A Wish: Smaller Size Increments

[Sleboda]

No, this is not one of those "the old days were better" rants from a nearly 48 year old man. This is a modern AoS wish.

 

I wish I could add 3 models to a 20 man unit instead of having to add 10. Heck, give me 5 instead of 10. So many units have break points and bonuses at tens. For instance, Bloodletters get +1 at 20 models. Lose one guy and you lose the perk, so to protect the bonus you need to add 10 (10!) more models.

What if you could get 23 models instead? Would that be good or not? Thoughts?

Edited June 13, 2019 by Sleboda

[Kramer]

It would help for that purpose but it would also make the list building more nitpicky as well. Dealing in loose points is cool if you are into listbuildkng but in the AoS philosophy it should be easy to learn and fast to have fun.. the 10 man increments help in my view. 

[RuneBrush]

I'd like to see something more akin to what has been done in 40k. 

For those who don't know, within 40k, you've two systems - a simple "Power Level" based one where a unit has a base PL cost with a few options (e.g. double the size of the unit doubles the base PL, a specific weapon option may be +1PL), it's super straightforward for the vast majority of games.  You then have the points system, whereby everything is costed - so each model in a unit has a points cost, each weapon has a points cost and so on.  It's points that are used for competitive events and you have to spend a lot more time thinking about your unit composition and can add models individually - even that optional upgrade gets paid for with points.

I think this would work fantastically for AoS.  Our existing points system is pretty much the Power Level system already, but you could divide it by ten and call it "Renown" and then hook up a more granular points system.  You want your Vampire Lord to have wings - that's an extra 15 points, you want the champion to have a Grand Hammer, that's 8 points, a unit of 12 skeletons - that'll be 96 points etc.  Even to the point of having to pay for things like allegiance scenery pieces and artefacts.

For me having two list building mechanics means that you can properly define between casual and competitive gaming styles without having to compromise with both.  I know from your comments on here @Sleboda, that you tend to play more competitively, so a more granular pointing system would allow you to give that unit a few extra models to keep that unit bonus a little longer.  Equally having a simpler Renown/Power Level pointing system would mean that it's super easy to create a list on the fly if you're having a quick game (or a new player learning).

[Kramer]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I'd like to see something more akin to what has been done in 40k. 

For those who don't know, within 40k, you've two systems - a simple "Power Level" based one where a unit has a base PL cost with a few options (e.g. double the size of the unit doubles the base PL, a specific weapon option may be +1PL), it's super straightforward for the vast majority of games.  You then have the points system, whereby everything is costed - so each model in a unit has a points cost, each weapon has a points cost and so on.  It's points that are used for competitive events and you have to spend a lot more time thinking about your unit composition and can add models individually - even that optional upgrade gets paid for with points.

I think this would work fantastically for AoS.  Our existing points system is pretty much the Power Level system already, but you could divide it by ten and call it "Renown" and then hook up a more granular points system.  You want your Vampire Lord to have wings - that's an extra 15 points, you want the champion to have a Grand Hammer, that's 8 points, a unit of 12 skeletons - that'll be 96 points etc.  Even to the point of having to pay for things like allegiance scenery pieces and artefacts.

For me having two list building mechanics means that you can properly define between casual and competitive gaming styles without having to compromise with both.  I know from your comments on here @Sleboda, that you tend to play more competitively, so a more granular pointing system would allow you to give that unit a few extra models to keep that unit bonus a little longer.  Equally having a simpler Renown/Power Level pointing system would mean that it's super easy to create a list on the fly if you're having a quick game (or a new player learning).

I don't have any interest in 40K so I have no idea. But if both options are available... are Power Levels actually used? In a club environment for example?

Edited June 12, 2019 by Kramer

[RuneBrush]

Just now, Kramer said:

I don't have any interest in 40K so I have no idea. But if both options are available... are Power Levels actually used? In a club environment for example?

My own experience* has been I've seen more Power Level games than pointed games.  I know the local club tends to veer towards them unless they're running a campaign (or doing tournament practice) and at open days up at WHW most of the staff say they use power levels for games at lunchtime or similar.  The actual power level of games seems to vary massively too - very much a case of "I've just knocked out a 27PL list - fancy a game?"

* I'm sure other people may well have difference experiences though!

[Satyrical Sophist]

Really don't like this idea.

AoS is balanced based on having set unit numbers, so you can't do what you describe with blood letters. You want to have that 20+ bonus? Get a big unit, otherwise accept that you lose the bonus quickly. 

