What is Your Idealized Rate of Model Loss in a Game?

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

To be clear this question is about ALL the models on the table.  So the answer is not my opponent’s as fast as possible and mine not at all... 😎

I put this question out to a poster in another thread but given the content of a lot of recent threads I thought I’d ask the question more broadly.

The basic tension I see is between the time that it takes us to build and paint all our models, which makes us reluctant to see them leave the table too quickly.  On the other hand this is already a time consuming game and the longer models stay on the table the longer the games are going to take.  As someone who is mainly starting games these days at 8:30 PM going too long, it is fair to say, can start to be detrimental to play quality.

As I referenced in the previous post I like the original Space Invaders arcade game theory.  It was actually programmed to go faster, making the aliens harder to hit, as you destroyed those colorful pixels but due to the chip design which sped up as there were fewer pixels on the screen.  I enjoy the pace of the game picking up as the game progresses and models fall by the way side meaning we are moving fewer pieces and rolling fewer dice.  That, like Space Invaders, this also increases the difficulty and thus “drama” compliments this perspective.

But I think players perspective on this question underlies a lot of other issues that pop up in these threads so I am curious to see where people’s opinions fall.

[yukishiro1]

I'd like a game where you didn't end up with one side tabled in 95% of games, ideally one where in the typical battle both sides end up with about half their force alive.

 

The problem with that is with the current scoring paradigm, that would be likely to just lead to contests to see who can get an extra model onto that objective. So you'd need to move to a more dynamic scoring system to make it work. 

[Samukai]

Much like real warfare i think it is best that there are decisive rounds that alter the flow of the game. Sometimes a singular battle can turn the tide of war so decisively that there is no coming back. In AoS the double-turn mechanic allows for spectacular comebacks (which is why i am a massive advocate of it) and reinforces the idea of taking losses or gaining ground abruptly. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

6 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

ideally one where in the typical battle both sides end up with about half their force alive.

 

That is a good addendum as rate if attrition also gets at how much is left over.  So you can have a relatively even rate of just under 20% a round and have only a few models left or, what you’re getting at, something closer to 10% and both sides have decent chunks left.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 minute ago, Samukai said:

Much like real warfare i think it is best that there are decisive rounds that alter the flow of the game. Sometimes a singular battle can turn the tide of war so decisively that there is no coming back. In AoS the double-turn mechanic allows for spectacular comebacks (which is why i am a massive advocate of it) and reinforces the idea of taking losses or gaining ground abruptly. 

So you want a Big Bang but are pretty agnostic about which round it occurs?  Coming from historical gaming I get that approach.

[Samukai]

Just now, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

So you want a Big Bang but are pretty agnostic about which round it occurs?  Coming from historical gaming I get that approach.

That is pretty much spot on. Should not be too early though, got to have the players of any wargame have some time to get a plan in motion.

[Maddpainting]

This HIGHLY depends on the army, the units, the lists, etc.... 

If I am playing a 200+ model count army, well I know many will die, if I am playing a 5 model count army then I better not lose more than 1 turn 1 otherwise its most likely game over instantly.

Now if you said "What percent of your force is an acceptable amount to lose for you at different turns of the game" then the answer is 

Less turn 1, more turn 2 and 3, turn 4 less than turns 2 and 3, and 5th should be the least amount.

Now with that said, going back to the first thing I said, some armies are turn priority heavy lists, where others are slow and want to score more later in the turns. My BoC lists wants to score all the points as soon as I can and I make my lists doing so. But my CoS literally doesn't care about turn 1 and will position the best I can turn 1 to finish you off by turn 3 and get the objectives turn 2+ mostly 3+ and hold them for the rest of the game. My BoC I will lose a lot turn 1 and 2, my CoS i will not lose much at all turn 1 and 2.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Maddpainting

[Aloth_Corfiser]

When I started playing AoS I often wished that deployment zones would be further apart.
I play a lot of Medieval Total War and a lot of fun for me lies in the maneuvering of forces when the Armies are still relatively far away from each other. So yeah, I don't want to bore people to death, but the tactical maneuvering always appealed to me a lot. So in a Tabletop setup it could be difficult to implement with the Objective based scenarios we have now.
So in the end, I am daydreaming here - so I voted agnostic. I am totally happy with the game as it is now and as @Maddpainting said it hugely depends on the Armies and Lists. I like that some armies are strong in the Magic Phase for example and can open up with a conflagration of deadly Spells. I mean what is more High Fantasy then that? 😊

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

31 minutes ago, Maddpainting said:

Now if you said "What percent of your force is an acceptable amount to lose for you at different turns of the game" then the answer is 

Less turn 1, more turn 2 and 3, turn 4 less than turns 2 and 3, and 5th should be the least amount.

