The Mindset: Matched VS Open

[WoollyMammoth]

@daedalus81
Its not my vision - its GWs vision. So I should play no battleplans against a list put together only to win games? So I can lose a game in order to perpetuate my opponents misguided notion that winning a game with a powerlist makes him a better player? And somehow losing a one sided game is 'learning through adversity'?

I don't want to get beaten down to grow stronger I want to play enjoyable games of AoS. All you have to do is play battleplans to take the pressure off balance and have a good game. Its not really mind-boggling. 

[daedalus81]

5 minutes ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@daedalus81
Its not my vision - its GWs vision. So I should play no battleplans against a list put together only to win games? So I can lose a game in order to perpetuate my opponents misguided notion that winning a game with a powerlist makes him a better player? And somehow losing a one sided game is 'learning through adversity'?

I don't want to get beaten down to grow stronger I want to play enjoyable games of AoS. All you have to do is play battleplans to take the pressure off balance and have a good game. Its not really mind-boggling. 

Sorry I took battleplan to mean something other than scenario (still reconciling battleplan as the new scenario in my head).   I deleted the post, because I was going to rewrite it, but we'll just go from here, I guess.

Yes, I agree, points games should be done within one of the scenarios.  Not agreeing to do so and you're not really playing under matched points and it's all for show at that point.   I'm a little dubious on the time of war stuff.  I wouldn't kick the guy out, but he won't be learning anything and may not get far in a tournament.

We're mostly on the same page, but I read your post wrong.  Sorry for going off on a tangent.

[WoollyMammoth]

@daedalus81
You're right that I shouldn't just pick a battleplan to get an advantage (even against a power-gamer who probably deserves it). I like to roll for one randomly.

I think its important to use battleplans and time of war in every game and promote this kind of play for every game. This will avoid the game degrading to the way 8th was. As long as we promote battleplan play I think it will all work out. 

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

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.

=> I appreciate you conducting a civil discussion. In the interest of furthering that and of being clear, I should say that I believe it actually doesn't work. That is to say, playing Age of Sigmar pre-GH as a tournament game doesn't work.  What has worked is a variety of systems that use PGH AoS as the basis of some other system.  Other people have put pontoons on and sailed their cars across the ocean, but I can't help but wonder why they didn't buy a boat instead of a car in the first place if sailing was their goal.

9 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

sorry, i'm learning this modern forum - JS

 

4 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@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.

 

I've played in tournaments for a long, long time.  I am not disappointed (enough) in them to the point where I won't continue because they offer me lots of fun despite not really being what I consider a tournament. Yes, 8th had scenarios.  Yes, my TK benefited from a few scenarios.  It does not mean I didn't think scenarios were misplaced.

The problem is with people who think they know better and who fall back on the really, really, really, really, really misguided idea that "it all evens out in the end."

For instance, if you have a scenario that says all missile and magic ranges are limited to 12 inches and all magic miscasts on any doubles (using older systems), you might thing it's fun and that it applies equally to all armies and that by the end of a 5 or 6 game event all armies would be hit equally.  Wrong.  That combat heavy non-magical Khorne army is all sorts of happy and never suffers.

But Joe, you say, we  can add a scenario that makes combat units -1 to hit.  Yep, you can.  And if you think that this makes it all fair and even in the long run, well, I'm not sure what to say.

 

There are far too many strengths/styles/modes/etc of armies and tactics out there to think you can come up with 5 nerfs over 5 games and make it fair to all. Only points get close to balancing thing over multiple games and only Victory Points (as a tie breaker for Win/Loss total) should matter in a tournament.

 

In my opinion.

 

But I'll say again, I LOVE scenarios and LOVE AoS - just not in tournaments.

[mmimzie]

I think the matched play Scenarios are fine though. They seem like pretty darn good tournament  scenarios to me. I think lots of tournaments do "balancing" scenarios. Which i think are pretty stupid in my opinion, but just throw stuff on the board just to table the other side is also really stupid. Especially in Aos where terrain only kinda matters. Your disconnected from the map in AoS, with out scenarios whats the points may as well just play on a blank coffee table. 

I'll admit there exist no scenario that treats everyone fair, but this is even included in the just table your opponent scenario. Tabling someone lend itself to armies with absurdly high wound counts where you literally can't throw out enough damage to kill it in a game, and also high damage. 

The base game win condition of killing models factors elite ogre and storm cast armies. Even teh sudden death favors them. So there is no way to make scenarios that treats every army fair not even simple stuff like just go kill the other guy.

As i've said the matched play scenarios are good. Ogres are abit screwed by some, but thier big bases let them get over that, plus they are wicked fast with out giving up much if any killing power.  So the few model count scenarios they are they aren't totally boned, and make even have an advantage in.

I think when you look at scenarios to specifically balance things. You get into pretty silly territory. I think when you make scenarios as have been lined out on matched play, that kind of might maybe favor something your making good scenarios for tournament play. 

