Matched Play events. Are Dual lists good or bad for the game?

[Gauche]

19 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Such as?  Right now, armies will always pick a trait or item.  Randomizing it means you can't guarantee you'll get the one you want, and should cut down on building armies specifically to take advantage of certain traits/items that picking them enable you to always make sure you have.  Who would it affect?

Death who are pretty bad without the 5++ Save is the biggest one, and they're already hurting. Many Artefacts are almost intentionally bad, either period or outside of very specific matchups. Traits work the same way, that's why you're allowed to choose so you don't get do-nothings and have a bad experience. 

Why are you in favor of making it so people cannot build lists which work positively with some Traits/Artefacts? I don't understand the positives or the argument for it. Nothing can prevent min-maxing so that's not an upside. This change would just rebalance the game so maybe a few lists drop some, a few others rise. Still clear Tiers, clear winners/losers exactly as we have now.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

[ScottR]

GW's Warhammer World has used several methods for army selections.  With the GHB I've only seen them use one list or a sideboard.   I'm not sure how they have handled summoning though.  I know their LVO pack summoned were from the unfielded pool.  So, two approved by GW.

The only reason one would need a standard set up is for some kind is "Heat" mathches like GW is running this year.  As they are doing eliminations for a finals match between 'the best, of the best'.  Then maybe a standard would be fine.  If there is a set of ITC rules for tournaments even they encourage you to alter the pack to fit your style of event.  Those scores are added to the totals for the year.  IMO a good player/hobby guy shines under any curcomstances.

As for finding out who is the best!  What hogwash.  We use dice to play, skill and list matches may improve success, but we have all had that game where despite the odds, won or lost by dice rolls.

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Gauche said:

Death who are pretty bad without the 5++ Save is the biggest one, and they're already hurting. Many Artefacts are almost intentionally bad, either period or outside of very specific matchups. Traits work the same way, that's why you're allowed to choose so you don't get do-nothings and have a bad experience. 

Why are you in favor of making it so people cannot build lists which work positively with some Traits/Artefacts? I don't understand the positives or the argument for it. Nothing can prevent min-maxing so that's not an upside. This change would just rebalance the game so maybe a few lists drop some, a few others rise. Still clear Tiers, clear winners/losers exactly as we have now.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

Mostly my group was having a discussion about whether we should allow choosing traits/artefacts or make it random to change things up and specifically so you can't "build lists which work positively with some Traits/Artefacts" since some argued that favors min-maxing.  FWIW I play 100% pure Flesh-Eater Courts, so this would have a detrimental effect on me (unless we allowed Ring/Sword of Unholy Power to not require reserve points) and I'm still in favor of it to take some of the edge of of list building.  It's just an idea that was pitched at this point, so I appreciate your opposite viewpoint and apologize if I came off as confrontational

[DarkBlack]

It allows more extreme lists because you can dodge counters that would normally incentivise a more balanced approach.

[deynon]

1 minute ago, DarkBlack said:

It allows more extreme lists because you can dodge counters that would normally incentivise a more balanced approach.

Balance is an option, such as extreme. Wanting to play extrem has to be a choice, not an advantage.

[Gauche]

30 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Mostly my group was having a discussion about whether we should allow choosing traits/artefacts or make it random to change things up and specifically so you can't "build lists which work positively with some Traits/Artefacts" since some argued that favors min-maxing.  FWIW I play 100% pure Flesh-Eater Courts, so this would have a detrimental effect on me (unless we allowed Ring/Sword of Unholy Power to not require reserve points) and I'm still in favor of it to take some of the edge of of list building.  It's just an idea that was pitched at this point, so I appreciate your opposite viewpoint and apologize if I came off as confrontational

No confrontation at all, I just wasn't sure I understood the intent. Overall it would shake things up, any change will do that. My opinion is it woudl harm the game longterm and remove some of the fun/predictability from the game. But that's only my opinion.

[RuneBrush]

14 hours ago, wayniac said:

Such as?  Right now, armies will always pick a trait or item.  Randomizing it means you can't guarantee you'll get the one you want, and should cut down on building armies specifically to take advantage of certain traits/items that picking them enable you to always make sure you have.  Who would it affect?