As for equipment options, even more disagree. I have an 40k Ork army, and the boys mobs don't have any special weapon options because they aren't worth the points. It also feels like you are "wasting points" to pick them up. This leaves you with super uniform looking units, and feels incredibly "gamey" to me. 

To use your grand hammer example, liberators probably wouldn't ever use them, since they are used as minimum size units as meat shields and battle line chaff. Hell they probably wouldn't use a prime if that cost points. So instead of a more varied unit, you get just 5 grunts standing there.

Maybe a change to get units in increments of 5 more often? Though for a lot of things they'd want to keep the minimum unit size at least 10.

[Charlo]

The unit sizes are also designed with the boxes of models in mind. You buy a box, you get a unit. Maybe not all the specific tiny options but you get at least one of every model to make a playble unit.

I also think it makes list building a lot better, as it becomes less about "Do I take 3 extra guys or upgrade this weapon" like in 40k to having actual decisions where you are playing with larger blocks.

[RuneBrush]

6 minutes ago, Satyrical Sophist said:

Really don't like this idea.

AoS is balanced based on having set unit numbers, so you can't do what you describe with blood letters. You want to have that 20+ bonus? Get a big unit, otherwise accept that you lose the bonus quickly. 

As for equipment options, even more disagree. I have an 40k Ork army, and the boys mobs don't have any special weapon options because they aren't worth the points. It also feels like you are "wasting points" to pick them up. This leaves you with super uniform looking units, and feels incredibly "gamey" to me. 

To use your grand hammer example, liberators probably wouldn't ever use them, since they are used as minimum size units as meat shields and battle line chaff. Hell they probably wouldn't use a prime if that cost points. So instead of a more varied unit, you get just 5 grunts standing there.

Maybe a change to get units in increments of 5 more often? Though for a lot of things they'd want to keep the minimum unit size at least 10.

As I said, it's just my opinion and one idea to add some more variety to the game.  I feel that something like this would help define a difference between competitive and matched play, which is something I just don't think we can do within AoS as it currently stands. 

I think uniform looking units are always something that is going to happen - a massive unit of 40 models even with 3 "specials" does look uniform, which is half the point when you have a horde unit.  In fact AoS has more mono-pose models than 40k does.  In your example too, if somebody didn't feel the grand hammer is necessary for the unit then why shouldn't they have the option to not take it? (and not feel it's included as a tax) - it's micro management at this level that people who play a lot of competitive games often really enjoy too.

I do get that this wouldn't appeal to everyone which is why I didn't suggest to scrap what we've already got.

[CyderPirate]

2 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

My own experience* has been I've seen more Power Level games than pointed games.  I know the local club tends to veer towards them unless they're running a campaign (or doing tournament practice) and at open days up at WHW most of the staff say they use power levels for games at lunchtime or similar.  The actual power level of games seems to vary massively too - very much a case of "I've just knocked out a 27PL list - fancy a game?"

* I'm sure other people may well have difference experiences though!

Yeah, I've found the complete opposite. No-one round here uses PL, even for casual pick-up games as the balancing is wildly off-base. It's the main reason I don't play 40k anymore. Army building with normal points is a massive headache  as the options, equipment costs etc are all spread out in different parts of the books, sometimes in different books altogether!

I'd much prefer that AoS sticks to its own thing and not get bogged down in all that nonsense. 

[SwampHeart]

18 minutes ago, CyderPirate said:

Yeah, I've found the complete opposite. No-one round here uses PL, even for casual pick-up games as the balancing is wildly off-base. It's the main reason I don't play 40k anymore. Army building with normal points is a massive headache  as the options, equipment costs etc are all spread out in different parts of the books, sometimes in different books altogether!

I'd much prefer that AoS sticks to its own thing and not get bogged down in all that nonsense. 

Couldn't agree more - I have seen exactly 0 games of PL being played in my area, even when the local GW tries to push PL games. Its a system that entirely relies on both players to not try to game it because as soon as one does it goes down in flames. 

I also can't stand 40k's points granularity, on the surface it seemed like a great idea because it gave GW a ton of nobs to fine tune. However in practice it leads to many many many lists being wrong (because of where and how points are listed). Additionally I've seen a great deal of new players fail to just understand they need to pay for the gun a model has in addition to paying for the model. Its a needlessly complex system that hasn't generated any great value in the terms of competitive balance. 

[Overread]

I think the system for 40K works well because there are many more armies which have multiple gun profiles per unit. Tyranids are a fantastic example of how versatile the system can be because most of their units have multiple weapon options (actually mane of the bigger ones can have two). So it lets you equip models for different situations.

