The Mindset: Matched VS Open

[daedalus81]

Sure, I understand that fear.

But then they weren't playing with people who were happy with the game if they leave to use points.  Maybe some need to take a step back to try something for longer than a day - most people got the scenarios 2 days ago - before we start massive posts about the virtues of open play.  

[Longstrider]

I'm mainly hoping I can get people to play some of the campaign scenarios while using points to try things out. I'm all for assymetric games and weird stuff happening on the table, but I'd like to get a slight idea of how long or how big games are going to be.

[SuperHappyTime]

The main reason most Uberdouches weren't playing pre-points AoS was because ironically, they don't like Uberdouches either.

Points-wise, it's a nice feeling when you compare the points of a previous battle that was an absolute slaughter and discover that if the 30 man unit of Saurus that got shot at but never saw combat was left out, it would have been fairly equal sides.

Really it makes you question why GeeDubs originally had no balancing system in the first place. Then you realize that if 8th Ed had one more year instead of this past initial year of crummy incomplete AoS, Bretonnia might have gotten it's much needed codex update. Maybe Sigmar would have had enough time to remember a horse or two for his End Times Ark.

[Dez]

15 minutes ago, SuperHappyTime said:

The main reason most Uberdouches weren't playing pre-points AoS was because ironically, they don't like Uberdouches either.

 

This perfectly sums up why I'm happy with points.

[BoardGames]

I won't quote each post individually, so bear with me.

Points  balancing whe taking into consideration possible unit interactions is actually quite Okay and it's done in Warmahordes, which is (debatably) very well balanced - not in per caster but in per faction manner. What is lacking there, and in many other games, is somme narrative, some missions that are not just random objectives. AoS has that, and if you throw it away because it has points, I strongly suggest that you try Warmahordes, it's just so much more friendly to those that love powerbuilds and theorycrafting.

Infinity (N3) for example is perfectly balanced (the Flamestrike campaign proved that so well it's not official fact), has been played with missions to the point nobody ever plays it just for random shootout. It's a great example how good balance based on points and missions work together.

I'm new to AoS (if it wasn't for Sigmar and the round bases I'd never touch Fantasy, and I still won't touch 40k even with a long stick ), but what got me here (apart from the gorgeous models) are the battleplans, scenarious and campaigns, adding points also adds the decisionmaking over usefullness, which is mitigated with battalions (and in Sylvaneth - with the wargroves, which cost points AND force a strategy. Combining a points system with some restrictions on the army crafting makes balance or at least implies there is some. It cannot be perfect in a game with such number of abilities and possible interactions - near perfect balance can be achieved only if there is near mathematical expression of the unit strengths and weaknesses. In AoS that is impossible.

if people get too competitive in a game that cannot be balanced... well, people tend to do it.

[mmimzie]

As i've said here or maybe else where. All you need for balance is; Points, Structure, and Scenarios.

Points: Set your base line is can be mathmaticly based on general stats of the unit in a vacuum. It will not result in perfectly balanced units, but does get you in the ball park.

STructure: Limiting what you can take like warmachines limits yhour warcaster war jack taking ability helps keep things balanced. Sure some of the units limited are not always over powered when taken in mass, but they add a layer that prevents repeats of a specific kind of unit, and forces most list to be more varied.

Scenarios: Shift what winning the game is like.  If you can't win on just tabling your opponent and the outside objective matters. Than you have to make a list that can work on various scenarios. 

No game is equally balanced. Chess isn't balanced because one side always goes first and lets them take control of a lot of the games tempo.  AoS can be balanced enough, and as a super competitive tournament kinda guy. That's perfectly fine with me. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@pez5767
Tournaments will likely set 2000 or 2500 points. It doesn't really matter. Every event I ever went to featured scenarios and I'd be very surprised to see an event for AoS which doesn't have a specific set of battleplans. 