I think this would work if all of the traits and artefact tables were equal.  Sadly as it currently stands there's quite a few options that are pretty dire - Chaos has one which grants -1 to hit against shooting attacks, which is pretty pointless if you opponent has no shooting as an example 

I also play 40k (though not as much as I do AoS now) and would say that the random warlord ability is one of the bits I really dislike.  Not only could you get an ability that's rubbish, but because it's different every game, you're much more likely to forget it.  Now I know that's not a great argument, but picking does mean you'll get some mileage out of the rule and can use it to build up the character of a model too  

[wayniac]

4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

I think this would work if all of the traits and artefact tables were equal.  Sadly as it currently stands there's quite a few options that are pretty dire - Chaos has one which grants -1 to hit against shooting attacks, which is pretty pointless if you opponent has no shooting as an example 

I also play 40k (though not as much as I do AoS now) and would say that the random warlord ability is one of the bits I really dislike.  Not only could you get an ability that's rubbish, but because it's different every game, you're much more likely to forget it.  Now I know that's not a great argument, but picking does mean you'll get some mileage out of the rule and can use it to build up the character of a model too  

I do agree in a way; I hate random warlord traits in 40k.

[domus]

Glad I wandered into this topic.  I really like this concept.  I  loved the sideboard concept but I hate that it adds some 'time' into the beginning of the game.  This resolves that issue.

[Requizen]

Out of the two, I prefer dual lists for ease of use. People often mess up math when writing lists before an event, let alone when setting up between rounds. 

However, personally I like single-list events. Straightforward, have to put a lot of thought into your TAC list, etc. Less for TOs to track as well.

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Requizen said:

Out of the two, I prefer dual lists for ease of use. People often mess up math when writing lists before an event, let alone when setting up between rounds. 

However, personally I like single-list events. Straightforward, have to put a lot of thought into your TAC list, etc. Less for TOs to track as well.

This brings up a point.  I once asked related to Warmachine why a single-list format would not encourage TAC lists.  The answer I got was that you would just see more hard skews, where people would bring a super skew/spam list and hope that it can't be dealt with.  Do you not think the same would happen in AOS?  Right now you don't really see TAC lists, you see high-power "can you handle this" lists (e.g. 18 skyfires, 12 snakes, mortal wound spam, 4 thundertusks) and very little balanced TAC lists.

[rokapoke]

So, maybe it's just me, but these abbreviations are driving me nuts. What is TAC?

[wayniac]

34 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

So, maybe it's just me, but these abbreviations are driving me nuts. What is TAC?

Take All Comers i.e. balanced list that can handle anything.

[Kuma]

I very much dislike both sideboard and dual list. 

What is the point? makes strong armies stronger, they just avoid the bad matchups. they both add unneeded time and stress to the game.  the few GHB scenarios that stop a powerhouse list from walking over people in tournaments would be trivial, as you would build a list to compete in those formats.

Prevents good all comer lists from being made, you just have to opposite skew.

Bad. 

Bad 

Bad.

[Gauche]

11 minutes ago, Kuma said:

I very much dislike both sideboard and dual list. 

What is the point? makes strong armies stronger, they just avoid the bad matchups. they both add unneeded time and stress to the game.  the few GHB scenarios that stop a powerhouse list from walking over people in tournaments would be trivial, as you would build a list to compete in those formats.

Prevents good all comer lists from being made, you just have to opposite skew.

Bad. 

Bad 

Bad.

Very poor way to look at this. Strong lists won't get that much stronger with a sideboard, AoS doesn't have niche Units for the most part to cover the problems in their game. Weaker Factions, not lists but Factions, would at least have some tactical flexibility in terms of speed, numbers, something. The stronger lists in the game are also typically VERY synergy based, you cannot swap things out easily. The rest are just spamming something that's a bit too good, not swapping out of that either.

I think a sideboard would almost never be used by the strong builds but open things up for other armies. AoS also really has no skews compared to other games, the best you can say is shooting. There's no Armor spam, Wound spam isn't really a thing. What super hard skews are there? Consistent Hit/Wound makes skews a lot harder to create.

[wayniac]

"Strong builds" are already dominating the tournament scene.  A sideboard would allow some ways to deal with that.

[mmimzie]

Single list i think is fine.

If a list out there is so powerful and domiant than you'd simply make your list around beating that or make that list. Making a side army that beats that list defeats the purpose, and then your opponent that does bring the dominant list that good at everything else as well or hell the second best list that probably needs totally different counters.

As it stand right now the game is pretty well balanced. While obviously there are list stronger than others. It is nothing like 40k where list are so crazy good that make bring entire armies completely worthless.

Side boards and duel ls it also take away from the power of summoning... which is the point of the mechanic; out side of hiding fragile stuff.

Sideboards don't solve these issues either, as you can side board you already strong list to ahve side board that make it better against the counter stuff your opponents bring. Plus again it's basically like giving everyone else summoning that always makes it at the start of the game.  On top of this a side board might not even be enough to even counter these list.