[daedalus81]

14 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

For instance, if you have a scenario that says all missile and magic ranges are limited to 12 inches and all magic miscasts on any doubles (using older systems), you might thing it's fun and that it applies equally to all armies and that by the end of a 5 or 6 game event all armies would be hit equally.  Wrong.  That combat heavy non-magical Khorne army is all sorts of happy and never suffers.

What you're saying is that scenarios take a square and make is a circle.  What they actually do is smooth out a bumpy circle.

The examples you provide are nowhere near what the current scenarios do.

Under current rules someone could take 4 dragon heroes and a smattering of battle line, but doing so means they're going to have a harder time winning objectives that require more models, but they'll likely win 'Three Places of Power'.  It doesn't stop the list from winning games, but it encourages other choices to avoid more difficult games.

[Sleboda]

And that's great.   I'll try 'em, and would have anyway.  I'm just saying that in my o-ver-whelming experience sceario authors just mess things up all the while thinking they are being fair.

 

 

Here's to being wrong this time. No,  really. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@Sleboda
I understand where you are coming from. Scenarios were annoying in 8th. As was terrain. AoS is a new age. Scenarios are no longer annoying. Terrain is no longer annoying. Scenarios in 8th just didn't work, the writing was often poor. They were trying to add things that were more annoying than beneficial.

Limiting the range of shooting or giving -1 to hit in close combat is something youre more likely to see in Time of War rules. I think these things are fine when they are random. Some Time of War rules change each turn, so one turn shooting might be limited, another turn, everyone might have -2" to charges. These are interesting and you need to be able to deal with adversity.

But I do agree that any battleplan which can give one army a massive handicap and have no affect on another is inappropriate for a competitive setting where you are trying to create balance. The 6 designed for matched play are simply based around holding objectives. As @mmimzie said - they are great for tournaments. The only thing that would give you a disadvantage is if you have some really weak Heros. If tournaments use objective based scenarios, they will work great - just like 40k tournaments. Objective based battleplans smooth out the balance, as @daedalus81 said.

 

[mmimzie]

 

@WoollyMammoth Well i think all the scenarios favor things.

 

Scenario one Favors  Gun lines and high model count. Potentially multiple blocks of units or a big hrode that can span the center of the board to take both objectives.

 

Scenario two Favors model counts, and possibly density to hold locations on the map. It can favor gun lines, but you still gotta some how deny your opponent points on their side of the map.

 

Scenario 3: Is kinda nuts, but it favors units that can hit the board and either move quickly like cavalry and monster, have long range like artilery, or immediate contribute like casters and heros.  Battle line is strong because i feel like the wording kinda lets you cheat them all out first turn??? I haven't played this one yet, but man i'm pretty excited.

 

Scenario 4: Is really big on being aggressive. You can stay on your side, as your own objective isn't worth jack. 

 

Scenario 5: Hero hammer baby!!  The better your heros are the better you'll do with this. Though bubble wrapping your heros won't end up to badly either.  This one is actualy the most kind of even as gun lines don't need to move to far and can pick off heros.  Really aggressive plays are rewarded here as well. Monster heros are super strong here. 2-4 monster hero list will be tough here, though i don't know who can really do this.

Scenario 6: This one in vanilla as can be. I think it favors really defensive armies with a few sturdy harassment units that can tie up an objective for a turn or two to still victory.  Though big end game plays can be very swinging here. I think if you get tabled you'll almost auto lose here.

 

Either way as i said. I really don't think any scenario can be unbiased. This said just straight up killing your opponent is biased. Having objectives that don't push you so hard that it's a 100% loss for you are the way to go. Sure some might be tough, but that's okay.  

 

I know my squishy none killing necromancers will have a tough time stealing points from enemy heros, and if the rest of my army kills the enemy hero. I have to wait a whole battle round to start scoring. That said my horde will excel in almost all the other scenarios because it have great map control.  

Health scenario pools make it so list need to be well rounded, and focus are more aspects of the game. That or take risk in some airs to be way better in others. This makes more of the game's units viable as they can be niche but effective in some of these scenarios. 

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Sleboda
I understand where you are coming from. Scenarios were annoying in 8th. As was terrain. AoS is a new age. Scenarios are no longer annoying. Terrain is no longer annoying. Scenarios in 8th just didn't work, the writing was often poor. They were trying to add things that were more annoying than beneficial.

-snip -

The 6 designed for matched play are simply based around holding objectives. As @mmimzie said - they are great for tournaments. The only thing that would give you a disadvantage is if you have some really weak Heros.

 

I really like the scenarios in 8th and, as it turns out, thoroughly enjoyed the terrain rules (they FINALLY let us have the freedom of hobby expression 40K players always had while not messing with freedom of movement). I know lots of folks who share you opinion of them, though.

I look forward to trying the GH MP scenarios!

[daedalus81]

@mmimzie

I take the scenarios a little differently.  I'm doing a writeup on them soon to discuss them though.