Warhammer Legends

[Karol]

On 5/9/2018 at 3:38 PM, syph0n said:

In this instance, we also have the benefit of two systems of play available side by side using the same core rules. I would also like to bet that it wasn't a huge consumption of resources to produce Legends, which lets be honest, is just to help shift old models. 

On 5/9/2018 at 9:37 AM, Jamopower said:

It's also good to always remember, that the points presented in the general's handbooks are designed with the matched play scenarios in mind, and in different kind of scenarios, they might not result to any better balance than using old points or eyeballing.  They are just tools available to players to organize their games.

I am a very new player, but aren't 99,99% games matched played? So being good in narrative games or not having points cost, is as good as not existing at all. 

It's a bit like saying that a card is still ok post nerf in MtG, because it rocks in Vintage, that no one sane plays.

[Melcavuk]

Depends on your gaming circle. I frequented 2 GW stores when I lived down south, one was all about narrative and open, its games nights were packed out with players laughing and having a fantastic time, the other was a matched play kind of atmosphere, far quieter and had alot more net lists rolling through. The idea that narrative or open play encourages broken attitudes is from my experience not true, meanwhile the competitive nature of matched play can (but often doesnt) result in people using net lists to be "good".

[Karol]

How do people actually play narrative, without points it would be just the guy with the biggest wallet dominates everyone else, even more then in matched played? Or better yet how do they start it, if someone starts narrative this means other people have to had already been playing it, this means they are late to the arms race and would be facing people who have 3-4 times the size of collections. They would have to be constanlly be buying more and more stuff to keep up with others, while in matched played they just have to have one good 2000pts army and be done with buying stuff.

[Gecktron]

3 minutes ago, Karol said:

How do people actually play narrative, without points it would be just the guy with the biggest wallet dominates everyone else, even more then in matched played? Or better yet how do they start it, if someone starts narrative this means other people have to had already been playing it, this means they are late to the arms race and would be facing people who have 3-4 times the size of collections. They would have to be constanlly be buying more and more stuff to keep up with others, while in matched played they just have to have one good 2000pts army and be done with buying stuff.

Using other methodes of balancing like wounds, number of warscrolls or even just talking about what both players field. 

You can also always use the sudden death rules, which can work surprisingly well. 

[Karol]

But those aren't official, and you would more or less have to force the other person  to accept to play the game the way you want. But never mind I don't want to derail the topic. See I come from a country where play the narrative is used as an insult, or when you want to make fun of someone playing bad or with a bad army.

[TheOtherJosh]

29 minutes ago, Karol said:

How do people actually play narrative, without points it would be just the guy with the biggest wallet dominates everyone else, even more then in matched played?

Path to Glory is narrative and doesn’t use points for balance.

One handles Balance via other methods.

For example:

Bring an agreed upon number of warscrolls. (Should we allow Duplicates on Named heroes?)

No more than X number of warscrolls with War Machine, Hero, or Monster.

Define a number of wounds for the army.

As an example:

Let’s play 75 wounds no more than 6 warscrolls, no duplicates for ‘Named Characters’. Max of 3 Hero’s. No Monsters and only 1 war machine.

Edited May 10, 2018 by TheOtherJosh

[syph0n]

Trying to be pragmatic, optimistic, philosophic... I think I'd sum it up thus:

There is a range of models GW will not produce any more, and haven't for a while. EG the Dark Elf metal models. 

If they are going to re do a model or race properly, do it for the new aesthetic (remembering GW make models, that's the bread and butter). Don't just make plastics of old lines. 

Eventually, new is far more new than old. They don't match. Hence, they disappear from most recent rules. How are you supposed to build a list around Bolt Throwers unless you're a crusty old guy like me who owns two from God knows when. You don't or you can't, so rules aren't needed. 

HOWEVER, there are old crusty players like me. I want to play with my horde of 20 year old models. Hence, Legends. 

The setting moves on. We get Deepkin, we'll get 2 more aelven factions. We have rules that match the available model line. 

With Legends, we have rules that match the old model line. 

We also, with the right scene, have flexibility (THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE) to continue with older lists, Compendium, square bases. I'm not expecting to get turfed out of WHW because I've got a matched play list with a Sorceress on Drakespawn and a couple of Bolt Throwers in it... It's probably a ****** synergy less list anyway! 

