PDA

View Full Version : How I enjoy playing Age of Sigmar without using a points system



akai
17-11-2015, 00:19
DISCLAIMER: Many people don't like AoS game rules for valid reasons. That is fine with me. This post is not to convince/persuade those people to like the rules. I explain in this post how I play and enjoy AoS without the need of a formal comp/points systems. This does not work if you and your opponent don't want to communicate with each other.

Models and units relative strength is something I would like to personally analyze in the future. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed playing Age of Sigmar games without the use of points. How I have enjoyed playing Age of Sigmar is based on gaming etiquette that I think most people should know and/or learned as a child. This post list how I enjoyed the game and, based on my experiences with the game, how I planned to introduced Age of Sigmar to my nephew and niece (they wanted to play Age of Sigmar since they saw me unpacking my miniature collection from storage).


Play Warhammer Age of Sigmar (AoS) as an entirely new game that uses the same models that are used for Warhammer Fantasy (Fantasy). If I want to play a game similar to Fantasy, I can try Kings of War or just play 8th edition. My nephew and niece have not played Warhammer Fantasy or any other competitive tabletop war games.
Start playing AoS with someone you never play against with small forces only. There are over 400 pages of warscrolls at the release of AoS. This is good as it allows people to immediately play the game with most of the miniature collection they have accrued for previous editions of Fantasy. This is bad for a new game that basically have no restrictions to what you can field. For my nephew and niece, I was going to let them start playing with a starter box-like army--1 general, 1 wizard, a unit of 10 close combat infantry, and a unit of 10 long range infantry. They look at my model collection for the 15 classic Fantasy armies and pick which group of miniatures they found to be aesthetically pleasing to them.
Play several games with the same army and discuss with your opponent about game balance. Adjust armies based on discussion. For example, the player that loss more games gets to add more models/units to their army (or the player that won majority of the games leave some models/units out of their army). For my nephew and niece it does not matter if one of them won with better tactics or with a stronger army. The one that loses more get to add models/units. For example, after 2-4 games playing with the same army:

Both of them won the same amount of games, both of them get to add more models or another unit to their army.
If one of them lose more games to the other player, then the player that lose more gets to add more models/unit to their army.

Instead of increasing the size of your armies and playing the same battleplan, sometimes we choose to play different battleplans with relatively even armies (based on the past games we have played). Or we start back at point #2 for different battleplans.

de Selby
17-11-2015, 00:53
Seems reasonable. As total newcomers, how do they feel about the rules? Are there rules they think are particularly cool? Are there rules that seem unreasonable to them? Do you ever hear 'That's not fair!'?

akai
17-11-2015, 01:36
Seems reasonable. As total newcomers, how do they feel about the rules? Are there rules they think are particularly cool? Are there rules that seem unreasonable to them? Do you ever hear 'That's not fair!'?

Hmm, my nephew and niece have not been on a losing streak long enough to where they feel the need to say "that's not fair" :D. They just seem happy to be pushing miniatures, rolling dice, and making up reasons for why they did not kill someone or someone got a save. They have been playing frequently D&D cooperative board games, but this is kind of the first time they play something competitively against each other. Either ways, they just started, I will see how it pans out for them in another month or two.

Dosiere
17-11-2015, 04:17
I still don't understand why balance is the main objective here. It's always going to be somewhat subjective unless you are using an agreed upon system (like points) before the game.

Why not just embrace AoS for what it is and let people play with what they want to?

Also, the system you are talking about really only works in a very small group, where one person has the ability to make some decisions and be sort of a judge. What you are describing is how I set up games with my son or people that had never played the game before for instance, usually in my garage or dining room table. Doesn't really make sense in the club for casual play.

Khaines Wrath
17-11-2015, 07:49
While I think this is a nicely constructed and pleasant instruction thread for casual games with family and friends I have my doubts on its effectiveness in any other kind of gaming environment.

I'm glad you, your niece and nephew are having a good time though :)

jtrowell
17-11-2015, 10:09
Balance is not always subjective, if I come with a force composed of 10 goblins and you come with 50 goblins, or 10 chaos warriors, I dont need to be a professionnal game designer to see that someone got an advantage.

It's true that it might be hard work to fine-tune the balance, but that's supposed to be part of why we buy a game from a professionnal rather that making all the rules ourselves.

With no points costs, AoS is at best a "do-it-yourself" game where you have to finish the work yourselve (not unlike ikea furniture) but with the additionnal problems of having some rules that simply don'twork like they should (sudden death, mesuring from the models rather than the base, ...) that are similar to lacking some piece in your ikea kit or having something that doesn't fit where it should.

If you buy some bookshelf that you have to not only assemble like you would with ikea but also have to do some rather basic work like cutting the main planks yourself without even having the exact dimensions given (lack of points cost or other balancing system) and in addition your have some piece that don't fit correctly or are broken in the package (sudden death, mesuring model to model while ignoring the base, ....) then it's not a very good product. Can you make something decent from it ? Sure, if you are somewhat competent and have acess to the needed tools, you should manage, but why should you do the work that the manufacturer should have done and fix his mistakes yourself ?

