Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
pez5767

Asymmetric Balance... it could work.

Recommended Posts

As far as balance vs. unbalance goes, to me points are crucial if you're trying for balance (and even handy if you're trying for unbalance).

I've played a couple open games (not many) where the stated up-front goal was to make ad-hoc "balanced" armies to have a level battle.  In these open games if I lose I'm fine (although really, who likes to lose), but if I win I feel terrible because there's no way of knowing if I was a better player on the day or if I just took too powerful of an army.  There's no sense of accomplishment.

Whereas if we agree to a points scheme, whether GH or SCGT or whatever, even simple wounds counting, then the responsibility of power-management is handed off to a third party.  If I end up winning with too powerful of a list it's not a result of me psyching out my opponent into accepting stealth cheese under the guise of balance (whether deliberately or accidentally), it's me being acceptably clever within the bounds of our arrangement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

The weapons before the ability score 8 and 9 for total damage output, respectively (on the Daedalus scale).  With +1 to wound its 10 and 11.25.

Working backwards for a moment - bonus attacks occurs on a roll of a 5 to wound.  That means for every 3 wounds we can get 2 extra attacks on average.  To get 3 wounds we need 9 hits.  To get 9 hits we need 18 attacks.  To get 18 attacks we need either 6 or 9 bullgors attacking.  All of these models are 40mm bases, I think?  You're going to need to be in a very board formation to get those attacks in with 1" weapons.

Those two extra attacks make the scores 11.6 and 13.3.  Remove the +1 to wound and they go back down to 9.38 and 10.82.

They probably rate as the most killy setup I've seen yet - no doubt.  What people should probably be doing is killing the doombull(s).  Without his +1 to wound the extra attacks weaken quite a bit.  Any unit that can deliver a -1 to hit like dryads in a forest will also make them suffer.  

I'd be curious to fight that and see how it goes.  

I havent done the math like that but 9 wounds is about average for what occurs without the doombull nearby.  With the extras it tends to go up to 12-15 normally since they are 3 damage each.  Seems like you know your math so Ill take your word.  Ya people here havent figured out how to quite kill them all yet at 1000 points.  I have had to start keeping the doombull about 10 inches or so behind the front line since they all understand to hit him first. @daedalus81 if you are anywhere near pittsburgh, PA in the US Id be willing to play a game.

56 minutes ago, pez5767 said:

In an attempt to bring this thread somewhat back on topic... ^_^ @daedalus81 and @cranect

Sleboda's closing ideas really sum up my feelings pretty well.  After reading through all of these comments, which by the way I really appreciate, what I've come to realize is this: I know points will be an integral part of the game going forward, and I think we all can agree with the idea presented by mmimzie regarding the value of points as a "common ground" for players.  That said, I think AoS lends itself to games being played in a thematic/narrative way far better than any other game I've played on the market. What I mean by a "thematic way" is when the fun of your opponent and the theme of the scenario are put before points balance or combat effectiveness.  This is by no means to say combat effectiveness is irrelevant, it's just not the 1st thing to consider.

On a personal level, having come from 20+ years of spending points to buy my troops, I've been shocked by how much fun this game can be when the points are put aside and balance becomes a relative term within the game/scenario.  In a strange way, it is the ultimate simplicity of AoS's mechanics that allow for such incredible freedom within the on the table experience.  Hopefully, with the growth of AoS and new players trying the game, we can (as a community) promote the game without the traditional points default, as I think this offers a much richer experience overall.  

We were still in the relative vicinity of on topic.  I agree that it lends itself very well to a narrative/open game.  The scenarios are a ton of fun too.  My best game so far was using one out of the godbeasts book and while we technically used points for our armies we had 10 monsters on the field trying to kill us all.... Which they succeeded at. We added the points up after and the monsters outnumbered us 2500 to 2000 combined lol. That was a great game though.  We definitely try to make each game a story with those of us who have the game down a bit better.  Some still prefer just kill em all but that can be fun every now and then. I do agree that the freedom is about half the draw for me though and together with everything else it is a great experience.

Edited by cranect
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Whereas if we agree to a points scheme, whether GH or SCGT or whatever, even simple wounds counting, then the responsibility of power-management is handed off to a third party.  If I end up winning with too powerful of a list it's not a result of me psyching out my opponent into accepting stealth cheese under the guise of balance (whether deliberately or accidentally), it's me being acceptably clever within the bounds of our arrangement.