I just wish they left removing Compendium until Legends had more than the druchii! ? Let it get some traction. I'm disappointed, but I know my Drakespawn, Corsairs and Co are realistically on life support, but I bet I'll get a few years whilst the plastics are still good. 

 

[Karol]

10 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

Path to Glory is narrative and doesn’t use points for balance.

One handles Balance via other methods.

For example:

Bring an agreed upon number of warscrolls. (Should we allow Duplicates on Named heroes?)

No more than X number of warscrolls with War Machine, Hero, or Monster.

Define a number of wounds for the army.

As an example:

Let’s play 75 wounds no more than 6 warscrolls, no duplicates for ‘Named Characters’. Max of 3 Hero’s. No Monsters and only 1 war machine.

Cool. Wouldn't it create the problem though that everyone would want to play their games in a different way, so to actually play the game a new player would have to start with a vast collection. Am not saying that 2000pts is not a lot, specially for the armies with legions of models. But at least they just have to buy one list. Don't people worry that one opponent says 3 Heros, 1 warmachine, no monsters and another one goes 2-3 monsters, 0 machines and 1-2 hero, and a third wants 3 machines or 3 monsters and no more then 1 hero.  So to have just 3 opponents willing to play they would have to buy 3 heros, 3 machines and 3 monsters, and that is assuming their armies have valid machines and monsters. Because I have no idea what a new player would suppose to do when his opponent has 0 monsters and 3 machines, and the new players army only has valid monsters and no machines.

 

Quote

With Legends, we have rules that match the old model line.

But if most games are played as matched play games, getting no rules for matched play, means the rules don't really exist, but are only there for small group playing narrative games. And, am assuming stuff here, as narrative games seem to require a ton of pre game talking, the narrative rules could be just created by the players without Games Workshop help.

[syph0n]

I think you're missing the point of Legends. In the not too distant future, you'll have no desire to play matched play with these older models, because you'll have a load more competitive modern armies in their place. Let's not forget that it's literally only the Compendium models that have lost points, and as I said before, I don't think outside of tournaments you'd have issues if you have the old warscrolls for the next year at least, using Compendium models... If indeed you even do for matched play. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by syph0n

[The Golem]

1 hour ago, Karol said:

How do people actually play narrative, without points it would be just the guy with the biggest wallet dominates everyone else, even more then in matched played? Or better yet how do they start it, if someone starts narrative this means other people have to had already been playing it, this means they are late to the arms race and would be facing people who have 3-4 times the size of collections. They would have to be constanlly be buying more and more stuff to keep up with others, while in matched played they just have to have one good 2000pts army and be done with buying stuff.

People who are going to have an Open/Narrative Play game usually discuss about how they are going to play, the size and the composition of their armies, the scenario and the objectives of the game, which special rules they will use, etc. It's just that simple. It's all about discussing with your fellow player before starting the game and decide how you're gonna play it.

Open Play is basically a sandbox where you do whatever you want. You have a ton of options at your disposal: you can build your army the way you want and you can pick any special rule from any game mode (allegiance abilities, time of war, open play cards, rules of 1, etc.). With so many options, you need to decide how you're gonna play it and thus you will need to discuss about the settings of the game with your partner. Remember: AoS is not some kid's game where the one who has the biggest collection (or the rarest card) wins by default; it's a game played by people who want to have a fun time.

As to how to play without points, when you're familiar with the game, you can easily build approximately equivalent armies with your opponent without having to rely on points, simply by talking about what minis you are going to play with.
And by the way, the game balance brought by the point system is also an approximate balance. Sure it's a very very useful guideline for quick games with people we don't know, or for tournaments. But it's not a perfect system and there's no way it could be perfect (if we actually wanted a perfectly balanced game we would be playing chess or checkers). That's why playing with or without points doesn't really make a big difference as long as you and your opponent are on the same page. And for that, the key is communication.

Edited May 10, 2018 by The Golem

[Gecktron]

7 minutes ago, Karol said:

Cool. Wouldn't it create the problem though that everyone would want to play their games in a different way, so to actually play the game a new player would have to start with a vast collection. Am not saying that 2000pts is not a lot, specially for the armies with legions of models. But at least they just have to buy one list. Don't people worry that one opponent says 3 Heros, 1 warmachine, no monsters and another one goes 2-3 monsters, 0 machines and 1-2 hero, and a third wants 3 machines or 3 monsters and no more then 1 hero.  So to have just 3 opponents willing to play they would have to buy 3 heros, 3 machines and 3 monsters, and that is assuming their armies have valid machines and monsters. Because I have no idea what a new player would suppose to do when his opponent has 0 monsters and 3 machines, and the new players army only has valid monsters and no machines.

