other guy's" fault...

No one cares about the mantic aesthetic.. use your existing WHF miniatures. BAM. No one forces you to buy a single Mantic Mini.

"Really the only thing I don't like about AoS is lack of official balancing mechanism"

That's like accepting a car with no brake. Chess with a player using 2 queens, a milkshake that does not bring all the boys to the yard.

HelloKitty
15-10-2015, 18:35
Actually what its about is people like different things, it has zero to do with someone's "fault", and no matter how much you berate AoS or my choices or try to make what I like out to be illogical and drilled with logical fallacy because you do not agree with it, it comes down to you and I want two different things out of our free time.

I'm not touching Kings of War because I hate the game. Really its as basic and as easy as that. Kings of war as a game is garbage to me. Modding Kings of War to be a game I like is useless because the Kings of War community here will not accept house rules. And really me modding Kings of War turns it into classic WHFB, so I'd just as well play that instead.

Just like warmachine as a game is garbage to me. As much as you hate Age of Sigmar and feel Age of Sigmar is garbage. I am not chasing after you trying to convince you to play Age of Sigmar or leave Kings of War. I don't care what game you find entertaining - thats your right to fill your time with whatever you find worthy of your time. Thats what I ask in return.

What a better forum this would be if it wasn't filled with conversations where people berate and insult each other over what stupid game they play or try to convince people that like different games that they are somehow wrong or illogical for the games they enjoy :)

Herzlos
15-10-2015, 22:25
There still aren't really any good alternatives no, unless you're just in games for the sake of games.

That's largely what the hobby is about. I love history, fantasy and games, and I'll happily play a board game or a demo game if there are no wargames available.

Anyway, with the work you've put into fixing AoS, you could have house-ruled any existing rank and file system up to Napoleonics with your new units and things like Magic/Monsters. Alternative history stuff might be closer yet. You'd do a lot worse to start with Black Powder.

Fortunately, give it a year and there will probably be half a dozen new rank-and-file fantasy games out there to choose from. I really find it hard to believe that you can't find a single 'live' (in print) wargame that allows you to play fantasy you like better than AoS does. I get that you dislike KoW, Warthrone and Lion/Dragon Rampant and no-one wants to play Hail Caesar.

HelloKitty
15-10-2015, 22:33
Not with any opponents anyway. Pick a system i havent mentioned, its not played here and no one wants to learn new rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SimaoSegunda
15-10-2015, 22:55
"Better" is a highly subjective term. I'm in a similar position to the cat, the best game, in my opinion, and the one for which I can get regular opponents, and provides me with the most elements I enjoy, is Age of Sigmar. It's also ignited my enthusiasm for painting in a way that 8th and 40k never could.

We play raw AoS with the out-of-the-box rules and existing armies, and the only thing that has caused us any issues is Nagash. And even he gets much less useful if you kill off the supporting casters.

To drag this wandering thread back to the topic at hand, we've tended to find synergies much more problematic when they apply across the board with no range restrictions. Synergies that require certain units to be close to others have been less of a problem for us, because one can either focus down the buffbot as a priority, or use fast units or outflanking to tie up the support unit and force the unit they're trying to buff to either slow down, or turn around and come and help out.

Spiney Norman
15-10-2015, 23:05
I actually cannot believe someone would play a deeply flawed, overpriced game with horrible fluff that basically requires you to add your own errata, when there are so many better alternatives out there.

And no one needs to exaggerate AoS flaws. They are self-explicit.

I suppose there is no recourse for me at this point but to bow to the self-explicit superiority of your entirely subjective opinion ;)

If your worldview doesn't allow for the existence of people who enjoy playing AoS, perhaps it needs adjusting. I'm fine with you not liking it, but creating a logical construct where the only valid opinion is your opinion on something as subjective as whether or not you like playing a miniature wargame seems a little extreme to me. The fact that we all like different games is the reason why there are so many games on the market in the first place.

Jind_Singh
16-10-2015, 05:27
I actually cannot believe someone would play a deeply flawed, overpriced game with horrible fluff that basically requires you to add your own errata, when there are so many better alternatives out there.

And no one needs to exaggerate AoS flaws. They are self-explicit.

Lol - last time I checked I didn't see the news flash that announced you was crowne some new emperor of gaming!

I actually can't believe someone would have such a deeply flawed view - just because you don't like it how dare you belittle others that enjoy the gAme, for shame sir

I of the things I hold dearest about our hobby is the fact that we have an inclusive crowd - for the most part - it's a shame that we are losing this over a new edition...

Voss
16-10-2015, 06:05
I of the things I hold dearest about our hobby is the fact that we have an inclusive crowd - for the most part - it's a shame that we are losing this over a new edition...
Wait, whatnow? I can't remember the last time I met a purist WFB player who didn't deride people for playing the 'kiddie game' of 40K, or certain people in this very thread who throw tantrums at the very mention of other companies and whine about people liking the 'cartoony' and 'toylike' miniatures of other companies. The wargaming community loves its cliques and holier than thou attitudes.

You really can't believe that someone else doesn't understand why anyone would play a bad system with bad models and no background worth speaking of? Or is this just another bout of passive-aggressive hyperbole? I'd suggest re-reading the derailment into how everyone who plays different (ie, outside the bubble of AoS narrative scenarios) are bullying jerks futher-up this thread again if you can't believe that people happily take sides and extreme positions.

samael
16-10-2015, 07:32
it's a shame that we are losing this over a new edition...

I respectfully disagree on this point.

Not a new edition, a new game, that killed the official support for my old game , that I did like. Which pissed me off to no end.

ik0ner
16-10-2015, 09:37
Some people here needs thicker skin, and to try to be less hypocritical. We're all just expressing our opinion on a game, don't make it personal.

Sephillion
16-10-2015, 14:38
Lol - last time I checked I didn't see the news flash that announced you was crowne some new emperor of gaming!

I actually can't believe someone would have such a deeply flawed view - just because you don't like it how dare you belittle others that enjoy the gAme, for shame sir

I of the things I hold dearest about our hobby is the fact that we have an inclusive crowd - for the most part - it's a shame that we are losing this over a new edition...

It’s like someone actually, actively preferring Lada to Ferraris. Except the Ladas they like have a higher price tag than the Ferraris.

Or more like someone saying he thinks Sharknado is superior to the Godfather. I mean, they certainly ARE entitled to their opinion…

I just don’t understand, and the arguments baffle me.

Herzlos
16-10-2015, 14:57
I loved Sharknado. I'd totally watch it over The Godfather. But I'd never pretend it was actually a good film.

philbrad2
18-10-2015, 20:11
Think this ones run its course

PhilB
:chrome:
+ =I= + WarSeer Moderation Team + =I= +
WarSeer Posting Guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines)
The WarSeer FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php)
The WarSeer Moderation/Posting/Forum guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)