PDA

View Full Version : How can this possibly work? AOS Tournament Details



Holier Than Thou
16-10-2015, 12:56
I have just seen the below post in the AOS Fans Only thread, I've quoted the whole thing but have highlighted the sentence that has confounded me.


That's sound cool. I may come up with a narrative campaign like this sometimes.

Tomorrow, a local shop here will hold an AoS tournament which will end in 1 night.
You may find the rules here is simple and easy to use.
The game can last 15 min to 45 min.
No point or comp required.

Rules

General Rules

No proxy.
All models must be painted (By painted means that at least sprayed the base is ok.)
In case of summoning, reinforcement, etc., you cannot summon model or unit that was not include in your army from the beginning. (i.e. can only summon slain units or unit that is prepared to be summoned and was not placed in the battlefield at the beginning.) When summon the slain unit, all model in that unit must be slain first.
No model from different faction allowed to be included in the same army. (Faction is according to WH AoS app. i.e. Skaven and Skaven Pestilens is different faction.)
The battlefield takes place in one of the realm listed in Time of War rules or can be plain battlefield. 48" x 48" size is preferred.
The game can use any Battleplan rule or any home-brew rule. Objective siege is preferred because it will encourage combats rather than shooting or magic abuse.
Each Army can consist of Hero Slots and Unit Slots shown below.


2 Hero Slots


1 Model with HERO Keyword without WIZARD/PRIEST/MONSTER keyword with 5 or less wounds
1 Model with WIZARD/PRIEST without MONSTER Keyword (may include HERO keyword) with 5 or less wounds

- If the model has more than 5 wounds, it takes 2 slots (i.e. can use only 1 model)
- If the model includes MONSTER keyword, it also takes 2 slots

5 Unit Slots
- All warscrolls will have the text that say "A unit of <UnitName> has X or more models." We will say this unit is "X-model Unit".
- For 3-model unit, you can take up to 3 models. For 5-model unit, you can take up to 5 models. For 10-model unit, you can take up to 10 models.
- In all cases, no unit can consist of more than 30 wounds.


2 Units of 3-Model and/or 5-Model Unit.

(i.e. only 3 combinations: 3 Models and 3 Models, 3 Models and 5 Models, 5 Models and 5 Models)


3 Units of 10-Model Unit. If the units are from the same warscroll, you can combine unit as you which.

(e.g. 3 units of 10 models each, 2 units of 15 models each, 1 unit of 10 model each, etc.)



If your faction does not have 10-model unit (such as Stormcast Eternal and Skaven Pestilens), then the following rules apply.
- For 3-model unit, you can take 3 to 5 models for a unit.
- For 5-model unit, you can take up to 5 models for a unit.


2 Units of 3-Model and/or 5-Model Unit
3 Units of 5-Model Unit

(i.e. In total, you can have 5 units of 5-Model Unit if you want)



- Again, if the units are from the same warscroll, you can combine any unit if you want.

Warmachine Slots

No warmachine slot for this rule.


I may post mini battle report here if it's interesting enough.



How can you have a tournament where ANY HOUSE RULE can be used? Surely anyone can then say "We have a house rule that let's me do whatever I want. I win."

Am I the only one who finds this odd?

WarbossKurgan
16-10-2015, 13:03
It also says "no comp required" then lists a fairly complicated comp system.

I would guess that the rules are summarized (with errors) from memory, not quoted from the tournament rules pack verbatim.

Herzlos
16-10-2015, 14:10
I assumed a typo - The game cannot use any Battleplan rule or any home-brew rule

Pojko
16-10-2015, 14:25
I find it amusing that there's about a page of limitations and guidelines spelling out what you can and cannot do when Age of Sigmar is supposed to be the simple and easy to play game. Looks like you really have to tell players how to play so both sides have a chance of having fun. In any other edition of Fantasy you might just see a points limit and whether or not you can use special characters.

Holier Than Thou
16-10-2015, 14:30
I assumed a typo - The game cannot use any Battleplan rule or any home-brew rule

But then it says "Objective siege is preferred" I assumed objective siege (seize?) is a battle plan rule, which would mean it's not a typo.

Herzlos
16-10-2015, 14:35
I assumed Objective Siege/seize was just a scenario/objective from the main rules.

And I agree - that's a lot of comp for an event. The events for other games have been just point limits and in the case of Bolt Action "500pts. No vehicular flame throwers" and that was it.

Dosiere
16-10-2015, 19:55
Meh, the game is really not designed for anything resembling a typical wargame tournament. The comp system simply curbs the most ridiculous things possible. It essentially attempts to use a refined version of a warscroll limit.

Personally I think AoS is more fun played without all these restrictions and without caring how balanced it is. I think playing pitched battles in general with AoS is a whole lot of "meh". Even this system doesn't make it balanced enough for me to care who wins or loses. Doesn't mean it can't be fun, but in a tournament it should matter (ie be part of the fun), so why even try? I don't know.

Playing through a series of scenarios in a campaign or something is where this game actually shines compared to other systems.

The only thing I can think of would be to just have mirror matches with specific scenarios if you want to pretend like AoS is worth doing a tournament for.

Niall78
16-10-2015, 20:25
Playing through a series of scenarios in a campaign or something is where this game actually shines compared to other systems.


I'd be interested in hearing compared to what systems and for what reasons does it shine?

I feel this is another AoS canard. Every tabletop game I've ever played involved scenarios and campaigns - the systems were designed or capable of allowing such play. The clearer and more robust the rule-set the better the campaigns and scenarios in most cases.