 

You are taking this too literal. These are just examples of balancing. 3 heroes, 2 Monsters doesnt mean exactly 2 monsters but 0-2. 

Also in regards to getting new players into the game, I'd argue talking with them how you want to play is the best way to ease them in. 

"Oh, you only have 5 Chaos Warriors, a few Knights and a mage? Sure, I bring a few liberators and a hero and we just have a game without allegiance abilities, relics or special spells." 

Or If they are a little more advanced smaller games like 500-1000 points (or 30-40 wounds) works as well. My gaming group is nearly 1000 point games only. Besides our Path-to-glory campaing were we just roll a few die to determin our army. 

[Karol]

Just now, The Golem said:

People who are going to have an Open/Narrative Play game usually discuss about how they are going to play, the size and the composition of their armies, the scenario and the objectives of the game, which special rules they will use, etc. It's just that simple. It's all about discussing with your fellow player before starting the game and decide how you're gonna play it.

Yeah I get that, but if you have a bigger collection then you would always try to steer the game in to a such a way, that no matter on what limits you agree on you will have an edge over your opponent. And for a new player it would be impossible to achive, even if they play against another new player, because one list can hard counter the other one or be just plain better within a given set of rules.

 

3 minutes ago, The Golem said:

AoS is not some kid's game where the one who has the biggest collection (or the rarest card) wins by default; it's a game played by people who want to have a fun time.

I don't, as I am rather new, but I did notice the best armies seem to cost more then the ones that win less, at least in matched play. Plus that is what I have been saying no one wants to lose and waste money on an army that loses most of the time, or even every time. And if both players do everything to have fun, the one with more options and a bigger collection has the edge. Same like doing sports, no one wants to pick a sport where everyone is bigger then you and will just stomp you over and over again.

 

7 minutes ago, The Golem said:

That's why playing with or without points doesn't really make a big difference as long you and your opponent are on the same page. And for that, the key is communication.

But what communication do you need. Both people want to spend the least money right now, to get the most out of your money in form of fun. This gives long time players the edge. Also people who are liked or have a lot of friends, because those can enforce the type of game, table set up or scenario, and maximise their fun. But if someone is not liked or has no friends will be twice as punished without a points system.

[Karol]

7 minutes ago, Gecktron said:

"Oh, you only have 5 Chaos Warriors, a few Knights and a mage? Sure, I bring a few liberators and a hero and we just have a game without allegiance abilities, relics or special spells." 

No one here starts the game by buying models and then trying to find games. And by here I mean my country, not my store. First they come to a store and ask how much stuff costs, and a lot of leave. Those that stay, have to play the game the way everyone else plays and this is 2000pts, latest FAQ legal and tournament pack scenarios. If they don't get an army like that, and aren't the brother or child of someone who is a player, they have 0 chance to find a game.

[Richelieu]

@Karol all of the things that @syph0n, @The Golem, @Gecktron and others have suggested are based on the assumption shared by nearly everyone in this forum that we all play Warhammer because we love Warhammer!  Once the models are on the table, of course I'm going to play to win, but unless it's at a tournament the primary reason we play is fun.  

I'll give you an example of a game I played a few months ago.  I met a guy who is part of my friend's brother's 40k crew.  He just got into AoS and had a new set of Sylvaneth models he'd never played with.  He happened to be taking his kid to a Pokemon tournament and so he called me up and asked if I wanted to play a game of AoS at the FLGS the Pokemon tournament was at.  Now, since I love AoS, I didn't care if it was tournament prep, teaching a new guy to play, using open war cards (which we ended up doing), or playing a narrative game.  It's about enjoying rolling loads of dice and pushing beautiful models around the table. 

Do I have a preference?  Of course, everyone does and mine happens to be competitive games, but part of being a friendly, mature, responsible gamer is not letting that get in the way of both players having a good time.  

[Kamose]

3 hours ago, Karol said:

Yeah I get that, but if you have a bigger collection then you would always try to steer the game in to a such a way, that no matter on what limits you agree on you will have an edge over your opponent. And for a new player it would be impossible to achive, even if they play against another new player, because one list can hard counter the other one or be just plain better within a given set of rules.