2DSick
17-11-2015, 10:16
I guess that's fine for beginners but I'm still not sold personally. It's still missing meat around the bone (wierd analogy inbound) even with its plethora of scenarios.

It does appear to be a very useful tool as far as presenting an unintimidating (inventing words now) entry game into wargames in general.

Nice to hear your niece and nephew are enjoying wargaming so far.

TheLionReturns
17-11-2015, 13:34
I have wondered whether AoS is aimed at customers like the OP. I started with GW games in the 90's and many of my peers have young families that are getting to an age where they show an interest in the games. AoS, with its shorter and simpler rules is probably accessible at a younger age. Also it seems to lend itself to an experienced "gamemaster" overseeing the setting up of the game to help come up with interesting and balanced scenarios. The process the OP describes is also suitable for small, stable gaming groups. If the majority of GW's customers play in such groups or are looking for a game to play with their families then it may be quite suitable for the role, despite not being what many of us on Warseer were looking for.

akai
17-11-2015, 14:17
I still don't understand why balance is the main objective here. It's always going to be somewhat subjective unless you are using an agreed upon system (like points) before the game.

Why not just embrace AoS for what it is and let people play with what they want to?

Also, the system you are talking about really only works in a very small group, where one person has the ability to make some decisions and be sort of a judge. What you are describing is how I set up games with my son or people that had never played the game before for instance, usually in my garage or dining room table. Doesn't really make sense in the club for casual play.

I don't understand what aspect of AoS you think I am not embracing. We are playing with what we want :). I agree, this is something that works best with small groups. I only play in a small group (3 friends). But this does not need a judge (my nephew and niece need some guidelines since they are new to gaming). It only needs common gaming social etiquette between the two players competing against each other. I'm not sure about you, but this is something a child even knows how to do-the player winning more gets a handicap, the player losing more gets an advantage. Now do people actually want to follow this etiquette is up to them. I'm lucky enough to have a small group that can enjoy the game by following a simple etiquette.

pox
17-11-2015, 15:09
I don't understand what aspect of AoS you think I am not embracing. We are playing with what we want :). I agree, this is something that works best with small groups. I only play in a small group (3 friends). But this does not need a judge (my nephew and niece need some guidelines since they are new to gaming). It only needs common gaming social etiquette between the two players competing against each other. I'm not sure about you, but this is something a child even knows how to do-the player winning more gets a handicap, the player losing more gets an advantage. Now do people actually want to follow this etiquette is up to them. I'm lucky enough to have a small group that can enjoy the game by following a simple etiquette.

You are correct, AoS really only works with a small group that plays all the time. I find it takes several games to find balance with two armies, or two players. It does work after a while, it's just not very accessible for casual or pick up games.

akai
17-11-2015, 15:37
You are correct, AoS really only works with a small group that plays all the time. I find it takes several games to find balance with two armies, or two players. It does work after a while, it's just not very accessible for casual or pick up games.

I think it is very accessible for casual games with people you will play and communicate with regularly (weekly game nights for me). It's very unwieldy for pick up games where there is no communication/dialogue between the players on how to play it the next time.

HelloKitty
17-11-2015, 16:03
Casual has different meanings to different people.

Pick up games though are pretty universal and I agree AoS is not cut out for pick up games because you have to determine what scenario, balancing mechanism, etc to use and a lot of people don't want to do that, they just want to roll in, unpack, pick an opponent, play the universal standard, and go home.

MLP
17-11-2015, 17:02
Casual has different meanings to different people.

Pick up games though are pretty universal and I agree AoS is not cut out for pick up games because you have to determine what scenario, balancing mechanism, etc to use and a lot of people don't want to do that, they just want to roll in, unpack, pick an opponent, play the universal standard, and go home.

You know when I was a younger war gamer I can't remember anyone wanting to play games like that. Everything was always around trying out this cool new unit you've built, or trying out a cool scenario from white dwarf.

This tournament style norm I only noticed when I returned to hobby about the end of seventh edition. That's all anyone ever plays.

Personally I think AoS, and they way the OP plays is a step in he right direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
17-11-2015, 17:27
You know when I was a younger war gamer I can't remember anyone wanting to play games like that. Everything was always around trying out this cool new unit you've built, or trying out a cool scenario from white dwarf.

This tournament style norm I only noticed when I returned to hobby about the end of seventh edition. That's all anyone ever plays.

Personally I think AoS, and they way the OP plays is a step in he right direction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I started out it was pretty casual too. The tournament mindset in my area became dominant around the late 90s. Late 5th edition fantasy. That was the turning point here. From that point things changed to be primarily about competition and only using the best, and that has not died out since. Coincidentally that was also when Magic became such a huge professional esport.

How the OP plays is kind of how I started as well but that was in the late 80s.

AoS is definitely against the grain in terms of what we as a whole consider a "normal game" now.