 

AoS has some of that, but by and large a unit with swords is a swords unit through and through. There are far more specialist units in that way. It's part of how old-world armies were more formal fixed. A swordsman was a swordsman and their armour and look different to a pikeman etc... This carried into the game for many units. Sure we've got stormcast liberators with 3 weapon choices and some other models with variety, but by and large many are mono-weapon. In addition many have a different arm setup which makes them less ideal for magnets for weapon alternatives; so I don't think its something GW can push the same way the ycan for 40K. 

 

Basically 40K is a different beast and a different style of warfare and build up. I think it works to have a much more broken down points system, rather than have 30 different "Tyranid Warrior" warscrolls for all the different variations of the models equipment lineup. Meanwhile AoS can easily work with having 2 Witch Aelf warscrolls for the two different weapon variations and then a few optional weapon swapovers (swords or bucklers). 

 

 

That said it would be nice if the points did break down abit more for units, though I think that it might lead to many abusing it for things like the "battle line tax". Some would take 1 clan rat per unit if they could. So minimums are important. I think AoS gets around its little point varaitions well with Endless Spells - they are clearly made with a selection designed to fit into those last 20 or so points left. 

[hughwyeth]

Though the PL system is not that well done in 40k, generally more granularity makes it harder to balance a game, not easier. It's harder to balance a game with 10,000,000 possible combinations than 1,000. 

Age of Sigmar already has different points for different weapons loadouts- they just call the units different names. For example one kit makes Paladins, Retributors, Protectors and Decimators, all with different rules and points values.

3 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

In your example too, if somebody didn't feel the grand hammer is necessary for the unit then why shouldn't they have the option to not take it? (and not feel it's included as a tax) - it's micro management at this level that people who play a lot of competitive games often really enjoy too.

In my experience, "micro management" manifests itself as "figuring out how to break the system" or "how did the rules designers ****** up points values?". Much harder to do when units have simplified points values. 

[Marc Wilson]

Not a fan of this. The simplicity of quickly theorising lists with round numbers is major plus.

[Wired4War]

Well technically the rules for almost every warscroll is "this unit includes any number of models", but I'm guessing this is about matched play rules.

[Sleboda]

12 hours ago, Kramer said:

It would help for that purpose but it would also make the list building more nitpicky as well. Dealing in loose points is cool if you are into listbuildkng but in the AoS philosophy it should be easy to learn and fast to have fun.. the 10 man increments help in my view. 

I can see that, so maybe an alternative would be to make these bonuses not kick in our be lost at the same value as the increments. It just stinks to purchase, paint, and field 10 additional models to get a bonus that is lost to the first arrow that flies their way.

@RuneBrush

I do lean toward competitive play, but, oddly enough, really prefer the Power system 40K has. It would be great if AoS did the dual system as well.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Sleboda

[Charlo]

To add to the PL thing, I played exactly one game with PL when 8th came out... Then started using points again.

Some armies are just BROKEN with PL...

[mmimzie]

I'd say i prefer the current system. 40k is kind of a ridiculous comparison but the stupidly nitty grittyness of that is goofy and hammers getting new players in the game when the simple act of puting your army together in the way most people play is overly complicated.

I also like to think on the battle field a block of 40 clan rats isn't realyl a block of 40 clan rats it  could be be a unit sizing between 30 and 50, and we are just seeing that classic general top down veiw of the battle field. So optically i don't pain over individual models. 

Lastly,  I think the fact the folks still need to make a 1020pt list even in 40k because they want to add 1 more terminator or do like wise in AoS because they don't wanna be under by 30-60pt. While the game also gives you CP and endless spells to fill list with, and a triump if you r the lower pted player.

I don't know it just doesn't seem worth it to me, so i can add 3 clan rats to my list. 

[Kramer]

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I can see that, so maybe an alternative would be to make these bonuses not kick in our be lost at the same value as the increments. It just stinks to purchase, paint, and field 10 additional models to get a bonus that is lost to the first arrow that flies their way.

@RuneBrush

I do lean toward competitive play, but, oddly enough, really prefer the Power system 40K has. It would be great if AoS did the dual system as well.

Yeah that could work but in the end, for me it’s an addition choice to make. And the fact that it’s a discussion makes me feel it’s a good dilemma GW throws at us. Which is of course personal. 

[EMMachine]

On 6/12/2019 at 11:40 AM, Sleboda said:

I wish I could add 3 models to a 20 man unit instead of having to add 10. Heck, give me 5 instead of 10. So many units have break points and bonuses at tens. For instance, Bloodletters get +1 at 20 models. Lose one guy and you lose the perk, so to protect the bonus you need to add 10 (10!) more models.