There is no question that playing a knowingly unbalanced game can be abused, even as you pointed out, accidentally.  

There is a lot of trust that goes into playing without a 3rd party arbitrator (points in this case) telling you how to balance the game.  However, in my experience so far, if you can trust yourself and your opponent enough to put the 3rd party points aside, the reward from that experience is deeply satisfying.  

A lot of people worry about the "cheese" and "what if my opponent brings 10 Bloodthirsters" kind of scenarios coming up.  Two things occur to me: 1. this scenario comes up frequently with points in play (net-lists for example) and, worse yet,  this cheese is supported by the implicit 3rd party (points) involved in the game, and 2. when you and your opponent talk about what forces you guys have available and what would make for a fun game up front, you both can have a say in what's "cheese" and how the "cheese" can be mitigated, which isn't even an option in traditional points battles.

I always appreciate your input, armysrevenge, and as a veteran gamer you know what you like and you have a ton of experience to support your totally valid point of view. That said, as one long timer to another, like I said, I've been shocked by how much I enjoy letting the points go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pez5767 said:

A lot of people worry about the "cheese" and "what if my opponent brings 10 Bloodthirsters" kind of scenarios coming up.

I think it's way more subtle and unintended than that and part of the reason so many (myself included) didn't really fully embrace the system.  I enjoyed it from day one, but I had a hard time convincing people with 120 goblins, 4 doom divers, fanatics, 2 catapults, and more that their models were niot the same as the used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pez5767 said:

On a personal level, having come from 20+ years of spending points to buy my troops, I've been shocked by how much fun this game can be when the points are put aside and balance becomes a relative term within the game/scenario.  

Yep.  Surprised the hell out of me as well.  I am also a multi-decade vet of Balanced Points Systems of Ultimate Domination, and I have totally found this "new" world to be at least the equal of the old one.  It probably required the hard reset to get me to buy in.  Just taking 8th and saying "no points" would not have done it for me.  I needed round bases, new rules, new...everything...in order to grab onto the new world, and I'm loving it.

I'll enjoy points again too, but I really don't want that to become the standard.

I would prefer for there to not be AoS tournaments, but I think points will encourage them, much to the detriment of the system and the hobby.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I would prefer for there to not be AoS tournaments, but I think points will encourage them, much to the detriment of the system and the hobby.

Let's be honest guys...the hobby was suffering, rightly or wrongly, without them.  And I'm still hard pressed to find scenarios where the points create overwhelming scenarios for someone -- we're not talking doomfire warlocks of 8th edition here.  We're also no longer restricted to one army the lacks the tools of other armies.  Everyone can get ranged attacks and artillery.  Everyone can have magic.  The playing field is level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

I would prefer for there to not be AoS tournaments, but I think points will encourage them, much to the detriment of the system and the hobby.

Everyone is entitled to game the way they want, but I feel like the tournament scene is going to push for AoS to be just like every other game where "the way you play is with X number of points, using scenario X, and the goal is to crush your enemy in a victory." (aka, 8th ed. 2400 points, banners, mobile power unit)

27 minutes ago, daedalus81 said:

Let's be honest guys...the hobby was suffering, rightly or wrongly, without them.  And I'm still hard pressed to find scenarios where the points create overwhelming scenarios for someone -- we're not talking doomfire warlocks of 8th edition here.  We're also no longer restricted to one army the lacks the tools of other armies.  Everyone can get ranged attacks and artillery.  Everyone can have magic.  The playing field is level.

The playing field is level with, or without points and tournaments.  I don't know that I agree about the hobby suffering without tournaments.  For the past 3 editions, in which a portion of the community aggressively pushed tournaments, the game was shrinking as was the community. (granted, I'm using GW sales reports and my experience in my local (Northern California) areas as evidence, and other's results may vary).  I was a regular tournament player, and I honestly can't see what tournaments do which other organized events (campaigns and narrative linked scenario play) cannot.  What is more, tournaments are classically the most vocal proponents of "one way to play," which makes sense in their world, but is far from an absolute.  If I'm being totally honest, I think AoS is not a very good game when it comes to just lining up and punching one another, which ultimately is the goal of a tournament game.  I think AoS excels at offering something new and different and I hope people will be open to trying something new rather than just going back to the same-old, same-old style of gaming and events.  In short, there's nothing wrong with points, it's just exciting to see a new way to play which isn't dependent on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The playing field is level with, or without points and tournaments. 