MOMUS
16-10-2015, 20:30
Surely anyone can then say "We have a house rule that let's me do whatever I want. I win."
Am I the only one who finds this odd?


I I find it odd that you would think anyone would think like that.

Holier Than Thou
16-10-2015, 20:36
I I find it odd that you would think anyone would think like that.

It's a tournament, the purpose of playing in a tournament (not a campaign, a tournament) is to win. Why wouldn't somebody who wants to win take advantage of the possibility to make stuff up that would help them win?

Niall78
16-10-2015, 20:45
It's a tournament, the purpose of playing in a tournament (not a campaign, a tournament) is to win. Why wouldn't somebody who wants to win take advantage of the possibility to make stuff up that would help them win?

If they did this would they be considered to be "forging the narrative"?

Holier Than Thou
16-10-2015, 21:09
If they did this would they be considered to be "forging the narrative"?

Maybe they can describe why ​they always win. BOOM! Narrative forged.

Thommy H
16-10-2015, 21:12
English obviously isn't the first language of the person whose post is quoted. Are you sure this is worth a topic?

Niall78
16-10-2015, 21:21
English obviously isn't the first language of the person whose post is quoted. Are you sure this is worth a topic?

The comp in the first post really isn't an issue - there are dozens of bad comp systems available on-line already. Add this one to the list.

A discussion on why AoS is great for scenario or campaign play as against other systems I'd find very interesting though. So this thread might have some use yet.

Holier Than Thou
16-10-2015, 21:29
English obviously isn't the first language of the person whose post is quoted. Are you sure this is worth a topic?

It may not be their first language but they are obviously quite fluent. I doubt someone who is as fluent would confuse 'can' with 'cannot' so, yes I think it is worth a topic asking how you could run a tournament which allows participants to make up their own rules.

MOMUS
16-10-2015, 21:53
Why wouldn't somebody who wants to win take advantage of the possibility to make stuff up that would help them win?

You obviously have never been to a warhammer tournament.

Dosiere
16-10-2015, 22:12
I'd be interested in hearing compared to what systems and for what reasons does it shine?

I feel this is another AoS canard. Every tabletop game I've ever played involved scenarios and campaigns - the systems were designed or capable of allowing such play. The clearer and more robust the rule-set the better the campaigns and scenarios in most cases.

First, I'm assuming you haven't tried either any linked scenarios or attempted to create or play in a campaign event for AoS. I don't blame you, the game probably isn't worth trying that far for most people. But at least I can say from experience that in these situations AoS is a much better game than trying to make it a skirmish version of WFB, which is where it sucks the most.

I played through most of the scenarios from the starter and the first book, and I was surprised by how much better the game was. The game is potentially the worst pick up game/fast casual/pitched battle/tournament game there is out there, but it's simple nature and skirmish style combined with the huge number of models available means you can have some interesting scenarios.

In my case, I also kept tabs on a small campaign set in the old world with AoS rules. It was essentially a warband/escalation league using I think azyr comp. I didn't play in it, but I saw how it went down and again it was a vast improvement over playing AoS WFB style.

One thing it is really missing is a character/unit advancement mechanism. The old world campaign mentioned borrowed heavily from some campaign rules designed for a much older edition of fantasy, can't remember but I think it was from a white dwarf or two, and maybe 5th edition or very early 6th.

WFB 8th doesn't scale well, at all. Things get weird at low point values and you are better off playing a skirmish ruleset at that point. It also is hard to balance also, probably more unbalanced than AoS is with a decent comp packet at low point values. WFB Has a sweet spot around 2-3k points, get outside of that and it doesn't behave right. 1k in particular is a mess. Probably the biggest weakness I saw in 8th and WFB in general, it just didn't have a great way to get started small.

Also, the cumbersome rank n file system, perfect for massed battles, didn't always translate well to a small campaign where you wanted to start with forces around 20 ish models to a side. Or small clashes in a campaign outside of the big battles. AoS has the opposite problem, but at least it plays normally at small levels.

With 8th edition GW didn't even bother putting a simple skirmish system in place like they did for 6th. So yeah, I think 8th edition WFB was awesome at playing large massed battles but crap at smaller ones where often forces are going to be unbalanced a way, like in a campaign. The fact that it CAN be used in a campaign doesn't matter to me, since you could say the same thing AoS and tournaments. By your own logic AoS should be considered a contender for competitive leagues, since any system can be comped until it's balances enough for that kind of play.

Holier Than Thou
16-10-2015, 22:18
You obviously have never been to a warhammer tournament.

You're right, I've never been to a Warhammer tournament. I've played in a helluva lot of football tournaments though and I know me and everyone I've played with and most of the people I played against would do everything we could to win, within the rules. According to the post I quoted, it's within the rules to make up your own rules.

Niall78
16-10-2015, 23:01
First, I'm assuming you haven't tried either any linked scenarios or attempted to create or play in a campaign event for AoS. I don't blame you, the game probably isn't worth trying that far for most people. But at least I can say from experience that in these situations AoS is a much better game than trying to make it a skirmish version of WFB, which is where it sucks the most.

Nope only six games played using a mix of old WFB armies. Watched a dozen or so others and was then involved in a club decision to test Kings of War over retaining our comped 8th. The AoS rule-set left me cold - I didn't find an interesting game there. Most games are better when played with scenarios and a well run campaign in even the worst system is great fun. I'm sure if I played AoS scenarios I'd find the game more interesting and rewarding but with most games the same would apply.


