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

AOS tier list!

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, JackStreicher said:

Your entire point is based on a assumption that is easily waved aside by one project: The Ninth Age.

balance != Boring

I don‘t know what you assume competetive means but balance and skill is the major factor for any competetive game.

I no absolutely no one that plays the 9th age or of any 9th age events in North America.  I do however know over one hundred highly competitive players in north america, many of whom would disagree with that assertion.  The fact of the matter is that balance has nothing to do with competitive.  You can be competitive with balanced rules and you can be equally competitive with unbalanced rules.  The whole skill thing is also something you cannot objectively gauge in most games today other than through listbuilding and knowing that if two equal lists were brought, then the player that wins the most would be considered most skilled.  However that is impossible to do in today's tournament culture because all of the lists are different, and people don't really care about the math behind what is stronger, they will say you can't go off of the math. 

So as it pertains to AOS, skill is determined by tournament wins.  The more tournament wins u rack up, the more skilled you are compared to players that can't win tournaments, because we're all playing within the same confines of the rules and listbuilding.  

Edited by Dead Scribe

Share this post


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

I think it's a pretty silly notion that balancing the game would end up making it boring, there are plenty of wargames and boardgames out there that are pretty close to balanced and are not boring at all. 

Can you give some examples specifically of wargames that are balanced that have a good population and where it is not considered boring by a majority of people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Can you give some examples specifically of wargames that are balanced that have a good population and where it is not considered boring by a majority of people?

So are we adding additional criteria now, the game has to have a good population as well?  What is a "Good" Population? Does it have to be regional, global, etc? Also, what is "Majority of people? Do you want a quorum across North America? 

You can't expect to be taken seriously on this, when you are just going to throw as much "criteria" to fit your narrative is possible. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There are plenty of wargames and boardgames out there that are pretty close to balanced and are not boring at all."

You never answered my question.  What wargame is considered balanced and not boring at all by more than a handful of people?  My criteria is that you aren't going to throw some unknown game published by Osprey that has like 20 people that play it that find it fun.  

You're asking me what a majority of people are but are trying to say that there are plenty of wargames that are pretty close to balanced that are not boring at all.  What are they?

Because if you're trying to say that people actively crave and want balance, and there are *plenty* of wargames that have this level of balance, I would expect that GW games would have very few players.  But thats obviously not the case.

Edited by Dead Scribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

That doesn't in any way give a quote from a rules designer on how the game is 'intended to be played', as you were trying to state.   Its fine to say "to me, the game is not intended to be a competitive game."  Its not fine to state that its a fact however because its not without a designers intent quote stating such.

Matched play not the only one section in ghd as you know. This alone is an indication that this game was created not only for "competitive" play style. Quote from ghb2018 page2: "It is important to note that all of the rules presented in this book are optional; they can be used, or not in any combination that you and your tabletop adversaries find enjoyable." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

"There are plenty of wargames and boardgames out there that are pretty close to balanced and are not boring at all."

You never answered my question.  What wargame is considered balanced and not boring at all by more than a handful of people?  My criteria is that you aren't going to throw some unknown game published by Osprey that has like 20 people that play it that find it fun.  

You're asking me what a majority of people are but are trying to say that there are plenty of wargames that are pretty close to balanced that are not boring at all.  What are they?

Because if you're trying to say that people actively crave and want balance, and there are *plenty* of wargames that have this level of balance, I would expect that GW games would have very few players.  But thats obviously not the case.

Some popular games right now that people in my area play that are considered pretty well balanced are Infinity, Kings of War, and a new one called Conquest.

Secondly, I never said anywhere that people crave and want balance, I said it is a silly notion that you think a game cannot be both balanced and not boring. 

Thirdly, you are being clearly disingenuous with your GW comment. You know just as well as I do that there is a litany of reasons why GW has the largest market share, one of them being that they have the largest marketshare.  

 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kings of war is further out of whack then age of Sigmar balance wise, though the long dark reign of elves appears to be over finally. 

Share this post


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

"There are plenty of wargames and boardgames out there that are pretty close to balanced and are not boring at all."

You never answered my question.  What wargame is considered balanced and not boring at all by more than a handful of people?  My criteria is that you aren't going to throw some unknown game published by Osprey that has like 20 people that play it that find it fun.  

You're asking me what a majority of people are but are trying to say that there are plenty of wargames that are pretty close to balanced that are not boring at all.  What are they?

Because if you're trying to say that people actively crave and want balance, and there are *plenty* of wargames that have this level of balance, I would expect that GW games would have very few players.  But thats obviously not the case.

Wow. I must have been away from AoS for, like, more than a year, because I've not seen one designer  commentary or note that says 'we've intentionally made AoS imbalanced to make it interesting.' 

An intentionally imbalanced game is called 'narrative' where you don't even have points, and field what the heck you choose. To intentionally have an imbalanced points system to a competitive game that involves luck would be like Vegas choosing who wins and who doesn't and then telling everyone about it. Which is probably the most ridiculous notion in the world.