Ehh.  It has been stated here by many people that they often comp themselves.  You are using points whether you realize it or not.  

Quote

the game was shrinking as was the community

The game was not shrinking as a result of tournaments.  The game lacked things that it now has from GW: customer facing communication, a more accessible FAQ process, and cheaper entry into the hobby (honestly the start collecting boxes and app are doing as much to grow the hobby as anything else).

Quote

I honestly can't see what tournaments do which other organized events (campaigns and narrative linked scenario play) cannot

Campaigns still existed in 8th.  They didn't get played as often, because they require a greater time commitment.  Anything can be a narrative event.  Tournaments didn't need to have rigid scenarios - I often railed against them for ones more thematic and interesting.

Quote

tournaments are classically the most vocal proponents of "one way to play,"

No more so than those saying no points is the way to go, in my opinion.

Quote

when it comes to just lining up and punching one another, which ultimately is the goal of a tournament game

That's not the point of a tournament at all.  The goal is to create an environment where competitively minded people can flex their brains on difficult situations that can be objectively determined to be fair.

People don't show up to chess tournaments and put down two queens.  That doesn't mean there aren't variants of chess:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/322910/

Edited by daedalus81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stayed away to let yall develop your conversation here some more.

 

Now look... I'm a BIG tournament player. I love tournaments. That is the only reason i play any of these games. However, winning and loosing aren't the beat all end all for me. I don't expect to win any tournament i go to.

Tournament play for me does alot of things that you just don't get from casual play:

Everyone is playing the same game. In tournaments you have TOs who have a set of rules that everyone is following. This means yes when i deploy if i finish deploying first ican go first or what ever the scenario says. However, lots of games i've seen folks just plop all thier stuff there and roll for turn reguardless. I know that i can use my pile in and charges to manipulate how you can move your models in combat. In casual games i just see folks sholve everything ever closer. I want to play by the rules. I don't want to be 8 years old in a sand box saying "oh well you can't hurt me becuase i have super armor now," or just getting rules mistakes randomly sprung up on me. Tournaments are the best environment where the game can be played with all of it's rules adhered too. Sure in tournaments folks still get stuff wrong, but it's much smaller things and far less often.

 

Everyone is bringing their A game. Earlier i said i tooks a random pick up game with a regular in our store. I noted he made a tactical mistake on his first turn which lead to a game loosing loss that crushed him both tactically and morally. After which he conceded. I don't say the way he played or what he did is wrong, and i wouldn't force him to play a way different to how he likes. This said it's not really a tough game. I don't know about you guys, but when i was little could go to the park and play speed chess with the older folks. I sucked, but i loved learning and getting better. I almost always lost but i learned so much. I love the difficulty of the game. I like how you can tactically dupe and be duped by foes.  In a random pick up game the caliber of your opponent varies and their desire to learn can also vary. I want to play against foes who will challenge me, and if not at the very least are playing for the win. I like teaching my opponent cool tactics, and being taught things i didn't already know. In casual play you just can't get this.

 

I like playing lots of games. In a tournament you get back to back games. Almost exhaustingly so. This is super fun. It kind of test your mind's stamina. How long can you keep up your tactics. Also you have a bit of a clock after you so you need to be quick, but not make mistakes. Don't forget something from the last phase because you can't go back.

Most of all honest: I play for the thrill. The feeling of the competitive scene. The hairs on end, and the struggle. I play for the story i can tell my friend later about how i got luck, or how i totally saw through this guy. I play to find that white whale that might slip through my fingers, and i can go learn how to beat the next time i encounter it. This isn't stuff you get in casual play. 

 

Look i understand why you guys might not like tournaments or what they are about, and i know folks in the environment can get heated. It's just because it's intense. No one hate you. The guy could get so frustrated he's been out matched where he turns red. Give him a minute and he'll go grab a beer with you. What really makes those folks bad, is when you poke em, and make it worse. 

 

This isn't your hobby it's everyone's hobby we we play this game for different reasons. Some times those roads can intersect, but putting down some's reason to play is silly, and limited the ways the games can be played is a bit silly. By saying you don't like or want tournaments in the game. What your telling me is you don't want a place for me to play. What your kind of saying is you don't want me to enjoy AoS. 