The recent event at Warhammer World was ranked on how many other people chose you as their favorite game. The tiebreaker was how many points you obtained through the battleplan scenarios. I think this is a great model for AoS events. 

I used to be a boring 2400 player in 8th, but AoS has changed me. 8th had so so much to take in that adding even more complexity was just annoying. Most of the scenarios were side notes to just obliterating your opponent. AoS is very different; scenery is a blessing not an annoyance, the battleplans carry weight, time of war rules make games interesting. The 4 pages of rules leave everyone a lot of time to set up a good battle. If people want to grind out 2000 point matches, well they are still practicing with 1000 point matches, and skipping battleplans are only going to make them unprepared when the tournament uses them. With 8th edition you kind of had to jump on the bandwagon and do what the community was pushing to participate. I just don't anticipate this reincarnation of points dominated power gaming that everyone is afraid of.

@SuperHappyTime
People like different things. Many of us are competitive. Yes some people may be over competitive. Some may think they came up with an unbeatable list and then get really frustrated when they lose to someone elses 'unbeatable list'. Most of these people were flushed out in the last year. The remaining few are quitting due to the summoning restrictions. I believe that as AoS progresses, competitive people are going to find that there are no unbeatable 'net lists' that you can just win every game with. Every list is beatable, especially at the mercy of the dice gods. Competitive people will have to adapt or quit.


 

[tjgreenway]

13 hours ago, Longstrider said:

I'm mainly hoping I can get people to play some of the campaign scenarios while using points to try things out. I'm all for assymetric games and weird stuff happening on the table, but I'd like to get a slight idea of how long or how big games are going to be.

This. Scenarios are for me the best way to balance games with lopsided forces and add a more cinematic feel ( after all, what war was ever fought completely equally?), but points are a good benchmark for dictating size and length of game. 

17 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@pez5767
I used to be a boring 2400 player in 8th, but AoS has changed me. 8th had so so much to take in that adding even more complexity was just annoying. Most of the scenarios were side notes to just obliterating your opponent. AoS is very different; scenery is a blessing not an annoyance, the battleplans carry weight, time of war rules make games interesting. The 4 pages of rules leave everyone a lot of time to set up a good battle. If people want to grind out 2000 point matches, well they are still practicing with 1000 point matches, and skipping battleplans are only going to make them unprepared when the tournament uses them. With 8th edition you kind of had to jump on the bandwagon and do what the community was pushing to participate. I just don't anticipate this reincarnation of points dominated power gaming that everyone is afraid of.

 

Really hope this is the case. As somebody slowly getting back into the hobby, it's great that I've already got a 1000 point army that it's possible to play a fun game with while building up to a bigger force. It also means that any future diversions from my Stormcast once they've been built up (and Destruction are looking more and more tempting all the time) will be able to get onto the table as well, instead of sitting around purely as a painting project. As someone who'll be buying random stuff here and there just because it looks cool and will be fun to paint, that's a major, major plus  

[PraetorDragoon]

My friend made a recent comment about how he felt that a model he liked wasn't worth the points and as result isn't going to use it anymore. He did use it when we eyeballed balance (and we got pretty close to the offical points with that!) so I am sad that he isn't going to field it anymore for such an abritary reason. I did offer to reduce/change the points of the model, but he didn't want to do that.

A shame, as it feels like we are moving to more standarized armies now, instead of the mish-mash of things that made AoS cool for me.

[daedalus81]

3 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:

My friend made a recent comment about how he felt that a model he liked wasn't worth the points and as result isn't going to use it anymore. He did use it when we eyeballed balance (and we got pretty close to the offical points with that!) so I am sad that he isn't going to field it anymore for such an abritary reason. I did offer to reduce/change the points of the model, but he didn't want to do that.

A shame, as it feels like we are moving to more standarized armies now, instead of the mish-mash of things that made AoS cool for me.

This forum is littered with arbitrary reasons to not take things.  No 3+ armor?  No good!  No rend? No good!