Dosiere
18-11-2015, 03:20
I don't understand what aspect of AoS you think I am not embracing. We are playing with what we want :). I agree, this is something that works best with small groups. I only play in a small group (3 friends). But this does not need a judge (my nephew and niece need some guidelines since they are new to gaming). It only needs common gaming social etiquette between the two players competing against each other. I'm not sure about you, but this is something a child even knows how to do-the player winning more gets a handicap, the player losing more gets an advantage. Now do people actually want to follow this etiquette is up to them. I'm lucky enough to have a small group that can enjoy the game by following a simple etiquette.

I am referring to the part of the rules which don't balance it. It's really just fine as long as you don't care. Obviously the makers feel it plays best with a certain amount of imbalance, and I am inclined to agree. It plays best when balance is simply not really an objective of the game, at least if you're playing it RAW. My favorite games of AoS were when that overriding desire for balance was thrown out the window and we just played the damn game the way it was written. Well, at least 99% how it is written, base humping is dumb after all.

I also think you missed the entire point of my post. I wasn't saying your system doesn't work. Thank you for saying I have less sense than a child though. My point -again- is that the idea that you can play games over and over using the same armies and opponents until you find a balance makes very little sense in a LGS setting, irrespective of how much you fawn over each other before a game. If that kind of balance is your goal in AoS, and it sounds like it is, why in the world would you not just use one of the great comp packs out there? That way you can mix it up sometimes! Feeling you need to playtest every build against specific armies every time you want to play a different force seems terrible. It's unwieldiness has nothing to do with etiquette.

Khaines Wrath
18-11-2015, 03:39
It could also be said that punishing people for playing well and rewarding those who aren't isn't so much a balancing tool but a whole new can of worms to further unbalance the existing game. It seems like AoS is difficult enough to balance without then adding a vaguely quantified handicap system.

I've never been a fan of handicaps, even as a child. Its much more rewarding to earn a win knowing it's from getting better and by utilising your existing tools to overcome something previously difficult. I say this simply because having a losing streak isn't necessarily an indication that you don't have the tools to win but it could be a sign that your not utilising what you have in the most optimal manner.

I experienced this when I returned to the hobby and started playing High Elves. Which was hard because I was used to playing Night Goblins. My friend who was my sole opponent had Skaven and we both knew what the other had. Initially I had terrible losses, I had one game where I kid you not I only managed to slay 2 clanrats and a rat ogre. But you learn from your mistakes, you experiment with new combinations and in my case I managed to start winning games or at least make my opponent pay a heavy price for his wins.

akai
18-11-2015, 06:16
I am referring to the part of the rules which don't balance it. It's really just fine as long as you don't care. Obviously the makers feel it plays best with a certain amount of imbalance, and I am inclined to agree. It plays best when balance is simply not really an objective of the game, at least if you're playing it RAW. My favorite games of AoS were when that overriding desire for balance was thrown out the window and we just played the damn game the way it was written. Well, at least 99% how it is written, base humping is dumb after all.

I also think you missed the entire point of my post. I wasn't saying your system doesn't work. Thank you for saying I have less sense than a child though. My point -again- is that the idea that you can play games over and over using the same armies and opponents until you find a balance makes very little sense in a LGS setting, irrespective of how much you fawn over each other before a game. If that kind of balance is your goal in AoS, and it sounds like it is, why in the world would you not just use one of the great comp packs out there? That way you can mix it up sometimes! Feeling you need to playtest every build against specific armies every time you want to play a different force seems terrible. It's unwieldiness has nothing to do with etiquette.

You are still fixated that what I wrote is focus mainly on balance. What i wrote is not needing points to have enjoyable games. Since you clearly have fun with just putting whatever you want, I don't think we are disagreeing that points are required to have fun? Unless you just want to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing. I'm glad you enjoyed some AoS games even though you think it is a terrible game.

It seems you took offense and assume that I said you have less sense than a child. I wrote at the beginning of the sentence "I'm not sure about you..."; nevertheless, if you actually think it requires a judge/GM to have fun and communicate with your opponent about the next match, then yes I indeed think you have less sense of etiquette than a child! As for your comment about "playtesting" every build...please reread my first post again.


It could also be said that punishing people for playing well and rewarding those who aren't isn't so much a balancing tool but a whole new can of worms to further unbalance the existing game. It seems like AoS is difficult enough to balance without then adding a vaguely quantified handicap system.

I've never been a fan of handicaps, even as a child. Its much more rewarding to earn a win knowing it's from getting better and by utilising your existing tools to overcome something previously difficult. I say this simply because having a losing streak isn't necessarily an indication that you don't have the tools to win but it could be a sign that your not utilising what you have in the most optimal manner.

I experienced this when I returned to the hobby and started playing High Elves. Which was hard because I was used to playing Night Goblins. My friend who was my sole opponent had Skaven and we both knew what the other had. Initially I had terrible losses, I had one game where I kid you not I only managed to slay 2 clanrats and a rat ogre. But you learn from your mistakes, you experiment with new combinations and in my case I managed to start winning games or at least make my opponent pay a heavy price for his wins.