This is a problem of maturity not game balance.  If I have a larger collection and always use that advantage to try to win no matter what, then I'm being selfish, immature, and rude.  AoS is a game involving 2+ players and playing a game like this without any consideration for my opponent is behavior I would expect from a selfish child.

In fact I would suggest that the player with the large collection has the greater obligation to tailor their army to what they opponent can bring and so try to create an enjoyable experience for both players.  If I have 5000pts of Seraphon and my opponent has Start Collecting Slaves to Darkness, I do not use my advantage in models to try to win.  I use it to create an enjoyable experience for my opponent.

It is impossible for a new player to achieve a balanced game experience.  However that has nothing to do with game balance and everything to do with the new player's perfectly understandable ignorance of the relative strengths and weaknesses of all the moving parts of the game.  Don't forget that 3 years ago everyone was a new player and had to learn the game from scratch by playing games, learning what worked and what didn't, trying things out, having some good games, and having some bad games.

3 hours ago, Karol said:

And if both players do everything to have fun, the one with more options and a bigger collection has the edge. Same like doing sports, no one wants to pick a sport where everyone is bigger then you and will just stomp you over and over again.

Also people who are liked or have a lot of friends, because those can enforce the type of game, table set up or scenario, and maximise their fun. But if someone is not liked or has no friends will be twice as punished without a points system.

It seems that you are making the assumption that everyone is acting, in fact can't help but act, in a purely selfish manner.  Having a fun and enjoyable game isn't a competition and it isn't a zero-sum experience.  Both players can have fun without taking it from each other.  I don't know anything about your local community but I truly hope the attitude you're describing is not representative of the people you have in your gaming community.  It would drive me from the game knowing that I have to fight against the other players just to enjoy my hobby.  Much better to  simply enjoy the hobby with other people who share your love of AoS.

[Kyriakin]

This all sounds very nice, but Is there any precedent for much of this?

For example, some battalions lost their points in GHB17 (e.g. the Spire of Dawn one).

Since then, have people been "just using the old points", or did those battallions typically just die on the vine?

I have always gotten the impression that, once something loses its points, it tends to just cease to be within the mainstream of casual pickup games.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Kyriakin

[Jamopower]

In contrary to what is the normal way of thought, I would say that Open gaming is primarily for the experienced gamers while the newer gamers are better to start with the matched. 

The precondition for having reasonable open or narrative gaming is that both players realize that it is their responsibility to make the game interesting for both participants. As said, that'll include discussions before gaming and making the army lists in some part together or even better, by a third party umpire. Open gaming is actually pretty much the same as what is done in the historical wargaming all the time. You can look at the Perry miniatures facebook page or an issue of Wargames illustrated to see how successful it can be. It's not too hard to make reasonably equal armies by experienced gamers just by adding stuff together in fashion of a hero is worth 10 regular guys and an elite warriors are worth two guys, while the big monster is worth 30-50 of the regular guys. In similar fashion as you need to balance the armies out when using points, as two armies with the same total point cost can be very different in prowess due to additional special rules of the newer armies and with some armies just being very good against certain armies (that's why there are discussions of tournament metas). 

That said, for many the main interest in the GW games is, and always has been, the making of the army lists as in the end these are more of an army building games as the army lists have a huge difference and the game itself is pretty simple, at least compared to some other games in the market. For those players that especially are in the hobby because they like that, the open or narrative gaming doesn't offer much and it can be hard to get to the mentality. Luckily there is the matched play that has perhaps the best balance ever in a GW game for them.

[RuneBrush]

9 hours ago, Karol said:

I am a very new player, but aren't 99,99% games matched played? So being good in narrative games or not having points cost, is as good as not existing at all. 

It's a bit like saying that a card is still ok post nerf in MtG, because it rocks in Vintage, that no one sane plays.

Just to reinforce what a few other people have said.  Although Matched Play (or more specifically games played using points and the rules of one) are one of the most popular ways of playing, there are numerous games played using pure Open or non-pointed Narrative.  Most of the games we see on video or in magazines are played using points because it's a convenient way of communicating the scale of the game - "I played a X points game" is easier to visualise than the alternative.  There also seems to be a bit of a stigma within some communities (which doesn't exist within TGA) that playing Open or Narrative means weak armies or bad game experiences, personally I've found playing Open or Narrative games more enjoyable than Matched Play - IF I'm playing with like minded opponents.

One common assumption made is that games have to be balanced - they don't.  If you look at the battleplans in the current Starter Set where they define the models to use the armies the sides aren't balanced from a points perspective, however the objectives of the battleplan mean that both sides have an equal chance of success and when played you'll have some really close games.