For the record, Chess is not boring, is perhaps the most balanced strategic board game around, is more popular than AoS could ever be. So what gives?

Share this post


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

Wow. I must have been away from AoS for, like, more than a year, because I've not seen one designer  commentary or note that says 'we've intentionally made AoS imbalanced to make it interesting.' 

An intentionally imbalanced game is called 'narrative' where you don't even have points, and field what the heck you choose. To intentionally have an imbalanced points system to a competitive game that involves luck would be like Vegas choosing who wins and who doesn't and then telling everyone about it. Which is probably the most ridiculous notion in the world.

For the record, Chess is not boring, is perhaps the most balanced strategic board game around, is more popular than AoS could ever be. So what gives?

honestly I don't think you can change his opinions with logic since his arguemnts are not based on logic... well just leave him be it's not like his or our opinion matters anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"list building" being important to competitive players means that they like finding different strategies using different lists for a faction, because that's another way to throw opponents off their typical meta game and mix things up.  It does not mean that this one faction should have one obvious list that blows most every other faction and list out of the water without being FAQ'd right away....

*Obligatory "This is my opinion"*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2019 at 12:49 AM, Celestantpants said:

Hey guys, what would your take be on a AOS tier list currently and why would you rank armies where you rank them?  :)  This is just a fun though exercise, and I'm curious as to what people's opinions are on the current standings of armies.

A normal tier list will inevitably be inaccurate. What we need is a tier list with error bars that show the range of an army - how good it is both at its best and worst relative to other armies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cofaxest said:

Matched play not the only one section in ghd as you know. This alone is an indication that this game was created not only for "competitive" play style. Quote from ghb2018 page2: "It is important to note that all of the rules presented in this book are optional; they can be used, or not in any combination that you and your tabletop adversaries find enjoyable." 

None of that has anything to do with this conversation chain.  You originated it by saying that competitive play is not how the designer intended the game to be played.  I asked you to provide proof of that.  Now you are saying there are multiple ways of playing the game.  No kidding dude.  I never said there wasn't.  I asked you to provide proof that the game was not intended for competitive play as you tried to assert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Neffelo said:

Some popular games right now that people in my area play that are considered pretty well balanced are Infinity, Kings of War, and a new one called Conquest.

Secondly, I never said anywhere that people crave and want balance, I said it is a silly notion that you think a game cannot be both balanced and not boring. 

Thirdly, you are being clearly disingenuous with your GW comment. You know just as well as I do that there is a litany of reasons why GW has the largest market share, one of them being that they have the largest marketshare.  

 

I know that Kings of War has a tiny presence.  I also know that kings of war is mostly competitive players and that listbuilding is a thing in Kings of War, so I don't think Kings of War disproves that listbuilding is important.  They may likely do it better than AOS does but listbuilding is still a thing a lot of those guys prefer.  I know nothing about Conquest, but looking it up it just came out and has like a quarter of its models released, so we really have no idea what type of community is going to play Conquest at this time to make any comments nor can we make guesses on how well balanced it is since it just came out and hardly anyone is playing it yet.

Last - if people really felt that balance was the most important thing to their game, GW wouldn't have the largest marketshare.  That it is the largest marketshare by leaps and bounds shows that people don't really care about balance, because they will still play the games with balance or no balance.

That AOS and 40k tournaments have 300+ people attending regularly shows that people attending tournaments don't really care about balance.  That podcasts and youtubes discuss how to break the game regularly by people attending tournaments shows that people enjoy breaking the game and aren't really interested in multiple ways to build an army competitively.  They may be, they may not be, there is no data to suggest either way other than GW tournaments have been running for longer than I have been involved in the game and there are always full which to me means that the concept that balance is something desired and that people want multiple ways to build competitive armies is not really desired or cared about.  Otherwise I would expect AOS tournaments to struggle like Kings of War tournaments struggle.

Edited by Dead Scribe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

So... How do we think new Tzeentch and KO shooting will affect the win  % of today's top performing factions?

Total speculation but I could see them really hurting OBR and Fyreslayers if one of those factions produces a bent/broken ranged shooting/magic unit/combo. Hell, with OBR becoming SUPER popular in my area that could push me over the fence into buying one of those factions (I was planning on collecting both when they came out but Cities, Slaves, and Ogors have more than filled up my painting table).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

None of that has anything to do with this conversation chain.  You originated it by saying that competitive play is not how the designer intended the game to be played.  I asked you to provide proof of that.  Now you are saying there are multiple ways of playing the game.  No kidding dude.  I never said there wasn't.  I asked you to provide proof that the game was not intended for competitive play as you tried to assert.

It's the same things. If you have multiple ways and all of them is equal then you doesn't have the "true" way. So if GW says that nothing is "true" way to play the game then how you can say that "competitive" aspect of the game is "true"? So it is not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're jumping through hoops trying to argue and win the argument.  Had you said there are multiple ways to play and all of them are equal to the designer I wouldn't have said anything.