The "advantage" and "handicap" suggested by me is not changing rules in the game. And I agree that what I suggest is not so much a balancing tool. As for people thinking its a "punishment," I would think of this as making it more challenging (like ramping up the difficulty in a video game). A player continuing losing who thinks he/she can win without need to adjust their army...nothing wrong with that either. If they are having fun, more power to them!

You lose a match. You talk to your opponent and say "hey, I think I can beat you with this same army, I want a rematch!" Or you can say "hey, can I play against that same army again and switch or add a unit to try to counter it?" Or heck, "let's both play different armies!" All of them are okay with me.

Dosiere
18-11-2015, 19:31
Ok man have fun continuing to misunderstand things and taking things out of context.

akai
18-11-2015, 20:20
Ok man have fun continuing to misunderstand things and taking things out of context.

Dosiere -- hmmm. I guess you misunderstand my posts. Have fun continuing misunderstanding things and taking things out of context too!

Leogun_91
18-11-2015, 20:39
I have played 8th edition games without points (though rarely, modding from pts is IMO easier than modding without them) and have enjoyed them but I have not been able to do so with AoS. I don't like the kind of tactics AoS is played with but the points is not the main reason for me.

Commodus Leitdorf
19-11-2015, 12:21
Honestly from what little I've played with the game the points are not as important as one would think. I mean the only reason for points is to judge the relative strength of a model/unit vs another. But, honestly, taking the approach of "if everything is OP nothing is OP" is an....interestng way of doing it.

I just think what people want is a structure in which to build armies. I mean list building is a thing, people enjoy list building but without a structure it's kind of pointless. I just wish they'd implement a sort of Warband system with some limit on it so we have a way in which to build armies and such.

Spiney Norman
19-11-2015, 14:08
Honestly from what little I've played with the game the points are not as important as one would think. I mean the only reason for points is to judge the relative strength of a model/unit vs another. But, honestly, taking the approach of "if everything is OP nothing is OP" is an....interestng way of doing it.

I just think what people want is a structure in which to build armies. I mean list building is a thing, people enjoy list building but without a structure it's kind of pointless. I just wish they'd implement a sort of Warband system with some limit on it so we have a way in which to build armies and such.

That is true, that hours I used to spend squeezing every last point out of my list, shifting things around on battle scribe etc.

pox
19-11-2015, 14:49
That is true, that hours I used to spend squeezing every last point out of my list, shifting things around on battle scribe etc.

I really miss doing that. especially with battlescribe, working a tweaking a list for any given theme. I also used it to build starter, mid size, and massive armies so I could plan out my purchases. Once I was done with the lists I'd go to the background books and sketch out my conversions for magic items and banners, and figure out the color scheme and flesh out the background for the army. (I paint ridiculously fast, so once I was done with the planning stage it usually only takes a month to model and paint up a 100 infantry and some centerpieces.)

I tried it with AoS, I have a few ideas for armies that I want to make but it's hard to skip the first stages, haha. Army lists are a great way to build the bones of any given list.

Folomo
19-11-2015, 19:16
This is something I hadn't cosidered before, but having a goal really helped to motivate me into painting my skellies and statues. Without a goal, I find it difficult to just start painting random models. This is probably why I haven't painted anything GW-related in the last 6 months :(.

pox
19-11-2015, 19:39
The last army I did was Kult of Speed and a engineer based imp guard army. (royal engineers and sappers, not enginseers.)

For the Kult of Speed all I needed was to have 500 points to start, and then add 250 points every two weeks. The trick was to add bigger stuff like Battlewagons, I had to paint a little more then the end goal of 1850. In order to pain 60 boyz, 5 trukks, 15 warbikes, a battlewagon and a warboss on bike in that period of time I had to carefully plan out the army list and paint order to get it all done in time.

For the imp guard I needed to convert chaos cultists back to grimy guardsmen (my tunnel rats,) and paint up 65 guardsmen, three command units, a chimera, a leman russ, 10 bullgryn, and a wall of martyrs imperial defense network. (Bunker, imperial defense emplacement, imperial defense line, 2 vengeance weapon batteries.)

Both armies are fun to play, the Orks win more then the Guard. (I've never won with the guard, I need more mobile troops, haha.) Both were themed, and people enjoyed playing them.

The idea was to use the Guard in the last round of the escalation league, so I painted all that up in 8 weeks and was happy with two shiny new armies.

I just don't know how to do that with AoS. I have an idea of a Bacchus themed dark Forrest army with a Demon prince (Bacchus,) treemen, dryads, forrest goblins, beasts of chaos, and a few terrain pieces. It's a good idea, but how many of what do I model up? whats effective, whats fluffy, is it too strong? is it too weak? I'm not saying I can't just grab some boxes and go, I figured out the basic force just looking at boxes on the GW website. I guess I'm just saying that I'm used to the structure of an army list to start out.