 



Why points are important??? They let me have an expectation what confines i need to play my games in. They let me buff my opponent. If i know i'll always beat some guy, i can give him some % more points to get a better game. Randomly adding and subtracting models doesn't tell me how i'm really playing. All it tells me is that i've picked the right amount of models to give my opponent at the time a chance, but the next guy i go against might require a readjust, and it's not really telling me how i'm doing as a player of the game.

Points let me walk into a random store and say "anyone wanna do 2k points with whatever scenario, i play pretty tough." 

Like look i run a campaign at my local store. It's all very narrative using points only as a guide for how big i plan my scenarios to be, So people know what to bring.  I don't play in it as it would be a bit of a savaging. So i can dig all the other ways to play. I just prefer points because it fits me.

Will points become standard??? Probably??? But who cares?? Points make the barrier of entry into the game that much smaller for new players. No longer do they have to figure out if they are bringing enough stuff. Like in my campaign i can use the points to build my narrative, maybe i could tip the odds in the favor of a faction that might be struggling a lot. 

Also the lay out of the generals hand book is genius. Why?? Points are in the back of a book. People like me who only come from the points have to flip through and see the path of glory stuff, and narrative stuff before i get to the point. Same with all the new players. Points take up the smallest section of the generals book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like tournaments for meeting people and such. I don't go for the competitiveness personally but they are fun nonetheless. I just don't want this game to turn into what we have here for 40k where its just everyone constantly playing tournament lists to the exception of all else. To get someone to play a nice for fun game you have to contact them a day or two before to make sure they bring something other than the soul crushing tournament list. I don't mind tournaments and I don't mind points but I don't want everyone to just ignore the other 85% of the book just because there are points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are net lists and tournament lists.  Net lists are mostly fantasy that rarely saw tournaments.  Tournament lists usually were governed by what people learned about how hordes functioned or new types of units.  Occasionally there was a unit that went a little too far or was classified as special when it should have been rare.  There were also units that never saw light of day.

But those problems are gone as far as I can tell.  How?  The mechanics are different.  Previously you had to measure a units effectiveness based on what it was fighting.  Chaos warriors vs goblins was very different than chaos warriors vs necrosphinx.  Now the effectiveness of chaos warriors is entirely contained within their own stats.  They don't care who they fight (aside from armor values).

This makes it incredibly easy to judge a units value.

Well, what about force multipliers you ask?

Great question - there is no more hiding in units.  No more look out sir.  Your force multipliers are vulnerable.

Ok, so on to units that didn't get used.

Before you barely saw dragons, slaughterbrutes, or anything big without ward or regen.  Because cannons.  Now you don't have that worry.  Yes, your monster can still get blown away, but it takes a heck of a lot more and you can shoot artillery crew off the table.

 When everything can be judged on its own merits and any unit is viable then it is a very different world than we were used to.

 

 

I get the sense that the anti-points camp hasn't really stewed in it enough.  I mean the book isn't even out yet and you're crying foul.  In the end competitive players will enjoy points and fluffy players will enjoy narrative games.  If a narrative/open player starts using points it doesn't preclude the possibility of narration, but it does perhaps say that they weren't enjoying the game as much as you thought they were.

 

 

Again, i'll ask -- why do you need rules to play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cranect said:

(/snip)

To get someone to play a nice for fun game you have to contact them a day or two before to make sure they bring something other than the soul crushing tournament list.

(/snip)

Well so we have two things here. First this is like rhetoric that basically says i don't have fun when i play the game. it's like say i want to start off every game smashing my hand with a hammer. I just want to sit here and be more and more depressed and have no fun. It's kind of a mean statement if you really think of it.

The Next part is the list bit. This part is where things get weird. So far in age of sigmar i've only lost one game. I've lost my first game with out points because i didn't realize 6 elite warriors were probably worth more than 3 spirit host.  Is this because i make list that will bend you over backwards??? Maybe??/ maybe alittle bit???

Though is it also possible that you just got beat by the other players tactics???? It's a little mean too, to say it's just the list that beat you. What your saying is the opponent didn't out skill you. Your just saying it's the list. 

These two ways of talking about things are ways that groups kind of defame each other, and make stabs are eachother. By saying i don't like to have fun playing a game, and that i didn't beat you with tactics, but instead just through a list of units at you.  You see how they are both kind of slights that are maybe alittle rude. Please note i'm not saying you are a ******, and i'm not saying you are trying to be mean. I'm saying those thoughts are kind of mean, but you like many other just might not be aware. I think your awesome and cool ^.^.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mmimzie said:

Well so we have two things here. First this is like rhetoric that basically says i don't have fun when i play the game. it's like say i want to start off every game smashing my hand with a hammer. I just want to sit here and be more and more depressed and have no fun. It's kind of a mean statement if you really think of it.