I played through most of the scenarios from the starter and the first book, and I was surprised by how much better the game was. The game is potentially the worst pick up game/fast casual/pitched battle/tournament game there is out there, but it's simple nature and skirmish style combined with the huge number of models available means you can have some interesting scenarios.

Personally I think if the game can't handle the pick up game/fast casual/pitched battle/tournament game it isn't really suitable for scenario or campaign play. Both are the same game with added complexity and flavour going into the later. It's very hard to build a campaign without a balancing structure. Without once what was hard work - building a sustained long term campaign - becomes an unsolvable puzzle.


In my case, I also kept tabs on a small campaign set in the old world with AoS rules. It was essentially a warband/escalation league using I think azyr comp. I didn't play in it, but I saw how it went down and again it was a vast improvement over playing AoS WFB style.

That brings up another issue with scenarios and campaigns in AoS - the fluff is paper thin. There is little to hang any narrative scenarios or campaigns on. Some here have said they are playing AoS with the Old World setting. Not surprising since although there is a lot published we know little of the setting.


WFB 8th doesn't scale well, at all. Things get weird at low point values and you are better off playing a skirmish ruleset at that point. It also is hard to balance also, probably more unbalanced than AoS is with a decent comp packet at low point values. WFB Has a sweet spot around 2-3k points, get outside of that and it doesn't behave right. 1k in particular is a mess. Probably the biggest weakness I saw in 8th and WFB in general, it just didn't have a great way to get started small.

Agree 100%. I've complained of the scaling in WFB and 40K many times here. GW try to shoehorn too much into the one system. Instead of having a skirmish, battle and epic game for each setting they push ideas from all these scales into the one 28mm game. Both WFB and 40k need an entry level game - heroquest or Space Crusade type games - then three properly scaled games with coherent rules and ideally a campaign system to top it all off.


Also, the cumbersome rank n file system, perfect for massed battles, didn't always translate well to a small campaign where you wanted to start with forces around 20 ish models to a side. Or small clashes in a campaign outside of the big battles. AoS has the opposite problem, but at least it plays normally at small levels.

I agree again. WFB wasn't a skirmish type game. There was no reason why GW couldn't publish a skirmish rule-set in the main WFB rule book except laziness. It was better to let the player base have a frustrating time comping the main rules or having a bad experience playing the game at the wrong scale.


With 8th edition GW didn't even bother putting a simple skirmish system in place like they did for 6th. So yeah, I think 8th edition WFB was awesome at playing large massed battles but crap at smaller ones where often forces are going to be unbalanced a way, like in a campaign. The fact that it CAN be used in a campaign doesn't matter to me, since you could say the same thing AoS and tournaments. By your own logic AoS should be considered a contender for competitive leagues, since any system can be comped until it's balances enough for that kind of play.

Any game will need to be comped for campaign play to a certain extent. I think it comes down to the level of comp needed. All campaigns require hard work. Having a solid rule-set with at least a semblance of balance is the foundation stone of any campaign. If you can't balance a pick-up game you can't balance a scenario or campaign.

Spiney Norman
16-10-2015, 23:45
I I find it odd that you would think anyone would think like that.

It's the classic conservative fallacy, it says that if you give anyone even a modicum of freedom in any area they will instinctively abuse it to the uttermost - "give them an inch and they will take a mile". It's why the British Conservative party fundamentally believes that everyone who draws social security benefits is playing the system and is actively trying to not get a job, when the reality is that most people on income support would prefer to be working and earning their own money if they could find a job.

Because apparently the only logical course is to think the very worst about everyone all the time.

The deal is that choosing your army in AoS is just too much freedom for some folks to handle

Bloodknight
17-10-2015, 02:06
It's the classic conservative fallacy, it says that if you give anyone even a modicum of freedom in any area they will instinctively abuse it to the uttermos

If you think that's a always a fallacy, try balancing an online game :D. These people exist. You write a new rule, 5 minutes later they will poke a hole into that ruleset and go to the max within the letter of the rules. A lot of gamers have a problem distinguishing between the letter and the spirit of the rules.

Voss
17-10-2015, 02:35
If you think that's a always a fallacy, try balancing an online game :D. These people exist. You write a new rule, 5 minutes later they will poke a hole into that ruleset and go to the max within the letter of the rules. A lot of gamers have a problem distinguishing between the letter and the spirit of the rules.
Not at all. It is actually the opposite. They are fully aware there is a difference, and they've been taught that spirits should be crushed utterly, as they're likely to be servants of Sauron.
If something is breakable, it is the fault of the designer for being lazy, especially with GW games.

That said, for most people, extreme abuses are thought experiments to prove the worth of a game system. If they're that abusable, they aren't worth playing, and certainly not worth spending money on.

Dosiere
17-10-2015, 02:49
Well Niall I agree that this games inability to cater to pick up gamers makes it a bad one. It's the primary reason I don't play AoS, and I have zero intentions of ever doing so, although who knows what future releases or rules changes will bring.

Nevertheless, at its best I did see some potential in AoS for a slick little skirmish game, albeit one that caters only to a certain kind of game. If GW releases some legit campaign books to make it easy to run a campaign or two at least AoS might find a little niche.

Their refusal to use a sensible balancing mechanic is something that would have to change though for someone like me to pick it back up. I really want to know who at GW thought model count was the way to go, what a stupid move. Goodness, at least use wounds, at least. sigh....

Niall78
17-10-2015, 11:03
If you think that's a always a fallacy, try balancing an online game :D. These people exist. You write a new rule, 5 minutes later they will poke a hole into that ruleset and go to the max within the letter of the rules. A lot of gamers have a problem distinguishing between the letter and the spirit of the rules.