It rarely comes attached to any substantive thought.  We have a rule of one hangover, I think; as one issue, anyway.   We're barely out of the gate with points and scenarios and people are still unable to chill out. 

There hasn't been enough time for people to develop varied armies.  And I expect them to be more unique than ones I saw previously where people took only things that worked in one synergy and stacked it.

[Dez]

3 hours ago, PraetorDragoon said:

My friend made a recent comment about how he felt that a model he liked wasn't worth the points and as result isn't going to use it anymore. He did use it when we eyeballed balance (and we got pretty close to the offical points with that!) so I am sad that he isn't going to field it anymore for such an abritary reason. I did offer to reduce/change the points of the model, but he didn't want to do that.

A shame, as it feels like we are moving to more standarized armies now, instead of the mish-mash of things that made AoS cool for me.

Synergy is also the key, people shouldn't look at things in a vacuum. If it helps out the rest of their army, they should still take it. I'd still take it anyway if I liked it and would make it work, I've always rode that thin line between competitive player and taking what I like. I've learned to make it work, and with practice and dedication he may too!

For example, I've played Flash Gitz and brought them to tournaments since 2007

[pez5767]

8 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@pez5767
The recent event at Warhammer World was ranked on how many other people chose you as their favorite game. The tiebreaker was how many points you obtained through the battleplan scenarios. I think this is a great model for AoS events. 

[...] AoS is very different; scenery is a blessing not an annoyance, the battleplans carry weight, time of war rules make games interesting. The 4 pages of rules leave everyone a lot of time to set up a good battle. [...] With 8th edition you kind of had to jump on the bandwagon and do what the community was pushing to participate. I just don't anticipate this reincarnation of points dominated power gaming that everyone is afraid of.

I hope so. With the sound of rumblings from some of the larger tournaments, it sounds like GW is taking an active role in getting back into the community to help organize events.  It would be nice to see tournaments decided by a different metric other than the traditional top-table, smash-face result.  I know a lot of tournaments used to "also award" points/prizes for best painted, most thematic, players choice, etc., but those were always ranked a distant 2nd places to combat points. Smash-face can be fun, but it doesn't grow or nurture the community as well as some of the other options.

Perhaps things will be different this time around, but even if they're not, I think that AoS can handle it.  As I've said before, I'll play it both ways, but the game now has so much more to offer than a simple, symmetrical battleline game.

@PraetorDragoon 

What a bummer.  The threads I see talking about points optimization and people not taking certain units bum me out, because so often it's a result of people reacting to what "they" say on the internet, rather than what's going on in their actual game group. Kudos to you for offering a means of allowing him to continue to field the unit.

[daedalus81]

All the tournaments I did were never 'smash face', but enough people played to table (and it was quite doable then) that it may have felt that way to some.  

Sportmanship scores are nice and all, but they are heavily skewed out of a person's control often.  Someone who had a really bad string of roles may feel badly about that game than with a game where it was a closer result.  The personality of the opponent never having come into play.  Add to that people who are new to the scene and they'll feel a little left out.

Scenarios should be the life blood of a good tournament.

[Sleboda]

Interesting.

I feel that scenarios have almost no place in a tournament.   It should be straight battles.

Unless we stop calling them tournaments, in which case hell yeah,  bring on the scenarios!

 

For nearly 30 years I've seen the horrifying results of well-meaning tournanent organizers creating scenarios.  Personal views of fairness and coolness rarely blend well and competitive (the KEY element of a thing labeled a tournament) balance goes kablooey.

FWIW, I really, really love AoS for its scenarios.   I also happen to strongly dislike the idea of AoS -as- a tournament system. 

 

With matched play it tries to be one, but I think one thing that must go away to make Matched Play work at a multi-game, multi-player, multi-army build tournament is scenarios. 

[Carnelian]

I love how in AoS there are no units you would ever not use - even with points they are all viable, if not efficient, even in matched play.