The Next part is the list bit. This part is where things get weird. So far in age of sigmar i've only lost one game. I've lost my first game with out points because i didn't realize 6 elite warriors were probably worth more than 3 spirit host.  Is this because i make list that will bend you over backwards??? Maybe??/ maybe alittle bit???

Though is it also possible that you just got beat by the other players tactics???? It's a little mean too, to say it's just the list that beat you. What your saying is the opponent didn't out skill you. Your just saying it's the list. 

These two ways of talking about things are ways that groups kind of defame each other, and make stabs are eachother. By saying i don't like to have fun playing a game, and that i didn't beat you with tactics, but instead just through a list of units at you.  You see how they are both kind of slights that are maybe alittle rude. Please note i'm not saying you are a ******, and i'm not saying you are trying to be mean. I'm saying those thoughts are kind of mean, but you like many other just might not be aware. I think your awesome and cool ^.^.

 

 

 

You are correct that I am not trying to be mean here. I do appreciate you pointing out that it came across that way so ill try to state my point better since I did it poorly. To address your first point there are a lot of times where playing the game isn't any fun for reasons I will explain. The overall experience still is because I enjoy most of the people I am playing with. That said in 40k these people while most of them are better skill level wise than I they also bring the lists that are made for high skill level tournaments to casual games for various reasons. I'll try not to play against those lists because it is highly painful but sometimes that's all there is available. Around here people just tend to show up with the hardest list they can think of so that whenever the next big tournament comes around they know the units and such and they can hopefully pull out the win. My problem is when these games become the norm for casual play and its less about do I and my opponent have a good time and more about how quick did I stomp them into the ground. Not all of them intentionally do this but most people here design a list (in 40k anyway) around crushing their opponent. That doesn't make them bad people it just means they enjoy a different aspect of the game. Sadly there are not a lot of people around to just play casual lists and make sure everyone has a good time. I normally don't mind too much getting stomped because the people are great and fun to talk to but after a while it gets very irritating. Sigmar has been great so far and I just hope that what is the norm for 40k doesn't happen with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really interesting to see that everybody is broadly saying the same thing - they want to play enjoyable games, that are challenging for all participants. I think the fact that AoS actually allows you to play in such a vast variety of manners is a testament of what a cracking little system it is. People get enjoyment out of different things too and with a hobby as vast as this, those things may vary greatly - I'm sure there are people who play games purely for the social aspect over a pint which somebody who plays purely for a win tally will seem quite strange.

Coming back towards the original subject, I think the biggest challenge I read about is people getting their head round that AoS has highlighted two forces beating the daylights out of each other actually isn't much fun. Instead you'll get a much better game using a scenario where you're trying to achieve goals. This also means that there is a chance that an "underdog" could win though a bit of initiative and thought. This does actually make points not an essential component if you play in this manner.

One of the things I like about points is it gives a rough indication that your armies are sort of similar, especially if you don't know your opponent or their army. I won't use the word balanced because this will only ever occur if both armies are identical (at which point you might as well just flip a coin and pick heads or tails). Unit points values are also just a stake in the ground, using objective based scenarios that mean the two armies don't need to be balanced actually solves the age-old problem of when people feel they've been over-charged for a unit or somebody is fielding something that is difficult to counter too. But as a starting point, points can be very useful.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RuneBrush said:

One of the things I like about points is it gives a rough indication that your armies are sort of similar, especially if you don't know your opponent or their army. I won't use the word balanced because this will only ever occur if both armies are identical (at which point you might as well just flip a coin and pick heads or tails). Unit points values are also just a stake in the ground, using objective based scenarios that mean the two armies don't need to be balanced actually solves the age-old problem of when people feel they've been over-charged for a unit or somebody is fielding something that is difficult to counter too. But as a starting point, points can be very useful.

Points and objective based scenarios are not mutually exclusive.  Never have.  Never will be.  I'm beginning to question people's experience with points and scenarios here...

Edited by daedalus81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree scenarios make a game more balanced, but scenarios can be played to. You can make a scenario winning army.