I was an admin for four years on the Jihad Era Megamek server.
I've ran multiple campaigns for multiple RPG and tabletop games. There's always a small minority of gamers in any format that need to be restrained with tight rules. Otherwise they'll try to break the game. Such is human nature.

Urgat
17-10-2015, 11:19
I'd be interested in hearing compared to what systems and for what reasons does it shine?

That's pretty easy:
Friends come for a drink, look at the minis:
Hey, that's cool, is that a game?

Case 1: AOS.

a) Two hours later, the players are playing the second game of a campaign.
b) they didn't enjoy the game and are back to having a drink.

Case 2: other game.

Two hours later, the guests have long aknowledged that it looksinteresting and asked if they can borrow the book so they can try a game next time they come. In any case, they aren't going through a narrative campaign anytime soon. Fort the time being, they're now back to chatting around a drink.

Bloodknight
17-10-2015, 11:28
There's always a small minority of gamers in any format that need to be restrained with tight rules.

Yeah, I tried a more RPG-y approach on MMNet 3025 for a while, but it doesn't really work. You always have a few guys who do their best to make the game a worse experience for everyone.


If something is breakable, it is the fault of the designer for being lazy,

Yeah - no. I would love to agree, but it's incredibly difficult to create a watertight ruleset. Even lots of playtesting doesn't really solve many of the problems because you often don't know which variable the players will break next, and the dune shifts all the time. We get data from roughly 10K games played every year, and balancing the game is still difficult.

Assuming that GW playtests in-house (which they do) and conventionally by playing the tabletop game, they won't have that kind of data and they have a ton more variables to think about that a few dudes trying to balance a campaign wrapper for a game that's quite balanced (if you stay inside one era).


Nevertheless, at its best I did see some potential in AoS for a slick little skirmish game, albeit one that caters only to a certain kind of game.

I think it's built to play scenarios.

Ben
17-10-2015, 11:48
Yeah, I tried a more RPG-y approach on MMNet 3025 for a while, but it doesn't really work. You always have a few guys who do their best to make the game a worse experience for everyone.



Yeah - no. I would love to agree, but it's incredibly difficult to create a watertight ruleset. Even lots of playtesting doesn't really solve many of the problems because you often don't know which variable the players will break next, and the dune shifts all the time. We get data from roughly 10K games played every year, and balancing the game is still difficult.

Assuming that GW playtests in-house (which they do) and conventionally by playing the tabletop game, they won't have that kind of data and they have a ton more variables to think about that a few dudes trying to balance a campaign wrapper for a game that's quite balanced (if you stay inside one era).



I think it's built to play scenarios.

AoS shows no effort to make a tight rules set. There are still basic questions that need answering about the rules, and the debate between what the designer may have wanted to achieve and the rules as written.

That there has been no FAQ or 1.1 version in the last four months shows how much effort GW is putting into the AoS rules.

Niall78
17-10-2015, 12:00
Yeah, I tried a more RPG-y approach on MMNet 3025 for a while, but it doesn't really work. You always have a few guys who do their best to make the game a worse experience for everyone.


We had great RPG-y events on Legends. But as you say some people will always try to gain any advantage they can within the rules as laid down. Balance is also a bit nebulous. Often times what some players perceived as a lack of balance or rules for certain parts of the campaign was - not to put too fine a point on it - a lack of skill playing the game on their part. There were a small minority though who actively tried to break the game - most didn't. Many top players would moderate their behaviour when playing weaker guys. They'd chose difficult factions to play - like Periphery States. We had a story section where many players submitted fiction pieces based on games or campaign meta - published on our own website and the main Battletech one. We had players who played in a completely fluff way disregarding the most efficient builds - one Federated Suns play played nothing but armour for instance - not efficient in Battletech especially when fighting on both blind maps and random opponents. The top players got together and wrote a two hundred page tactics primer for new players that is one of the best game aids I've ever seen for new to advanced players.

But there are always a few who'll take the rules to the edge in an attempt to win. Hence the constant chase for tight rule-sets to moderate and minimise such behaviour.

Bloodknight
17-10-2015, 12:02
You should probably send your questions via snail mail. I'm not kidding.

Niall78
17-10-2015, 12:05
That there has been no FAQ or 1.1 version in the last four months shows how much effort GW is putting into the AoS rules.

Most games companies will post rules clarifications within hours of questions being posed in the FAQ section of their website. Errata and rules changes follow on from that kind of fan interaction.

Waiting four months (or years) for basic questions to be answered is now almost solely an advantage of engaging with a GW product.

Ben
17-10-2015, 12:07
I've done similar. In B5W I'd play the low tech factions (and even designed a couple). In Acta:Star Fleet everyone said the Gorn couldn't win because of lack of manueverability, so I took them to a national tournament and took 1st place.

In Warhammer I played goblins and Southlands, because there is no point playing a game if you aren't playing it on hard mode. But in age of sigmar, there is no evidence of an attempt to write a tight rules set. Why should I invest time in a big mess the company don't care enough about to do an FAQ?

Niall78
17-10-2015, 12:21
I've done similar. In B5W I'd play the low tech factions (and even designed a couple). In Acta:Star Fleet everyone said the Gorn couldn't win because of lack of manueverability, so I took them to a national tournament and took 1st place.