When playing competitive MTG back in the day. I remember many people put thier "sidebaord cards" as thier base deck, and the parts of the deck they could cut were in the side board. Becuase deck that were so powerful so as to warrent a special spot in your side board were the meta, and you played your deck against the meta. 

Both ideas increase the barrier to entry for the tournament scene, and mother ideas make the game longer.

TLDR Sideboards and Duel list do nothing to stop power house list. They merely just let you feel like you bring a counter, only to deploy your counter and get counter countered, or don't give you enough space to bring a true counter. Also if list are so prevalent that you want to bring a counter you could have just worked it in your single list to begin with. 

[Galas]

I think the problem comes with the players, not so with the game.

As Wayniac said, players prefer to bring ultra spam armys and probe luck. Compensate their losses with ultra sided victories in their favour. But that has to be expected in a tournament scene. I think that the best form to balance this its playing, with one list, a good number of battleplans that make imposible for a "spam-type" list to be good at all of them.

And if one "spam" list its good in every battleplan, then its a problem of balance in the game!

[wayniac]

16 hours ago, Galas said:

I think the problem comes with the players, not so with the game.

As Wayniac said, players prefer to bring ultra spam armys and probe luck. Compensate their losses with ultra sided victories in their favour. But that has to be expected in a tournament scene. I think that the best form to balance this its playing, with one list, a good number of battleplans that make imposible for a "spam-type" list to be good at all of them.

And if one "spam" list its good in every battleplan, then its a problem of balance in the game!

Unfortunately, GW games aren't exactly known for anything even remotely coming close to "balance in the game" which is why I think that a thing like sideboards, as well as what you suggested as battleplans that don't just let a spam list run rampant are helpful.  For example, wasn't the prime list at Adepticon some absolutely filthy 18 Skyfire list that could just steamroll anyone with sheer volume of shots?  Pure skew/spam designed to maximize on a single thing and hope that anything it runs against can't last.  There isn't much that can deal with that, and I'm not sure what the answer is to combat it.  Even in a tournament, something has to try and bring some modicum of balance to where you don't have a list like that just wipe the floor with everybody.

[Gauche]

9 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Unfortunately, GW games aren't exactly known for anything even remotely coming close to "balance in the game" which is why I think that a thing like sideboards, as well as what you suggested as battleplans that don't just let a spam list run rampant are helpful.  For example, wasn't the prime list at Adepticon some absolutely filthy 18 Skyfire list that could just steamroll anyone with sheer volume of shots?  Pure skew/spam designed to maximize on a single thing and hope that anything it runs against can't last.  There isn't much that can deal with that, and I'm not sure what the answer is to combat it.  Even in a tournament, something has to try and bring some modicum of balance to where you don't have a list like that just wipe the floor with everybody.

I think AoS is actually extremely well balanced outside of one issue: spam. This is the same issue other games I've played run into, either you can bring too many individual somethings or too big a unit of somethings. You see this at work with almost any high end list: Thundertusks, Kunnin' Rukk, Skyfires, Bloodbomb, Kurnoth Hunters etc. Turns out AoS is a very buff/synergy focused game and when you can pile tons of buffs onto one, huge unit that tends to break the game. I'd know, I do it.

Most of the problem units are also ranged units but there are a lot of ranged units that work totally fine in the game, even with the shooting favored rule set. If units were more limited, 20-30man for Infantry, maybe 9 for things like Hunters/Skyfires then you'd see some of that swing back. There'd also need to be some restrictions such as not being able to bring more than X of the same Unit, which doesn't fit in the rules and probably will never come about, but I personally thing would be helpful.

Any miniature games competitive scene is just spamming the most broken thing or taking a huge synergy list with multiple, too good for the game entries. Sideboards and all that help with this and GW has been better with printing specialized entries in the newer books. Ultimately stopping spam is where you really stem the bleeding though, very difficult to have something make it through play testing that breaks the game if you take a single instance of it. Also makes for more varied armies both in terms of play and aesthetics.

Back when I was heavy into Warmachine/Hordes I tried to bring up this same topic but most people are against having purchases invalidated or like spamming. So it will probably just be what it is.

[Criti]

On 3/20/2017 at 4:14 AM, Kaos said:

Being a warmachine player, where you do play with 2 lists standard, I approve of them. I'm not sure it's required. Warmachine has a very rock, paper, scissor approach, so dropping the wrong list can cause from mildly discomfort to a huge frustrating experience. 