I guess I could do the same, just make three armies that are small, medium, and large each adding a little of each component of the army. I just really miss the old way I guess, and feel a bit lost with no direction. The main issue of AoS is exactly HOW important the other player is, what he thinks is fair, what he brought, and how it meshes with what I have. It's a lot easier to use an army list rather then wait to play someone with a finished army to know if they're compatible.

akai
19-11-2015, 20:25
I guess I could do the same, just make three armies that are small, medium, and large each adding a little of each component of the army. I just really miss the old way I guess, and feel a bit lost with no direction. The main issue of AoS is exactly HOW important the other player is, what he thinks is fair, what he brought, and how it meshes with what I have. It's a lot easier to use an army list rather then wait to play someone with a finished army to know if they're compatible.

For ease to play pick up games, does your local area not have a group (or have friends) that still plays 8th Edition, 9th Age or Kings of Wars? Keep the miniatures on square bases and you can use them for multiple different game systems and not just for AoS. Use the comp systems of other games or Age of Sigmar fan-comps as "guides" to collecting/paint your army? When i started my project to build/paint small forces for all 15 armies in 8th Edition :shifty:, I did so taking into consideration that they were "legal" for play. With no points in AoS, it was somewhat liberating in which I just chose to compose war parties that looks aesthetically pleasing to me.

pox
19-11-2015, 21:07
For ease to play pick up games, does your local area not have a group (or have friends) that still plays 8th Edition, 9th Age or Kings of Wars? Keep the miniatures on square bases and you can use them for multiple different game systems and not just for AoS. Use the comp systems of other games or Age of Sigmar fan-comps as "guides" to collecting/paint your army? When i started my project to build/paint small forces for all 15 armies in 8th Edition :shifty:, I did so taking into consideration that they were "legal" for play. With no points in AoS, it was somewhat liberating in which I just chose to compose war parties that looks aesthetically pleasing to me.

I sadly got out of WHFB at seventh edition, When I started playing again instead of getting into 8th edition I got into the swing of 40k again as rumors of AoS were already abound. This was right at the end of End of Times. I also only have the option to play at a GW store, as the other gaming store options in my area are abominations that should only be spoken of in careful whispers. This means both 9th age and KoW are both off the table as fantasy options.

Spiney Norman
19-11-2015, 22:41
This is something I hadn't cosidered before, but having a goal really helped to motivate me into painting my skellies and statues. Without a goal, I find it difficult to just start painting random models. This is probably why I haven't painted anything GW-related in the last 6 months :(.

I totally agree, last year I did a Warseer tale of painters for the first time and the goal setting really got me motivated to get my army painted. On the other hand saying because the system has no points values you have no motivation to paint is a bit odd, just set your own goals for how much you want to paint each week/month.

pox
19-11-2015, 23:04
I totally agree, last year I did a Warseer tale of painters for the first time and the goal setting really got me motivated to get my army painted. On the other hand saying because the system has no points values you have no motivation to paint is a bit odd, just set your own goals for how much you want to paint each week/month.

For me it's not a lack of points exactly, just no structure at all to "guide" the painting process. I suppose it's what they wanted. You just peruse the shelves and website, pick a box, paint it, play it.
even with a core concept it would be a case of "buy the beginnings of the army idea, paint it, play it."

I just find with no real unit options, nothing to fiddle with on characters, and no army comp, its just less entertaining to shop then it is to build an army list. They even took away mounts, so no more deciding who is riding in a chariot, or on a dragon, or a screaming bell. You also can't put a character in a unit to lead them, so although you can make a unit of red painted Stormvermin led by Queek Headtaker, there's still nothing except "dude in a unit."

I suppose the counter is you are free to model up anything you want, I bought a stonehorn for a conversion so I can just cover it with clan moulder packrats and field it with no confusion. There's just no bones to fit the guts in. I can see how that sounds weird, so maybe it's just an adjustment of perspective. I do miss making lists though.

Be right back, gonna go make a Moulder Stonehorn!

akai
20-11-2015, 02:12
For me it's not a lack of points exactly, just no structure at all to "guide" the painting process. I suppose it's what they wanted. You just peruse the shelves and website, pick a box, paint it, play it.
even with a core concept it would be a case of "buy the beginnings of the army idea, paint it, play it."

I just find with no real unit options, nothing to fiddle with on characters, and no army comp, its just less entertaining to shop then it is to build an army list. They even took away mounts, so no more deciding who is riding in a chariot, or on a dragon, or a screaming bell. You also can't put a character in a unit to lead them, so although you can make a unit of red painted Stormvermin led by Queek Headtaker, there's still nothing except "dude in a unit."

I suppose the counter is you are free to model up anything you want, I bought a stonehorn for a conversion so I can just cover it with clan moulder packrats and field it with no confusion. There's just no bones to fit the guts in. I can see how that sounds weird, so maybe it's just an adjustment of perspective. I do miss making lists though.

Be right back, gonna go make a Moulder Stonehorn!