Never played B5W or Acta:Star Fleet but I assume like Battletech the core game is well balanced. So with skill even weaker factions and units have a use due to low balancing costs. All you need to do is unlock the tactics involved with such a faction and play well. It's what keeps games interesting in my opinion. Playing Battletech with a highly buffed Federated Suns or Clan force against a weaker opponent can be fun for me but playing Periphery intro tech units against Jihad Era high tech units while giving the weaker player 20% extra points had a challenge and hence fun factor that blows the first scenario out of the water.

Geep
17-10-2015, 13:21
It's the classic conservative fallacy, it says that if you give anyone even a modicum of freedom in any area they will instinctively abuse it to the uttermost - "give them an inch and they will take a mile"...
Because apparently the only logical course is to think the very worst about everyone all the time.
The issue with having the basic rules of a tournament be completely open is not solely due to jerks. What is an obvious houserule to one guy is quite possibly weird to their opponent, and you can't expect the players to discuss, in detail, all of their assumptions about how the game should play- especially since some critical things will inevitably be forgotten.
For example, I'd never consider giving a unit on a flat-topped hill a cover bonus- especially not in close combat- but that happens. It's a problem when I think up the tactics, consider the statistics, and declare a charge- only to be blindsided by my opponent's interpretation of the rules being different from mine. No one needs to be 'wrong' for problems to arise.


But at least I can say from experience that in these situations AoS is a much better game than trying to make it a skirmish version of WFB, which is where it sucks the most.

I played through most of the scenarios from the starter and the first book, and I was surprised by how much better the game was. The game is potentially the worst pick up game/fast casual/pitched battle/tournament game there is out there, but it's simple nature and skirmish style combined with the huge number of models available means you can have some interesting scenarios.

...

One thing it is really missing is a character/unit advancement mechanism. The old world campaign mentioned borrowed heavily from some campaign rules designed for a much older edition of fantasy, can't remember but I think it was from a white dwarf or two, and maybe 5th edition or very early 6th.

It makes perfect sense that this is the best way to play AoS. It's usually the best way to play any game. It's kind of like saying it's a game best suited to groups of close-knit friends- of course it is! Any game tends to be at its peak under those conditions.

I will never understand why AoS wasn't just a Mordheim re-release (with expanded warband options, and a higher potential warband growth level). Great introductory game with ~20 models or less per side? Yes! Uses Warhammer models? Yes! Simple rules? Yes! Is full of fun scenarios and great campaign play? Also yes!
Mordheim was excellent, and could easily scale up into a full Warhammer army (using the same models). Warband rules even existed back then, providing a bridge from Mordheim to the 1000pt Warhammer level.

MOMUS
19-10-2015, 08:02
There's always a small minority of gamers in any format that need to be restrained with tight rules. Otherwise they'll try to break the game. Such is human nature.

Are you claiming AoS was intentionally designed to purge WAAC jerks from the fantasy scene? :shifty: :D

Niall78
19-10-2015, 08:46
Are you claiming AoS was intentionally designed to purge WAAC jerks from the fantasy scene? :shifty: :D

Has AoS got tight rules?

Herzlos
19-10-2015, 08:59
Are you claiming AoS was intentionally designed to purge WAAC jerks from the fantasy scene? :shifty: :D

That's the only thing going for it.

Acephale
19-10-2015, 09:27
It's the classic conservative fallacy, it says that if you give anyone even a modicum of freedom in any area they will instinctively abuse it to the uttermost - "give them an inch and they will take a mile". It's why the British Conservative party fundamentally believes that everyone who draws social security benefits is playing the system and is actively trying to not get a job, when the reality is that most people on income support would prefer to be working and earning their own money if they could find a job.

Because apparently the only logical course is to think the very worst about everyone all the time.

The deal is that choosing your army in AoS is just too much freedom for some folks to handle

It's the classic "progressive" fallacy - thinking that most people actually are decent, hard working and honest, while in reality the majority of humans tend to choose the path of least resistance. This trait actually follows simple evolutionary logic and has gotten us pretty far as a species; in any environment, those who choose to make it harder for themselves tend to lose out.

So if a ruleset allows easy "abuse" (easy ways to win), most people will "abuse" it in some way or another. They don't have to admit it, even to themselves, but they'll do it nonetheless.

I know this fact doesn't sit well with some people's idealistic/ideological view on life, but then on the other hand, idealists never tend to like empirical facts or logic that much. For example, it's rather contradictory to claim that on the one hand, AoS lack of tight and balanced rules is not an issue because people are basically decent and honest and will play like gents, while at the same time claiming that it's "just to much freedom for some folks to handle".

Lissė-Prime
19-10-2015, 11:00
That's my post.

The tournament was for a local store. The expected number of players are no more than 10.
That store is the one who determine what map rules/battleplan are to be used. Not players.

So that sentence simply means that there is no specific battleplan or house rules at that moment.
On the match day, they will select a set of rules they see fit. (Each match can use different battleplan, randomly select).

Sorry for confusing.

As for how good the rule is? After I tried a few times, it's not good at all.
It's complicated and restrictive and still let some armies abuse the rules.

So for the bigger tournament (remember that I mentioned for a local store only), we need more balanced rules.

But I don't like the idea to have points at all, that's why I play AOS and don't hate it.
IMO, points are not relevance because the way warscrolls and battalions is written are more complicated than just apply points to a single model.
Wounds are not relevance because if restricted, the army with less wounds (Skaven, Elves) will be overpower.

I think there are 2 ways to easily enforce balance in this game with no complicate rule.

1. Limit area. Such as "An army must be able to fit in an A4 paper".
The idea behind this is that in AOS, the larger models tend to be more powerful than smaller one.
Combine with hero limit, it may be good enough to start the game.
I tried this at a larger scale and in most cases, it's balance enough.
But in small game I doubt it will be balance or not.