The thing to bear in mind with Warhammer Legends is that it's been created for people who have an old WHFB army and wish to continue playing it using the old background in a new rules system.  Although there's nothing stopping you buying a Dark Elf army for this, that's not the intention which is one of the reasons that there are no Pitched Battle Profiles.

[stato]

1 hour ago, Jamopower said:

In contrary to what is the normal way of thought, I would say that Open gaming is primarily for the experienced gamers while the newer gamers are better to start with the matched. 

I think it depends entirely on what you want to get out the game but I do think matched play focus has spoiled it to an extent as kids these days are expecting to have 1000/2000pt armies to play the game at all. 

When i started playing warhammer in the 90's we played open play before it was a specific thing (everyone did), because we didnt have enough money for much more then the box game. We just put models on the table (or floor) and played with them, if it was unbalanced we just brought models back in as reinforcements, we didnt obsess over points because that would mean I couldnt use the blister of 3 dwarf hammerers id just bought with my pocket money or my mate couldnt use his birthday present Orc Wyvern. 

Certainly match play should be something new players aim at because its a good way to learn the games finer details, but its not the only way to start.

[Jamopower]

Yes, my own beginnings were very much the same, but that sort of happens anyways most of the time when the people are very excited about the game and the knowledge is not on the same level.

[EMMachine]

11 hours ago, Karol said:

I am a very new player, but aren't 99,99% games matched played? So being good in narrative games or not having points cost, is as good as not existing at all. 

It's a bit like saying that a card is still ok post nerf in MtG, because it rocks in Vintage, that no one sane plays.

 

11 hours ago, Karol said:

How do people actually play narrative, without points it would be just the guy with the biggest wallet dominates everyone else, even more then in matched played? Or better yet how do they start it, if someone starts narrative this means other people have to had already been playing it, this means they are late to the arms race and would be facing people who have 3-4 times the size of collections. They would have to be constanlly be buying more and more stuff to keep up with others, while in matched played they just have to have one good 2000pts army and be done with buying stuff.

I think, the problem here is the mindset. Narrative play isn't about cracking your opponents skull with WAAC. It's more about crafting a story out of it. So if you get a enjoyable Story that you can show others the game exists. And for those games its better if the game has 4+ Turns instead of one Player winning after 2.

Do you really need balance if you're playing a last stand Scenario where one player has to wipe out the other one, but the other one wins if after the last round still 1 model lives? Or losing most of the army but winning the game because you got your models into the right place. But for such games, you need players that don't have the WAAC Mindset.

3 hours ago, Kyriakin said:

This all sounds very nice, but Is there any precedent for much of this?

For example, some battalions lost their points in GHB17 (e.g. the Spire of Dawn one).

Since then, have people been "just using the old points", or did those battallions typically just die on the vine?

I have always gotten the impression that, once something loses its points, it tends to just cease to be within the mainstream of casual pickup games.

In real matched play, those Battalions are lost, as well as those were the Name of a Warscroll was changed or those never having a pitched battle profile (like the Realmgate Wars Battalions).

Thats the disadvantage of following 100% Matched Play.

[Ollie Grimwood]

There’s quite a large range to Open play from just throwing a couple of units down and playing to quite complex Battleplans with their own balancing mechanics and extra scenario based rules.  Many peoples first experience of wargaming will be through open play (when I worked for GW it’s how we taught people to play).  For me it’s how I started then I moved on to Matchedplay  and then back to more advanced Open play once I’d tired of Matchedplay.  Of course this is way before AoS and I’m using terms that didn’t exist then but that’s what they were.   I’ve always found OpenPlay as an excellent way to avoid hobby burnout and it prevents the stagnation of play very similar games all the time. 

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Ollie Grimwood

[Karol]

7 hours ago, Richelieu said:

It's about enjoying rolling loads of dice and pushing beautiful models around the table. 

I do get the enjoy part, the only other way someone would play any other table top game is if it was his job of some sorts. I just can't imagine how anyone could get in to any game, and not think two or three times what others are going to do, specially when they play longer and have bigger collections. I don't have the words for it in english, and I don't want to insult one. So I will use an example from life, it is a bit like going to another villages or towns fair to dance and drink,doing it alone and expecting that everything is going to be just fine. Techniclly it is possible, but the life practic says you will end up beat up.