It's not like in 40k where when you get a bad match up (termagaunt horde vs landraiders) you literally cannot do anything 

[Nico]

Quote

I love how in AoS there are no units you would ever not use - even with points they are all viable, if not efficient, even in matched play.

Indeed - even the Squig Gobba has massive comedy value.

[daedalus81]

11 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

I feel that scenarios have almost no place in a tournament.   It should be straight battles.

Not even 'Watchtower' or 'Blood and Glory'? 

[Mikester1487]

17 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Interesting.

I feel that scenarios have almost no place in a tournament.   It should be straight battles.

Unless we stop calling them tournaments, in which case hell yeah,  bring on the scenarios!

 

For nearly 30 years I've seen the horrifying results of well-meaning tournanent organizers creating scenarios.  Personal views of fairness and coolness rarely blend well and competitive (the KEY element of a thing labeled a tournament) balance goes kablooey.

FWIW, I really, really love AoS for its scenarios.   I also happen to strongly dislike the idea of AoS -as- a tournament system. 

 

With matched play it tries to be one, but I think one thing that must go away to make Matched Play work at a multi-game, multi-player, multi-army build tournament is scenarios. 

I'm going to respectfully disagree here.  Scenarios let you take more than a line of varanguard to face roll everyone off the table.  It adds another dimension to a tournament round with specific things you as a general will have to deal with. 

I've only been in the hobby since 2010, and I too have seen some tournaments try with good intention on scenarios.  They usually flop because the extra objective was something to be forgotten as you bloody your fist on an opponents non optimal army.

Personally I'm hoping for more use of scenarios everywhere.  Not just for balance but to see more model variety on the tables.

[Dez]

IMHO Scenarios are the way to go. A good general should be able to keep all those things in mind when playing the game. I know playing to the scenario vs Duff Dem up! has won me games/tournaments. To me baiting someone into charging a unit off of an objective is just delicious. I think the matched play scenarios will work just fine in tournaments with the possible exception of the Gifts from the Heavens because of the random factor. Though even that one is nice because you have to think ahead of time and cover all your possibilities, just like the end of round and whomever gets initiative. 

I don't think I've been this excited about gaming in a long time.

[mmimzie]

I think scenarios are good. Even more so when you can't while by tabling and the scenarios points supersede that of tabling your oppent. Which makes it so games are about controlling the board, and if you want to table your goal is to get as many points while you do it, and tabling just of vents the opponent from scoring more. 

 

Edit: though I will say ALOT of the original AoS scenarios were very one note, and just excuses to table your enemy. 

[daedalus81]

11 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

I'm going to respectfully disagree here.  Scenarios let you take more than a line of varanguard to face roll everyone off the table.  It adds another dimension to a tournament round with specific things you as a general will have to deal with. 

I've only been in the hobby since 2010, and I too have seen some tournaments try with good intention on scenarios.  They usually flop because the extra objective was something to be forgotten as you bloody your fist on an opponents non optimal army.

Personally I'm hoping for more use of scenarios everywhere.  Not just for balance but to see more model variety on the tables.

Right - another problem in the past is the scenarios like watchtower interacted with the rules very poorly.  A small update would have made it an important factor in regulating armies.

Having the simpler rule set combined with a broad leveling with points makes it far less likely that you're going to be obliterated unless you really mess up.

[amysrevenge]

22 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Interesting.

I feel that scenarios have almost no place in a tournament.   It should be straight battles.

Unless we stop calling them tournaments, in which case hell yeah,  bring on the scenarios!

 

For nearly 30 years I've seen the horrifying results of well-meaning tournanent organizers creating scenarios.  Personal views of fairness and coolness rarely blend well and competitive (the KEY element of a thing labeled a tournament) balance goes kablooey.

FWIW, I really, really love AoS for its scenarios.   I also happen to strongly dislike the idea of AoS -as- a tournament system. 