2. Pay2Win.
Many (haters or not) said that AOS needs player to buy more and more model in order to win.
So let's put that in play.
Each player have a budget of GBP100 or whatever and build your army as if you're shopping from GW Website.
If you want to build a unit from a battalion, you have to buy entire battalion box.
If you buy a starter set (such as AOS starter set or Island of Blood), you have to spend the price of that box but only get one faction (because the price seemed to be cut in half.)
And that you should have a balance game.

I post this while trying to find ways to play without "going back to 8th edition" or "use point system" or "blame the GW staff".
So what are you thinking about the rule I purposed? Let's discuss.

Spiney Norman
19-10-2015, 13:46
It's the classic "progressive" fallacy - thinking that most people actually are decent, hard working and honest, while in reality the majority of humans tend to choose the path of least resistance. This trait actually follows simple evolutionary logic and has gotten us pretty far as a species; in any environment, those who choose to make it harder for themselves tend to lose out.

So if a ruleset allows easy "abuse" (easy ways to win), most people will "abuse" it in some way or another. They don't have to admit it, even to themselves, but they'll do it nonetheless.

I know this fact doesn't sit well with some people's idealistic/ideological view on life, but then on the other hand, idealists never tend to like empirical facts or logic that much. For example, it's rather contradictory to claim that on the one hand, AoS lack of tight and balanced rules is not an issue because people are basically decent and honest and will play like gents, while at the same time claiming that it's "just to much freedom for some folks to handle".

Well absolutely, the 'fallacy' in both cases is thinking that everyone is the same, of course there are people out there that play the system and sponge off benefits (but probably a lot fewer than the conservatives think) and likewise there are plenty of people out there who want to work hard and contribute towards society (but again, possibly less than the progressives think). Similarly there are gamers out there who abuse the rules of any game they play to the max and enjoy doing it AND there are gamers who prefer a moe casual, even-handed game where both they and their opponent can enjoy the ride. When you start playing games against people regularly it doesn't take any time at all to spot which variety someone is.

I don't see it as a problem to have a game which caters to one of those philosophically opposed groups rather than the other, if your find that your view is more 'conservative' than 'progressive' then you probably want to be spending your attentions on something like KoW or x-wing rather than AoS or 40k.

Pojko
19-10-2015, 15:22
I will never understand why AoS wasn't just a Mordheim re-release (with expanded warband options, and a higher potential warband growth level). Great introductory game with ~20 models or less per side? Yes! Uses Warhammer models? Yes! Simple rules? Yes! Is full of fun scenarios and great campaign play? Also yes!
Mordheim was excellent, and could easily scale up into a full Warhammer army (using the same models). Warband rules even existed back then, providing a bridge from Mordheim to the 1000pt Warhammer level.

Their paranoia and obsessiveness about their IP was the downfall of WHFB. Because if they don't have exclusive rights to produce generic fantasy models for things like humans, elves, dwarves and undead, then the setting must be destroyed so that no one can profit! Mordheim was far too "generic" to risk letting other companies make... regular humans in regular clothes.

monkey10120
19-10-2015, 17:19
When I have a golfing tournament my house rules are that I can roll a D6 after I swing. On a 2+ I can retake the shot if I didnt like it and the first shot doesnt count. Also if I wear the fancy cap with the fluffy ball on top I can immediately make a 10ft move with my ball before I swing each of my turns.

My opponents can do nether of those rules so it makes it a fair and skilled tournament.

Ben
19-10-2015, 22:56
It's the classic "progressive" fallacy - thinking that most people actually are decent, hard working and honest, while in reality the majority of humans tend to choose the path of least resistance. This trait actually follows simple evolutionary logic and has gotten us pretty far as a species; in any environment, those who choose to make it harder for themselves tend to lose out.

So if a ruleset allows easy "abuse" (easy ways to win), most people will "abuse" it in some way or another. They don't have to admit it, even to themselves, but they'll do it nonetheless.

I know this fact doesn't sit well with some people's idealistic/ideological view on life, but then on the other hand, idealists never tend to like empirical facts or logic that much. For example, it's rather contradictory to claim that on the one hand, AoS lack of tight and balanced rules is not an issue because people are basically decent and honest and will play like gents, while at the same time claiming that it's "just to much freedom for some folks to handle".

You shouldn't really accuse other people of not having empirical facts when you don't have any yourself, so lets inject some studies into this.

Much of modern conservative thought it based on Game theory, particularly the developments of it by the RAND corporation in the 50s, and their application to political science. The notion of the zero sum game, and that maximising outcomes for individuals at the cost of others is a fundamental part of human nature, is not something that has been supported by experiments with actual humans.

The issue is that John Nash, while a brilliant mathematician, was a schizophrenic and didn't socialise with other humans the way a neuro typical human would.

While game theory has some uses in biology, applying it to social animals like humans is very problematic.

Here's an introduction to the ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

I take it you are referring to Social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism), which has very little to do with actual Darwinism and is simply a political theory that maximises power in a society with those who already possess it, and is a feature of corporatism (the merger of state and corporate power, called fascism by Mussolini) and neo-liberalism.

A small percentage of the population are sociopaths (3-4% depending on sources) and there are a number of others who are not neuro typical, and Game Theory maps their responses quite well.

The issue with Age of Sigmar as a game in relation to this is twofold:

1) The non-neuro typical members of the community will not act to mutually benefit the community at large by seeking to play fairly and co-operate, exploiting the gaping holes in AoS and the battlescrolls to do so. Wargaming does seem to attract more people who have issues with socialisation than some other hobbies.