You still have unit equipment choices within a warscroll and you still have optional mounts for heroes. They are usually listed on different warscrolls. Is the stonehorn conversion supposed to be a corpse that the pack rats are swarming all over or something like a stoenhorn abomination? Either one sounds very neat.

Commodus Leitdorf
20-11-2015, 13:39
Like I mentioned, you don't NEED points to give structure. But you need something to be a baseline which all people can at least agree on is the standard way to play. In 8th the standard game was 2000pts, that was the accepted basic size of a Warhammer army to play the game out of the box. It was only after we had that established baseline that we could start negotiating with our opponents, play test and come to the agreement that maybe 2250pts is better for tournament play....or heck, even 2500pts.

Now, as I said, you don't really need points to do that. Points are just the way they were done previously and, well, old habits die hard. Though, as I said, that free ability to take ANYTHING can give quite a bit of creative freedom and the gaming philosophy of "Everything is OP nothing is OP" does work, I mean Magic The Gathering is pretty big on that but even in that case there are rules to how you can structure your deck (number of cards, limit to 4 of one type of card....unless that's changed I haven't played Magic is a while). But you still need the structure and once you figure that out we, the players, can list build and break the game as we have always done.

The Lords of War format in Canada is as follows
6-10 Warscrolls
80 Wound Total hard cap
30 Wound Scroll cap
1-4 Heroes (with a 20 wound total Hard cap)
0-2 Monster
0-2 Warmachines

Okay, so now you have a structure to build an Army list. I myself started to plan one and it actually made it easier to to get excited about building/painting an army so much so that I started on one.
Trouble with not having a basic structure that is official is that its hard to get people go with one if it is not "Official". Once you have SOMETHING however its far easier for people to except tweaks to it after sufficient play testing on our part as players to determine if it is good or not. Even the above system had changes to it after play testing (specifically the Warscroll wound total jumped from 20 to 30 after it was realized that Horde units like goblins and such really needed numbers to be effective)

pox
20-11-2015, 13:50
stonehorn abomination with a packrat howdah is what I'm thinking. I have a few other big monster kits I bought for bits, I'll just stitch 'em together!

CountUlrich
20-11-2015, 14:00
Like I mentioned, you don't NEED points to give structure. But you need something to be a baseline which all people can at least agree on is the standard way to play. In 8th the standard game was 2000pts, that was the accepted basic size of a Warhammer army to play the game out of the box. It was only after we had that established baseline that we could start negotiating with our opponents, play test and come to the agreement that maybe 2250pts is better for tournament play....or heck, even 2500pts.

Now, as I said, you don't really need points to do that. Points are just the way they were done previously and, well, old habits die hard. Though, as I said, that free ability to take ANYTHING can give quite a bit of creative freedom and the gaming philosophy of "Everything is OP nothing is OP" does work, I mean Magic The Gathering is pretty big on that but even in that case there are rules to how you can structure your deck (number of cards, limit to 4 of one type of card....unless that's changed I haven't played Magic is a while). But you still need the structure and once you figure that out we, the players, can list build and break the game as we have always done.

The Lords of War format in Canada is as follows
6-10 Warscrolls
80 Wound Total hard cap
30 Wound Scroll cap
1-4 Heroes (with a 20 wound total Hard cap)
0-2 Monster
0-2 Warmachines

Okay, so now you have a structure to build an Army list. I myself started to plan one and it actually made it easier to to get excited about building/painting an army so much so that I started on one.
Trouble with not having a basic structure that is official is that its hard to get people go with one if it is not "Official". Once you have SOMETHING however its far easier for people to except tweaks to it after sufficient play testing on our part as players to determine if it is good or not. Even the above system had changes to it after play testing (specifically the Warscroll wound total jumped from 20 to 30 after it was realized that Horde units like goblins and such really needed numbers to be effective)
Thay system doesn't balance anything. When you want to run your night goblin or state trooper army, and your opponent wants to play his legion of pheonix guard what happens? All 3 are single wound models, but phoenix guard destroy the others.

Now it doesn't have to be a whole army, that obviously is an argument taken to an extreme ... but a game where a unit or two of PG equals a unit or two of night gobbos is an inherently unballanced shi1tfest.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

akai
20-11-2015, 14:21
Thay system doesn't balance anything. When you want to run your night goblin or state trooper army, and your opponent wants to play his legion of pheonix guard what happens? All 3 are single wound models, but phoenix guard destroy the others.

Now it doesn't have to be a whole army, that obviously is an argument taken to an extreme ... but a game where a unit or two of PG equals a unit or two of night gobbos is an inherently unballanced shi1tfest.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

From what i read of Leitdorf's post, he is not talking about balance but structure to making an army. A structure was given so people in his area can think of how to build/construct their war party (and to break the game :D) to play at their local events/gatherings.

CountUlrich
20-11-2015, 14:23
From what i read of Leitdorf's post, he is not talking about balance but structure to making an army. A structure was given so people in his area can think of how to build/construct their war party (and to break the game :D) to play at their local events/gatherings.
I understand and any such system that allows roflstomp imballance inherently sucks is my point .. there are actual games out there that allow for incredible balance ..