 

With matched play it tries to be one, but I think one thing that must go away to make Matched Play work at a multi-game, multi-player, multi-army build tournament is scenarios. 

Couple of things going on in there.  Some of them I think you're already very well aware of lol.

First of all, "straight battle" is already a battleplan.  It requires setup instructions and victory conditions, and there are even more than one way to figure out those victory conditions - do you tally up models killed as a a fraction of models started with?  Fraction of starting units killed? Fractinon of starting points killed? Each of those are advantageous to different armies and different builds.

Second of all, there are battleplans and then there are battleplans.  Crazy stuff out of the Realmgate Wars campaign books like random table quarters falling into the void taking all units on them along with?  Yeah, maybe not for tournaments.  Battleplans where one side tries to stop the other side from completing a ritual, but only one model can actually perform the ritual so an alpha strike of Chameleon Skinks can end the game in the first shooting phase of T1?  Also probably not that great for a tournament.  However...  Straightforward stuff like the six objective holding Pitched Battle battleplans in the General's Handbook for Matched Play?  I reckon these to be substantially better than "let's cluster in the middle and fight" straight battles for tournament play (or for garage play, for that matter - "cluster in the middle" battles are what drive players away from the game).

Finally, I know why you said "strongly dislike" rather than "doesn't work" for AoS as a tournament game - you are being accurate and precise, which I appreciate.  You know very well that it *does* work, as evidenced by the many tournaments that work just fine all around the world.  So "strongly dislike" is a completely fair thing to say, and nobody can disagree.  But "doesn't work" would be just patently untrue, as it clearly does work.

[Sleboda]

3 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

Not even 'Watchtower' or 'Blood and Glory'? 

Taking my TK bias out, no.   Not even. 

[SuperHappyTime]

13 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@pez5767 

@SuperHappyTime
People like different things. Many of us are competitive. Yes some people may be over competitive. Some may think they came up with an unbeatable list and then get really frustrated when they lose to someone elses 'unbeatable list'. Most of these people were flushed out in the last year. The remaining few are quitting due to the summoning restrictions. I believe that as AoS progresses, competitive people are going to find that there are no unbeatable 'net lists' that you can just win every game with. Every list is beatable, especially at the mercy of the dice gods. Competitive people will have to adapt or quit.

When I refer to uberdouches, I'm referring to that one guy who fielded his entire collection because "the rules let me". IMHO, the people complaining about the new summoning rules as ruining are the same.

And that doesn't extend to the eventual netlists, or when GW makes an utterly broken faction. The reason to never complain about those is because if we hope (and/or complain) hard enough, the broken rules might get fixed.

But the people I mention first, the Uberdouches, they aren't going to change.

[WoollyMammoth]

@Sleboda
Scenarios are for every kind of play, including tournaments. Even in 8th they were a staple. AoS is a wargame, and war is often more complex than simply "fighting". You had to defend a wall, take the high ground, assassinate the general or his chain of command. Scenarios were always in 8th, and the Matched Play section (designed for tournaments) features objective based battleplans. These work great in a competitive setting. AoS works great with scenarios. If you don't think scenarios belong in tournaments, you have a disappointing road ahead.

@SuperHappyTime
AoS is just nicely balanced. As strong as you might think a list is, its really not that strong. I just don't anticipate anything getting out of hand like it was in 8th edition. 

A crazy list might be, like 15 liberators, a lord celestant and 7 units of Retributors. This is why events should be judged on "favorite player" - nobody is voting for this guy unless hes the nicest guy ever with the most amazing models (not likely). This is also why Battleplans are needed; with the 3 places of power battleplan, it would be fairly easy to beat this list by sniping his char and holding any of yours on an objective for a few turns. If a guy at my local club showed up with this list, I would insist on playing this battleplan, and some nasty time of war rules to level the playing field. If anyone shows up and says battleplans are lame and they don't want to use them, I'd wish them luck in finding a new group that is interested in playing that way.