 

I think the ultimate balance comes from 3 pillars:

Points This set an honestly arbitrary value on each unit, and sets an over all limit for game size. It gives each player a list of expectations theyu can make about each choice. This also allows this expectation to in some way be consistent regardless of who you play. This also gives players the ability to build their list independent of one another. I know what is possible to bring from all armies and how much of everything can be brought at x point range, and i already have my point parameters so i can make my list. Without seeing yours. If i had to look at your list to balance mine. Odds are i could engineer my list to beat yours every time.

Scenarios. As brought up, scenarios help balance the game as it gives more things to winning than killing all your enemy's stuff, but killing all your enemy's stuff still remains possible, and you can engineer your list to kill your enemies stuff. Infact, killing everything of your opponents is the most consistent win condition, and thus will also be something you can build your list to do.  Other scenarios favor mobility, or having more heros, or having more models, or few models, more units, etc. So scenarios are a bit of a grey area. Though it does make the game not a smash face fesh, but smashing face is almost always an options.

Structure Structure is the third pillar of balance. This is similar to points. it makes limitations of what you can take. This doesn't really target anything specific, as i think lots of core units are really good for their points. Some behemoths aren't worth their points. Some artillery isn't worth it either. However it makes limits. It changes how you can make a list. It again gives you expectations of what some one will have. You know at most you only have 4 monsters or artillery pieces to deal with. You'll always have a core to deal with, and a leader. It helps you know what you wont feel bad always bring, and so on.

Now none of these are perfect. As stated points are all kind of random, and can be bias towards some units. Scenarios are hard to am for as they change, but killing the other guy is almost always a thing, and The structure some times doesn't matter as behmoths can be expensive and you might not be able to bring 2 anyway. However, all together they can make a game that's more balanced and have more options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

daedalus81 and mmimzie (as well as many others) have made it clear they prefer points and feel that the game is better with them.  For competitive play, I totally agree with them.  In competitive play, points are an essential part of the game for all of the many reasons listed above. Much like a tournament organizer, the points system offers a further layer of 3rd party arbitration, so each player can play to the maximum of their ability/list and see how things shake out.   I've participated in this style of play myself, both as a T.O. and player, many times. I understand the appeal, and will partake in this traditional style of play again in the future.  Competitive, tournament style play will always be a part of Warhammer, and I support those who enjoy it. Traditionally, the tournament style of game has become the default means of playing the various Warhammer tabletop games.  However,  there are other options which AoS is allowing us to embrace as fully as the traditional means of competitive play. Not better options, just different options.

I began this thread as a means of discussing the option of playing asymmetrical games and really giving over to a rule system which supports that style of play.  I am excited to try something different, because I feel like the traditional battle-line style of play has lost its novelty. I'm not saying throw balance out altogether, what I'm suggesting is trying different ways of balancing the game.  It's amazing to me how well AoS scenarios support asymmetrical battles.  I'd like to encourage folks to give it a shot trying to balance things between you and your opponent, instead of allowing someone else to tell you how to balance your game with your opponent.  The scenarios present a great starting point for what to take in order to create a different style of game.  Granted, this will take a little more time as some discussion and trial and error will be needed.  However, in my experience the games I've tried using a comparative method of take what seems fun for this scenario, has led to some of the most enjoyable tabletop games I've had in the past 5-6 years.  Your results may very, but I'd recommend giving it a shot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading some other posts, I felt a need to make this one.

Some of you might remember my opinions from other forums, but most won't, so I suppose it's worth giving a bit o' background.

I love tournaments.

Love 'em.

Love love love love 'em.

(as long as they ARE tournaments and the people in them recognize this fact  - but that's a whole different rabbit hole)

 

I have won them, lost them, gotten drunk at them, met new friends at them, been inspired by them, painted armies specifically because of them - the whole enchilada. I love tournaments.

 

I just happen to think two things:

1) AoS has been, up until this Saturday, not a tournament game.  Trying to make it one is like buying an automobile to transport you from Pittsburgh to Inverness (and I don't mean the one in Illinois) and then bitching that it cannot fly across the ocean.  If you wanted to fly, you shoulda bought a plane.

AoS seems to me to have never ever ever ever been intended to be a tournament game.  I know some argue that Warhammer was not either, but damn, it sure had a structure (and even some marketing and internal text) that made it seem like it would make a good tournament system.