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Commodus Leitdorf
20-11-2015, 14:28
Thay system doesn't balance anything. When you want to run your night goblin or state trooper army, and your opponent wants to play his legion of pheonix guard what happens? All 3 are single wound models, but phoenix guard destroy the others.

Now it doesn't have to be a whole army, that obviously is an argument taken to an extreme ... but a game where a unit or two of PG equals a unit or two of night gobbos is an inherently unballanced shi1tfest.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Its not suppose to balance anything, it is just a structure in which to build armies.

See? You just proved my point. Without a structure in how to put the army together its hard to determine if something is OP or not. Like you just said Phoenix guard would destroy a unit of Goblins of similar size we can HAVE this discussion now because we have a frame of reference we both share in which we can determine this.

The way it is now I would simply say "well yeah a unit of 30 Phoenix guard would wreck me...so I'll take 100 Night Goblins with Bows and just hang back and wreck you." In which you can just take 100 Phoneix Guard...and then the whole thing falls apart.

I'm not advocating one way is better then another or that this is a system we should all use. I'm just saying we need SOMETHING and Its possible to do without points. If its broken then we go to the (now barren) tactics section and discuss "How do I deal with X?" and we can discuss it. But without that Basic army building structure we don't have much.

akai
20-11-2015, 14:36
I understand and any such system that allows roflstomp imballance inherently sucks is my point .. there are actual games out there that allow for incredible balance ..

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

The only imbalance would be due to player choices. Out of 500+ warscroll options, a composition for what you are allowed to bring for the gathering/event games, and the competitive player that wants to play chose to pick 30 inferior unit versus 30 elite unit!? That is an issue of the player not the game or the comp :D.

CountUlrich
20-11-2015, 15:23
The only imbalance would be due to player choices. Out of 500+ warscroll options, a composition for what you are allowed to bring for the gathering/event games, and the competitive player that wants to play chose to pick 30 inferior unit versus 30 elite unit!? That is an issue of the player not the game or the comp :D.
Wrong. A swordmaster is not worth the same as a greatswordsman. A crossbowman is not worth an elven archer. You can't use wound totals and claim any sortnof balance or good design in the game.

Points CAN balance a game. GW never did a great job of it (some would say on purpose, to push sales of certain things), but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Kings of War does a great job of balance with points. Malifaux does a bloody magnificent job of it.



Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Commodus Leitdorf
20-11-2015, 15:53
Kings of war certainly does balance their game with points. But in all honesty they kinda of do that by making all the units pretty much the same across all armies. There certainly are differences, but the differences are minor (at least with my experience with it).

No two wounds are equal but how those wounds interact with others is an important part of list building in a structure like that. A Greatsword is not the equal of a Swordmaster but not by much. Greatswords hit on a 4+, Swordmasters on a 3+ but if the Greatswords are within 14' of a Free Peoples Hero...lets say an Empire General, they get +1 to hit so now the Greatswords are the Equal of the Swordmasters (stat wise save bravery). But if they are within the 15" of the Empire General HE can use the "Hold the Line" ability and now the Greatswords hit and wound on a 2+....effectively making them better then the Swordmasters. So now in my list building it makes sense to have a big unit of 30 Greatswords and a General for a total of 35 wounds and I still have 45 more wounds to allocate. and since there are really no restrictions on what I can take, heck I can take Swordmasters too.

as I said, it's just a structure. If Everything is OP, nothing is OP is an....inelegant way of doing it but it can work.

akai
20-11-2015, 16:13
Wrong. A swordmaster is not worth the same as a greatswordsman. A crossbowman is not worth an elven archer. You can't use wound totals and claim any sortnof balance or good design in the game.

Points CAN balance a game. GW never did a great job of it (some would say on purpose, to push sales of certain things), but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Kings of War does a great job of balance with points. Malifaux does a bloody magnificent job of it.

Points ABSOLUTELY CAN balance a game. I am not disagreeing with you. I don't think I or anyone in this thread (pro and anti-Aos) claims wound totals is used to balance games. What the wounds total did was provide structure for a group of players to construct an army for an event/gathering.

What did I exactly wrote that is wrong to you? The competitive player that choose to fight with an inferior unit against and elite unit!? The person is not obligated to choose an inferior unit against an elite unit. No one is saying one player is obligated to play only with Goblins and the other player can only play with High Elves, etc. etc. THAT IS A PLAYER'S CHOICE. Now the competitive player can look at the structure that was provided to them and choose from the many options the most optimal unit. Let's just say Phoenix Guard is the best unit. Both players can choose Phoenix Guard. There! You have a balanced game. There is no restrictions I assume to say only one person can use Phoenix Guard and other cannot.

Now, a more legitimate point to make is that fun for you? To each their own! If you want to say, I want to play a game where the comp allows my choice of Goblins to have a balance fight against Phoenix Guard...sure, the comp of using total wounds would not work for you. Or if you want to say, I want all my original fantasy armies, regardless of how I choose my units to have a balance fight...sure, that comp of total wounds wold not work for you.