See... I've never experienced that in War Machine.  I really believe,  based on personal experiences so take it as you will,  that the "rock,  paper,  scissors view of War Machine is incorrect.  I've won plenty of games that others have deemed "unwinnable" with my caster choice and lost plenty that looked to be "in the bag."

Really,  I find the whole process of dual listing to be a colossal pain in the ass.  Far too many indecisive oponents and opponents who "forgot" certain models were in the other list.  Not to mention the whole concept of match ups.  There is very little more annoying that spending the time on two armies (even with model overlap), and going to an event where you only use 1 list once to satisfy the event criteria, and otherwise exclusively play the other.

Two list format is one of the major reasons I do play War Machine hardly ever these days.  And I don't see myself signing up for any Age of Sigmar event that uses it.

[Gauche]

Warmachine is R/P/S but you always have a shot through Scenario or Caster Kill because of the game rules. You can be in a 70-30 but you can win. It's more about the odds than unwinnable I think, but I agree that two-list doesn't fit AoS very well in my opinion. Warmachine and other games have a lot more niche units, Casters inform your list to be wildly different, things like that.

[Galas]

31 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Spamming is the easiest way to win, as such asking for its removal will often receive a lot of heated debate against it from people that feel that identifying a broken unit and spamming it is a measure of some kind of skill.

I know I've had that debate locally for well over ten years or more and the response I get back against the removal of spamming is that list building is a skill and extreme list building to invalidate other builds is a skill and limitations and restrictions are bad.

Some people just love the mathhammer aspect. For what is worth, to me those kind of people its what ruin the fun. You can see, in videogames its pretty obvius, how the first weeks of a game release all its fresh and new, but at the moment someone post online the "ULTRA WOMBO COMBO 3.000 &Knucles" all the fun go to hell.

And no, I don't have any problem with people doing mathhammer and being ultra competitive and finding the most broken things and using it. But I think we are all adults to accept that: 1- That kind of thing, really, don't require any kind of skill besides the one that find it the first time. And 2- It becomes old fast.

I'm fortunate to have a "big" group of players with the same mindset as myself, narrative before anything else. But I have gonne to """"""""""""casual""""""""""" tournaments to know that the ultra-competitive crow its the mayority out there. And in my opinion thats not a good thing. To me, good competitive players want to test their skill with other players in a engagin experience of back and forth. If all the skill involved in a game its "Well, you haven't picked this units so you have just a 10% to win!". Its that really skill? List-building and carefull measure of distances its not a thing of Skill in my view. 

Its something more apropiate to an architect doing the budget for a building.

[Gauche]

Just now, Galas said:

Some people just love the mathhammer aspect. For what is worth, to me those kind of people its what ruin the fun. You can see, in videogames its pretty obvius, how the first weeks of a game release all its fresh and new, but at the moment someone post online the "ULTRA WOMBO COMBO 3.000 &Knucles" all the fun go to hell.

And no, I don't have any problem with people doing mathhammer and being ultra competitive and finding the most broken things and using it. But I think we are all adults to accept that: 1- That kind of thing, really, don't require any kind of skill besides the one that find it the first time. And 2- It becomes old fast.

I'm fortunate to have a "big" group of players with the same mindset as myself, narrative before anything else. But I have gonne to """"""""""""casual""""""""""" tournaments to know that the ultra-competitive crow its the mayority out there. And in my opinion thats not a good thing.

I agree with most of what you're saying. I think a more skillful game, from a list building PoV, would stomp spam out and force you to find your own builds OR have more room for builds. Spam also removes a lot of the subtle strategy from the game, I actually just wrote a Blog entry about it since this thread had gotten me thinking. :] Playing a competitive army usually takes a lot of skill and that's where the fun comes from, unfortunately having the top armies be spam oriented really hurts that.

Disagree about competitive play being a bad thing but that is an agree to disagree.

[Galas]

No, I don't think that competitive play per se its a bad thing. What I say its that the "competitive" style of gameplay that wargames offer (And some kind of videogames, etc...) its really not a healthy competitive style where your skills are tested against other people. The "List-building" and luck factor has to much wheight to be a good competitive game. 

I don't think that list-building requires any skill at all, if you are not the first guy that do all the math to calculate the most optimal build. Thats why WoW its a bad competitive game but Dark Souls its a good competitive game, because in WoW the numbers are SO important, but in Dark Souls they are just a tiny bit. Skill its the most important thing.

EDIT: I want to add: I like list building and making combos and synergies, and I have no problem with some lists being more potent that others because they use better the tools that that army has. But when the decision its not : I can chose X that its good in those situatios or Y that its good in those other and with my army, but instead its: I can pick 20 of X and just destroy everything. I don't find that really difficult.