I think it is mostly simplisity that you only need 1-2 values for each unit. The min value for each block and a maxvalue if you have a hordebonus (and the Hordebonus only works because of the fix minvalues or we would need a third value, let's call it "step".

12 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I do lean toward competitive play, but, oddly enough, really prefer the Power system 40K has. It would be great if AoS did the dual system as well.

I played exactly 1 game with powerlevel in 40k. The problem is, if you play with someone who optimizes the list it doesn't work. We had the nearly the same powerlevel, but in case of points he had about 100 points more than me. On the other end, the pointsystem is without using a armylistbuilder a pain in the a**. Partly because the values are really splitted between books (while in AoS the Generals Handbook overrides everything, until a battletome overrides the pitched battle profile of a faction, you need the Codex and Chapter Approved and need to look what values changed.)

I think points for single models are mostly needed for Skirmish. At least the Hordebonus wouldn't work with points per model.

17 hours ago, Wired4War said:

Well technically the rules for almost every warscroll is "this unit includes any number of models", but I'm guessing this is about matched play rules. 

During the start of AoS the Warscrolldescription had a minimumsize in it, but I think they changed it, that the warscrolls could be used universal in the different rulepackages (including Skirmish).

For example let's say Shootas or Stabbas of Gloomspite Gitz.

• In skirmish you can take any number you want
• In matched play minimumsize is 20
• in Path to Glory the unit has a size of 15

There was also a strange situation with the Compendium unit "Waywatchers" that on the Warscroll they had min 5 models, in the pitched Battleprofile 3 models. Was it possible to play 3 Models because of Pitched Battle Profile or did you need at least 6 models because the warscroll said 5 as a minimum.

 

 

[Kasper]

I realize this would add to the customization of the army list, but I personally find it an unnecessary change. To me a part of AoS' charm is the simplicity of the game really.  If you want more models to secure a 20+ model bonus (as an example), you are probably better off gunning for 30 anyways, rather than 23, as a single spell would easily "bracket" your unit in the case of bringing so few extra models.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Kasper

[Slayerofmen]

A granular ooints system would be far better for the game and actually stop another style of bloat that has already begun..... the unnecessary duplication of warscrolls kurnoth hunters now have three warscrolls where the only difference is the weapon the units are still costed the same and they are all still named the same so unless you are looking at the tiny pictures on the warscroll you will pick the wrong not to mention you now have to go to three warscrolls for the same unit.

Granular points would allow you to refine weapon cost to unit roll, scythes too good make them cost more then bows or swords

[EMMachine]

17 hours ago, Slayerofmen said:

A granular ooints system would be far better for the game and actually stop another style of bloat that has already begun..... the unnecessary duplication of warscrolls kurnoth hunters now have three warscrolls where the only difference is the weapon the units are still costed the same and they are all still named the same so unless you are looking at the tiny pictures on the warscroll you will pick the wrong not to mention you now have to go to three warscrolls for the same unit. 

Granular points would allow you to refine weapon cost to unit roll, scythes too good make them cost more then bows or swords

Yeah, it could be a possiblility, but on the other side, it would be mostly impossible to make a 20 man unit 10 pointes cheaper or more expensive after you would have to use 0.5 Points (like we have seen with the WHFB 7. Edition Skaven Armybook).

It's interesting to see in case of Meeting Engagements, if you could use 2x kurnoth hunters with Scythes, 2x kurnoth hunters with swords and 2x kurnoth hunters with bows, because they have 3 warscrolls (or lets say 3-4 units because 6 would have to many points), or if warscrolls with subtitle are count as the same warscroll.

[SwampHeart]

On 6/13/2019 at 8:50 AM, Slayerofmen said:

Granular points would allow you to refine weapon cost to unit roll, scythes too good make them cost more then bows or swords

If this actually happened on a consistent basis I would agree with you. However this is how 40k handles its points and it still fails to use this as an adjustment dial to balance the game. Granular points are bad for games designed to be played on a large scale such as AoS and 40k. 

Edit - k n o b somehow gets caught by the profanity filter. 

Edited June 14, 2019 by SwampHeart

[RuneBrush]

@SwampHeart yup, because it's often used in a derogatory manner

[Xasz]

No, just no.

"Modular" points is one of the best things AoS has brought to the table.

It makes buying and maintaining viable collections a lot easier/self-explanatory and collection growth tends to be significantly more "natural". (i.e. the percentage of what you buy and what you actually use is way higher)

Incremental (fine grained) unit growth is one of the very few things I never wanna go back to in tabletop/Warhammer.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Xasz