2) For people wishing to co-operate and play fairly (the very vast majority), there is no framework to use to help do this, and because everyone is different, there is no common mechanism to achieve this balance. The dozens of different comping systems created by the community are reflective of the desire to co-operate for mutual benefit.

Previously a points system allowed those who wanted to play fairly to set limits and those for whom the only important thing was beating someone else and having a brief moment of not being someone who failed at life to play as evenly as the points system was balanced (and GW games are generally balanced very poorly).

Without a points system it's just anarchy, with every game preceded by a Prisoner's Dilemma type discussion. If GW were smarter I would think the whole thing was a social experiment, but they are just lazy and it isn't.

Red Skullz
20-10-2015, 05:32
Well Niall I agree that this games inability to cater to pick up gamers makes it a bad one. It's the primary reason I don't play AoS, and I have zero intentions of ever doing so, although who knows what future releases or rules changes will bring.

Nevertheless, at its best I did see some potential in AoS for a slick little skirmish game, albeit one that caters only to a certain kind of game. If GW releases some legit campaign books to make it easy to run a campaign or two at least AoS might find a little niche.

Their refusal to use a sensible balancing mechanic is something that would have to change though for someone like me to pick it back up. I really want to know who at GW thought model count was the way to go, what a stupid move. Goodness, at least use wounds, at least. sigh....

They have already released two books which features a running campaign in the evolving story of the new age.

On topic I don't like the comp OP reposted as it's just way too complicated. I quite like this comp format that will be used in Norways National Miniature wargaming tournament.




The comp for the tournament will be as follows:

Army comp

Armies will be drawn from a pool of 30 points where war scrolls will be worth the following:

Hero - 3
Named Hero - 4
Named Hero Monster - 5
Hero Monster - 4
Monster - 3
War machine - 3
*Units with 1 attack per model in base - 1
*Units with 2 attack per model in base - 2
*Units with 4 attack per model in base - 3

*values shown for units is per minimum model number. If you have a unit of 6 models where the minimum number is 5 and they have 2 attacks each in close combat then that unit will be worth 4 pool points. if you have 30 models with 1 attack each where the minimum for that unit is 10 they will be worth 3 pool points.

No terrain in army list. Wood elves may take 1 wood to deploy on the table as they see fit.

Summoning spells are not allowed. summoning done in other ways is allowed but you may only ever summon the minimum model count for that unit. For example, if you use a chaos lords command ability to bring on a unit of chaos warriors then you will get only 10 models. These may have full command and any weapon upgrades you prefer.

Save rolls of 1 is always a fail.

Measuring should be done from the base of the model, not the model itself. Square bases are ok but round bases are preferable.

All players should provide a fully written up army list with detailed listing of unit size and all upgrades on them. Including what war gear they are equipped with.

One model in your army list should be clearly marked as your general.

Scenarios

Each game will be played using objective based missions. Each player will be required to bring 3 objective markers with them, no bigger than 40mm in diameter. Before deployment players should roll off to alternately deploy objective markers on the table at ground level. At least 6 inches from the table edge and at least 12 inches away from each other.

At the end of each player turn, the player whose turn it is counts up how many objectives they hold, players need to be within 3 inches of an objective with a unit of at least 5 models at current strength. If an enemy unit also of at least 5 models is within 3 inches then that objective cannot be captured. Each objective you hold at the end of the turn is worth a tournament point.

You also earn 2 tournament points for killing the enemy general and 2 points for being the first player to destroy an enemy war scroll.

Each game will last just 6 turns.

If you destroy the enemy army before the end of the game, you will be assumed to earn the maximum points remaining possible. For example if you destroy the army in turn 2 you will get the points for all 6 objectives for turns 3 to 6.

Games are won by either completely destroying the enemy or by amassing the most tournament points. Tournament points earned during the match are recorded and used as tie breakers and matchmaking deciders.

The player with the most wins over the 5 games is the winner of the tournament. in the event of a tie, tournament points will be used to decide the winner.

Painting

All models must be painted in at least 3 colours and based with texture paint/sand/grass as appropriate. if models do not meet the judges standard then you will be deducted points from your tournament results.

A best painted competition will be held on the Sunday, nominees will be picked by the judges which will then be voted on by all the players.

First place will gain an extra 10 tournament points
Second place will gain an extra 5 tournament points
Third place will gain an extra 3 tournament points

All players who are nominated by the judges will receive an extra tournament point.



This Comp is by no means perfect as we are still in the early stages of AoS. If i have missed anything or something is unclear then please post in the topic. i will appreciate any helpful and constructive advice. Also keep it positive where possible ;)

Acephale
20-10-2015, 09:32
You shouldn't really accuse other people of not having empirical facts when you don't have any yourself, so lets inject some studies into this.

Much of modern conservative thought it based on Game theory, particularly the developments of it by the RAND corporation in the 50s, and their application to political science. The notion of the zero sum game, and that maximising outcomes for individuals at the cost of others is a fundamental part of human nature, is not something that has been supported by experiments with actual humans.

The issue is that John Nash, while a brilliant mathematician, was a schizophrenic and didn't socialise with other humans the way a neuro typical human would.

While game theory has some uses in biology, applying it to social animals like humans is very problematic.

Here's an introduction to the ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

I take it you are referring to Social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism), which has very little to do with actual Darwinism and is simply a political theory that maximises power in a society with those who already possess it, and is a feature of corporatism (the merger of state and corporate power, called fascism by Mussolini) and neo-liberalism.