 

11 hours ago, syph0n said:

In the not too distant future, you'll have no desire to play matched play with these older models, because you'll have a load more competitive modern armies in their place. Let's not forget that it's literally only the Compendium models that have lost points, and as I said before, I don't think outside of tournaments you'd have issues if you have the old warscrolls for the next year at least, using Compendium models... If indeed you even do for matched play. 

I get it, but this is low level taunting. On the ha ha you spend a ton of cash on models, and now you can't resell it and with techniclly give you rules, but because the number of narrative players is low and you probablly don't play narrative either, we aren't actually giving you anything. Ah and now thanks us for giving you stuff.  Another example from my countries history. In the deepest times of communism, food was running low, the goverment rose the price for food even more, but informed everyone that they should be happy, because the cost of trains, tanks and bridges went down. 2 days later they had to use military to quell the riots. To make it even more fun, they did the prize hike just before christmas.

 

11 hours ago, The Golem said:

It's just that simple. It's all about discussing with your fellow player before starting the game and decide how you're gonna play it.

I understand that. I just don't get it how you can be sure that the other person doesn't try to one up you durning the pre game talk. And you have to be damn sure that he doesn't try to do it, before you spend money on the army, because this isn't street football, where if you don't like a rule you just go home and waste maybe 20-30 min of your time. Where in the case of table top armies, you maybe spending 1-2 summers of working and a year of saving up.

 

7 hours ago, Kamose said:

In fact I would suggest that the player with the large collection has the greater obligation to tailor their army to what they opponent can bring and so try to create an enjoyable experience for both players.  If I have 5000pts of Seraphon and my opponent has Start Collecting Slaves to Darkness, I do not use my advantage in models to try to win.  I use it to create an enjoyable experience for my opponent.

Well then this is must be a culture thing then, because I have seen people of all ages act exactly the opposit, and not just in table top gaming or games, people do it in everyday life. If they have an edge, they use it. If they can force people to do something and they know the oppossing party will hate it, they will do it 100% of time, even if it makes little sense from an economic point of view. Just to spite them, and they do it on a daily basis in most small things imaginable.

 

7 hours ago, Kamose said:

Don't forget that 3 years ago everyone was a new player and had to learn the game from scratch by playing games, learning what worked and what didn't, trying things out, having some good games, and having some bad games.

Am assuming there were leaked rules, and the testers and they friends and close groups, had to test day in and day out, for the new game. That is what people around here do. Those that know tournament orgenisers, know the scenarios etc before others and they always test those sometimes months in advance, some even buy specific models or armies, or drop armies, just because they know a rules pack is going to change how the game is played. And while I understand that this is doesn't have to be a thing everywhere, but it is impossible to not happen to some degree. I do not know who tests GW games, but I doubt they invest in to armies they know are going to get nerfed, or not build at least a core list of an army they know has an above avarge win ratio.

 

7 hours ago, Kamose said:

Having a fun and enjoyable game isn't a competition and it isn't a zero-sum experience. 

Well given the fact you can never be sure if the other guy wants you to have fun, but you do, aside for maybe masochists, want to have fun yourself. It is IMO a logical assumption to expect everyone doing everyone to have fun themselfs first. And this means that any deviation from a strickt rules system and opening doors to ways of removing those limits would just kill any form of interaction. No new players would buy new armies, and all the players already with armies would have to play each other over and over again. And this means either a constant arms race between people, or some armies being better no matter what you buy. Now am not saying that two people can't have fun playing a game, I just don't think that the chance of both of them having fun at the same time is much lower, if one adds the social aspect in to the game.

[Karol]

1 hour ago, EMMachine said:

Do you really need balance if you're playing a last stand Scenario where one player has to wipe out the other one, but the other one wins if after the last round still 1 model lives? Or losing most of the army but winning the game because you got your models into the right place. But for such games, you need players that don't have the WAAC Mindset.

I don't know what WAAC is, but am assuming it is the opposit of narrative/open play. If am wrong, I sorry. I don't really understand what would be good about such a scenario. You could just check both players collections, build the most "not die" for one and the most "kill" army for the other, out of the models they have, then simulate the rolls,and you would get who wins on avarge. Seems ultra boring, not to mention how this is suppose to be played when one player is a new one. A veteran with a big collection will always be able to maximise and build a good list of either sort, but a new player with a normal army would just get crushed by something that is optimised for the scenario being played.

[Kirjava13]

WAAC stands for Win At Any Cost.