Kahadras
20-11-2015, 16:26
as I said, it's just a structure. If Everything is OP, nothing is OP is an....inelegant way of doing it but it can work.

It's not really inelegant, it's just feels plain lazy TBH. GW have taken the hardest thing, IMO, in game design and said 'you sort it out'. Now GW can come up with anything they like and don't have to give a damn about how good or bad the unit is or how it works with everything else in the game because that's down to the players to sort out. What's the next step? Is AoS 2nd edition just not to have any rules at all?

Commodus Leitdorf
20-11-2015, 18:01
It's not really inelegant, it's just feels plain lazy TBH. GW have taken the hardest thing, IMO, in game design and said 'you sort it out'. Now GW can come up with anything they like and don't have to give a damn about how good or bad the unit is or how it works with everything else in the game because that's down to the players to sort out. What's the next step? Is AoS 2nd edition just not to have any rules at all?

Oh it is lazy, I was just trying to be diplomatic with my language. That's sort of the point though, isn't it? That's the game design they went with. "If Everything is OP, Nothing is OP" do what you want. They didn't make a Wargame they made an RPG game with a very loose ruleset

Problem is is that I don't think anyone HAS done that before and, from the look of it, is not what veterans wanted nor is it a popular enough idea to stand on it's own. It needs structure of some kind to work which is why there are so many comps/points systems out there trying to do it. Without a basic way to play a "Standard Mission" game its hard to talk about in any way.

I could tell you about the last 3 games I played but its not about who won. Who Won in Age of Sigmar is irrelevant. What you need to know is that in the first game we played I failed to destroy the realm gate, which lead to reinforcements that my opponent put to use in the NEXT game we played. In that game his extra unit of Leadbelchers manage to shoot and kill my Empire General, which lead me to roll on a wound table my friend and I came up with on our own (for fun). That lead to him being "Concussed" and loosing use of his Command Ability for the last game. A last game which had reinforcements on my side come in and kill his General leading to a Wound roll that lead to him losing one movement for the next time we play.

Now that sounds like an RPG session far more then a wargame.

Kahadras
20-11-2015, 18:30
I could tell you about the last 3 games I played but its not about who won. Who won in Age of Sigmar is irrelevant.

I think this highlights the problem that stems from this laziness and that's the fact that, without balance, the game itself kinda breaks down. Winning and losing become irrelevant so AoS becomes less of a game and more of an interactive story time. Now that isn't a bad thing in and of itself but I can understand why people would not be happy with this kind of product having come to it from Warhammer which was a war game. Not a great war game mind you, but a war game none the less.

akai
20-11-2015, 19:18
Problem is is that I don't think anyone HAS done that before and, from the look of it, is not what veterans wanted nor is it a popular enough idea to stand on it's own. It needs structure of some kind to work which is why there are so many comps/points systems out there trying to do it. Without a basic way to play a "Standard Mission" game its hard to talk about in any way.


I have not look at each comp system in-depth, and am not someone that plays in tournaments on a frequent basis, but I think with how there are so many different comps/points systems already made that it actually can be good in the long run for AoS gamers. If Azyr Comp, Clash Comp, PPC, Lords of War, etc. etc. are each very different structurally, a group of players can alternate on a monthly or bi-monthly schedule of Age of Sigmar games. For example, the hobbyist collects miniatures as part of his/her army hopefully because he likes the models. The FLGS or gathering of friends decides on a comp/structure to play AoS games for the next week or month or two months (switching out for different comps/structure for your forces). From your army collection, you select a war party that fits that comp/structure. Hmm, maybe I should make a new topic about this.

Vladyhell
21-11-2015, 14:54
After many games played and many comps and balance factors tried I can honestly say the best games I've played have been ones where we just played what we want without restriction.These games have been the most fun and nearly always the closest fought.

Cybtroll
23-11-2015, 16:10
Well, I've got the same issues with my friend, but in the end I found a way to create different game anytime we play.

Basically, I'm using a scenario generator that, regardless of point, measure somehow the two armies and suggest an interesting battle.

It's here, but I'm currently playtesting it. Feedback appreciated.

tiny.cc/aos_scenario

akai
23-11-2015, 17:11
Well, I've got the same issues with my friend, but in the end I found a way to create different game anytime we play.

Basically, I'm using a scenario generator that, regardless of point, measure somehow the two armies and suggest an interesting battle.

It's here, but I'm currently playtesting it. Feedback appreciated.

tiny.cc/aos_scenario

Thanks for the link! Suggested or recommended scenarios depending on what each player decides to bring sounds like a good idea to alleviate some of the cumbersome aspects of pick up games in AoS.

Cybtroll
23-11-2015, 18:58
Thank you for the nice words. But I think this was the most straightforward solution, given the fact that AoS since the beginning as been introduced as a "scenario-game"
I think that, if it's true, then you have to find balance into scenario picking... and not somewhere else :)