A small percentage of the population are sociopaths (3-4% depending on sources) and there are a number of others who are not neuro typical, and Game Theory maps their responses quite well.

The issue with Age of Sigmar as a game in relation to this is twofold:

1) The non-neuro typical members of the community will not act to mutually benefit the community at large by seeking to play fairly and co-operate, exploiting the gaping holes in AoS and the battlescrolls to do so. Wargaming does seem to attract more people who have issues with socialisation than some other hobbies.

2) For people wishing to co-operate and play fairly (the very vast majority), there is no framework to use to help do this, and because everyone is different, there is no common mechanism to achieve this balance. The dozens of different comping systems created by the community are reflective of the desire to co-operate for mutual benefit.

Previously a points system allowed those who wanted to play fairly to set limits and those for whom the only important thing was beating someone else and having a brief moment of not being someone who failed at life to play as evenly as the points system was balanced (and GW games are generally balanced very poorly).

Without a points system it's just anarchy, with every game preceded by a Prisoner's Dilemma type discussion. If GW were smarter I would think the whole thing was a social experiment, but they are just lazy and it isn't.

So wikipedia is considered empirical evidence nowadays? Great, let's link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

No need to bring Social Darwinism, Fascism or any other idological fallacies into the disucssion. Nowhere did I state that people don't tend to cooperate. Actually, most of the time cooperation will be the strategy that offers the easiest and most effective path for humans.

This doesn't mean that people won't abuse an easily-abused system though. Note that I never claimed that system abuse (in gaming or a broader social context) always happen on an individual scale. On the contrary, if you look at online gaming for example you usually find that the worst abusers often tend to cluster together in fringe groups that sometimes even thrive on the shared "outcast" status that the general community ascribe to them.

In wargaming it's a bit different since you usually play as an individual, but powergamers and WAAC types still find each other and exchange information, strategies, and so on through the internet, i.e. they cooperate in order to abuse the system in an easier and more effective way.

As for your last points about AoS, I totally agree.

tmod
21-10-2015, 23:21
So wikipedia is considered empirical evidence nowadays? Great, let's link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_(Internet_culture)

No need to bring Social Darwinism, Fascism or any other idological fallacies into the disucssion. Nowhere did I state that people don't tend to cooperate. Actually, most of the time cooperation will be the strategy that offers the easiest and most effective path for humans.

This doesn't mean that people won't abuse an easily-abused system though. Note that I never claimed that system abuse (in gaming or a broader social context) always happen on an individual scale. On the contrary, if you look at online gaming for example you usually find that the worst abusers often tend to cluster together in fringe groups that sometimes even thrive on the shared "outcast" status that the general community ascribe to them.

In wargaming it's a bit different since you usually play as an individual, but powergamers and WAAC types still find each other and exchange information, strategies, and so on through the internet, i.e. they cooperate in order to abuse the system in an easier and more effective way.

As for your last points about AoS, I totally agree.

This is quickly approaching off topic, but interpreting the Pareto Principle to mean that people will CHOOSE to avoid working and that increased control/penalties on "lazy" workers/social security/(insert other 80% group here) is a gross misrepresentation and does not have any empirical evidence. The Pareto Principle states that the 80/20 relationship is a constant over time, and that there is nothing one can do to avoid this; micromanaging can influence this short term, but the individuals are not fixed in either group, and the overall relationship will drift back, and it's more efficient to improve efficiency through providing incentives to the 20% than to punish the 80%.

That said, I don't think Game Theory supports either viewpoint here either. It's true that the simplest of game theoretic models fail to describe most human beings in several situations (and this has nothing to do with Nash's mental health, there were many others developing the field in the 40s and 50s, but the fact that these were all intended to be simplifications). Already in the 60s people started to develop sophisticated methods to model real world situations, and mixed strategies, Harsanyi transformations, etc can together account for most real world situations. They do not provide solutions to questions of progressives vs conservatives, egotism or altruism, or similar however, it all comes down to the assumptions you enter into the model, and you can model basically whatever you want. See Elster's work for more on what you can and cannot utilise game theory for...

Relevancy for AoS?

You can get all results, from amazing gaming experiences to fist fights (and everything in between) from AoS', erhm, "underdeveloped" rule set, and game theory can easily model them all. Game theory in isolation cannot however say how frequently each 8f these (and any other possible outcome) occur relative to one another. These frequencies are the real qustion we would want an answer to, will AoS be a success or a failure. We won't know for some time, but we do have some indications it's less successful than WhFB was, and also that it sells less than GW was expecting. Not much, but likely all we get until the annual report in the summer of 2017...

Sent fra min GT-I9506 via Tapatalk

Azaireal
22-10-2015, 06:52
The only sad thing about this thread is that for the first time I feel somewhat interested in something AoS had to offer, a debate on sociological studies from last century.

Tournament, "Screw the rules, I have money" should probably be the prevailing attitude.

Go ahead and chain summon greater daemons, use only GW models and they have to be authentic. :)

blindingdark
22-10-2015, 15:28
That's fairly awesome though if you think about it.

"today we are using the house rule of the world before. This rule means all rules are replaced with 8th edition rules!"

Pojko
22-10-2015, 17:44
Tournament, "Screw the rules, I have money" should probably be the prevailing attitude.

What's funny is that a lot of the ridiculous Age of Sigmar rules sound like the nonsense you'd see in Yugioh Abridged.

Not to mention that in this particular tournament you can basically make up rules as you go along and call them your house rules.