You said competitive play wasn't how the game is intended to be played.  I asked you to provide proof that the designers stated competitive way wasn't how they intended the game to be played. You have now come back with there are multiple ways to play so competitive is not the one true way to play, which is putting words in my mouth since I never wrote that competitive play is the one true way to play.

 

Edited by Dead Scribe
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

I no absolutely no one that plays the 9th age or of any 9th age events in North America.  I do however know over one hundred highly competitive players in north america, many of whom would disagree with that assertion.  The fact of the matter is that balance has nothing to do with competitive.  You can be competitive with balanced rules and you can be equally competitive with unbalanced rules.  The whole skill thing is also something you cannot objectively gauge in most games today other than through listbuilding and knowing that if two equal lists were brought, then the player that wins the most would be considered most skilled.  However that is impossible to do in today's tournament culture because all of the lists are different, and people don't really care about the math behind what is stronger, they will say you can't go off of the math. 

So as it pertains to AOS, skill is determined by tournament wins.  The more tournament wins u rack up, the more skilled you are compared to players that can't win tournaments, because we're all playing within the same confines of the rules and listbuilding.  

I would argue that while you can spend an equal amount of time competing in unbalanced games, they are not equally competitive as balanced games simply because the less balanced a game is, the less your wins mean. If you win simply because your army is S+ and your opponent brings a B tier (in a game where there are 1 or 2 S+ choices and many more B tier choices) then you arent doing anything skillful. You just happened to play an objectively better army. Its like if you got to fight an MMA match against someone who is only allowed to use TKD kicks or something. Your win isnt remarkable under those circumstances.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

I think you're jumping through hoops trying to argue and win the argument. 

I wanted to stay away from this particular discussion that arose here but seeing this sentence from YOU just absolutely blows my mind.

Can we have a mod intervention here, please. This is quite off-topic. Not that it's not a discussion worthy to have, but it's a discussion for another thread. Or... with the increasingly stingy comments, close to a "duke it out in private messages"-topic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be on topic myself. I thought about the competitive tournament stats and was wondering how much that actually says about an army as a whole.

For example it's undeniable pre-nerf Slaanesh was and maybe still is S-Tier. However how much of that is left if you don't play dual or triple Keeper lists? Is the Slaanesh army that a 40k player for example brings over to AOS with some new additions automatically one of the top armies? Personally I really don't think so. It's vaguely similar to what we see with 40k when you look at regular tournament winners like T'au who are actually in dire need of a better codex. Everything that is not that one specific tournament list is actually pretty bad.

Meanwhile for OBR we also see them emerging as new top dog S-Tier army. Of course that's basically this one specific Legion. Though I'd argue that even other Legions and the army itself, from allegiance abilities to the units and their points costs is all pretty competitive. Therefore I think the least competitive army you can think of for OBR that you play casually with friends is still at the same tier as what other armies have on tournament level.

So my question is what other armies would you consider top-tier if you don't look at a very specific build?

Share this post


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

I think you're jumping through hoops trying to argue and win the argument.  Had you said there are multiple ways to play and all of them are equal to the designer I wouldn't have said anything.

You said competitive play wasn't how the game is intended to be played.  I asked you to provide proof that the designers stated competitive way wasn't how they intended the game to be played. You have now come back with there are multiple ways to play so competitive is not the one true way to play, which is putting words in my mouth since I never wrote that competitive play is the one true way to play.

 

"Play your game like you wanna play but don't think that this is the way it meant to be played" - I think that the main problem is that in my mind: "... that this is the way it meant to be...", "... that this is the ONLY way it meant to be..." and "... that this is "TRUE" way it meant to be..." have the same meaning. But this means that you shouldn't tell other people that your way to play the game is "true" and that's all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this means that you shouldn't tell other people that your way to play the game is "true" and that's all. 

As I'm getting tired of you putting words in my mouth, stating that I am saying things that I never said over and over again, I have reported your post to the moderators.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you win simply because your army is S+ and your opponent brings a B tier (in a game where there are 1 or 2 S+ choices and many more B tier choices) then you arent doing anything skillful. You just happened to play an objectively better army. Its like if you got to fight an MMA match against someone who is only allowed to use TKD kicks or something. Your win isnt remarkable under those circumstances.

Ok?  There are no awards for remarkable wins or varying degrees of wins.  There is only a tournament champion.  Short of making sure no one is cheating, no one cares how those people get there.  When people win Adepticon and the LVO tournaments, unless the champions were found to be cheating, no one remarks on anything other than those people win time and time again.  Those champions also typically are running one of the most powerful lists of the time that they are playing.  Thats just how it is and how it goes.  

When you can come up with a tournament system that rewards types of wins and gives more credit to people winning with B-Tier choices, you might see some change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MODERATOR NOTICE

Ok as this thread is going in circles now and is mostly just arguing viewpoints I think its time to draw it to a close. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...