 

2) The freedom of AoS sans points made every single unit viable.  The lack of proscribed base sizes (because bases were not, in any way, a part of the system) made modeling awesome. 

For the first time in GW's history they had created a system that matched their stated ideal - It's about the models.  Period.  Bring what you like. Play how you like. Nobody is right or wrong. It's the models.  

 

Tournaments are about the win.

If you don't think they are, then you are not understanding what the definition of the word means.  

Have fun (we ALWAYS have fun, right? It's our gosh darned hobby and we love it!) but that day, that weekend, you should compete first and all the other stuff in the hobby second.  Do your best to win.  You don't even have to do your best to beat the other guy, you just have to do your best for you. (subtle, but I bet you folks get it) Oddly enough, my personality is not even remotely competitive.

 

AoS allowed us to, officially, do whatever we wanted without ever, for a moment, worrying about what was best, what footprint was ideal, which pose to choose, and so on.  AoS took away the Argument Phase.

 

Now, with points and tournaments, it's back.  At least I bet it will be.

 

I have other points, some in response to other posts, but I'll hold off so as not to derail.  Happy to go there if there is interest.

Edited by Sleboda
clarity
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sleboda

Good points Joe, but i'll still fight you on these:

Quote

2) The freedom of AoS sans points made every single unit viable.  The lack of proscribed base sizes (because bases were not, in any way, a part of the system) made modeling awesome. 

Every single unit is still viable with points.  I would like people to prove me wrong on this - aside from the branchwych summon quirk. I have yet to find a unit I would not find useful for its points.  I've used dragons, mutaliths, slaughterbrutes, shaggoths, drogres, marauders, burning chariots, multiple combat lords, chimera, and a cockatrice.  All of these would be considered bad choices before, but I have yet to be disappointed.  Every Tomb King choice is equally great as well.

In concept no bases is nice, but i'd really hate to put my models on your lovingly crafted base just because I can't reach you with my weapons otherwise.

Edited by daedalus81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usefulness.

There are units I would ____never____ field in a points-based system like WH8, such as bone giants.  In AoS I gladly plop them down because their inclusion does not mean I have to give up something else.  If I think a bone giant is worth 50 points and the system says it's 175, then I'm not including it in WH8.  In AoS?  Hell yeah! Put it down and let 'er rip!

In an AoS tournament, I will not be using Bone Giants.  Ever.

 

Bases. 

Well, if you know the bases don't matter, then don't make them elaborate, because, you know, I might put my model on your elaborate base. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

In an AoS tournament, I will not be using Bone Giants.  Ever.

Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, partly it's hangover from WH8, where they sucked.

Still, their rules now, including the spell that wizards get when they are in the army, are clearly pinned on the idea of getting a boatload of attacks, but the Matched Play rules cripple that.  So, their featured ability is pretty much removed.

In regular play, they get full use. 

Here's the thing.  Even if you opted to use the Matched Play Rules of One but in an Open Play setting, I could use the guy --- because he has no points value and sure, why not include him for laughs (and visual appeal) even if he stinks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Ok, partly it's hangover from WH8, where they sucked.

Still, their rules now, including the spell that wizards get when they are in the army, are clearly pinned on the idea of getting a boatload of attacks, but the Matched Play rules cripple that.  So, their featured ability is pretty much removed.

In regular play, they get full use. 

Here's the thing.  Even if you opted to use the Matched Play Rules of One but in an Open Play setting, I could use the guy --- because he has no points value and sure, why not include him for laughs (and visual appeal) even if he stinks?

Nothing sucks if your not paying for. it only suck when they are compared to things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I do think this topic has highlighted is that the community as a whole needs to encourage all styles of play available to us - without points, with points, narrative, matched etc.  Each has it's own merits and will be enjoyable.

13 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

Points and objective based scenarios are not mutually exclusive.  Never have.  Never will be.  I'm beginning to question people's experience with points and scenarios here...

I never said they were (and nor should they), what I was trying to say (likely badly, written text is never as good as in the flesh) was that people always complain that the points aren't "right" in their opinion - this happens in all game systems not just ours.  In my view using AoS scenarios alongside points, any perceived imbalance is actually addressed resulting in both players having an enjoyable game.

12 hours ago, mmimzie said:

I'd agree scenarios make a game more balanced, but scenarios can be played to. You can make a scenario winning army.

Agreed - which is one of the reasons I enjoy not knowing scenarios until the day of the game :D  Means I have to pick a much more all round army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...