Percent absolutely may have been a better way of phrasing the question.  Modified Bell Curve like you describe an enjoyable game from experience.

[Televiper11]

I am utterly agnostic.

My first year of playing a very underpowered army, I was disheartened to see the rate at which my models vacated the table. It was certainly humbling; but it also forced me to adapt. As I've improved as a player, I've learned to enjoy the diverse variety of outcomes AoS provides, from being tabled T2 to duking it out til T5. While I never played WHFB, from my observations of that game, it seemed like a total slog, highly repetitive. I've played very few games of AoS that were similar to each other.

One caveat is that I'm only a casual painter and fully own-up to buying painted models/units as suits me. I'd estimate having only painted 1/3 of my stuff myself, so I am less invested on that scale, in terms of model removal. I do get why it bothers the more dedicated hobby-ers.

I do think AoS could use an overhaul in terms of a) the amount of MW spam & b) a standardization of reach/rend/dmg for shooting & melee. There are also too many shrug saves and not enough Battleshock -- all intentional, I think, by GW, to speed the game up. I would rather they dial that stuff back, crank up the points, and get back to a smaller footprint game.

[OkayestDM]

I would say @Maddpainting's turn percentage pretty much sums up how an ideal game would play out in my mind. 

Each player having about 20% of their forces remaining by the end of the game would be my best deal.

All that said, I sympathize with the OPs desire to have games run shorter as opposed to longer. I rarely play a game above 1500 points for that very reason. I'd be only too happy if GW reworked all of the armies to make the units cost more in points, and to encourage small or midsized units. I don't necessarily think they'll do that, but it would sure be nice!

 

[Koala]

Well i feel the biggest issue is turn one deaths. When you basically just set up the model and then remove it again wirhout having done anything with it. 

Just feels bad, man.

 

After that i am happy with multiple ways the game might work. Two tanky armies just getting stuck in each other for several Turns? Glas canons obliterating each other in one phase? Actual tactical play with the main forces avoiding each other? 

Whatever rocks your boat. 

But - and i can not stress this enough - noone likes loosing painfully painted models without having done anything with them. So Turn1 should definitely have the lowest amount of losses.

 

[hoonked]

I voted "as little as possible", I like seeing models on the table, I like big battles and it's disheartenening to be tabled on turn 1-2.

But I do agree that this is a time consuming game, indeed, ideally I would like the design of the game to allow for shorter games without adding too much lethality.

Lethality is already a fairly big issue in regards to balance and game satisfaction (being tabled by shooting+magic anyone?) and I would wish GW to try to find new ways to shorten games without adding more of it (but I do understand it's easier said than done).

[Televiper11]

If GW revamps Path To Glory to be more like 40K Crusade, I think that would make many people happy, in terms of how games play.

[CeleFAZE]

4 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

To be clear this question is about ALL the models on the table.  So the answer is not my opponent’s as fast as possible and mine not at all... 😎

I put this question out to a poster in another thread but given the content of a lot of recent threads I thought I’d ask the question more broadly.

The basic tension I see is between the time that it takes us to build and paint all our models, which makes us reluctant to see them leave the table too quickly.  On the other hand this is already a time consuming game and the longer models stay on the table the longer the games are going to take.  As someone who is mainly starting games these days at 8:30 PM going too long, it is fair to say, can start to be detrimental to play quality.

As I referenced in the previous post I like the original Space Invaders arcade game theory.  It was actually programmed to go faster, making the aliens harder to hit, as you destroyed those colorful pixels but due to the chip design which sped up as there were fewer pixels on the screen.  I enjoy the pace of the game picking up as the game progresses and models fall by the way side meaning we are moving fewer pieces and rolling fewer dice.  That, like Space Invaders, this also increases the difficulty and thus “drama” compliments this perspective.

But I think players perspective on this question underlies a lot of other issues that pop up in these threads so I am curious to see where people’s opinions fall.

Personally, I think a balanced rate is best. Alpha strikes create rather lopsided games where it really amounts to just one player having fun while the other just removes models and generally doesn't get to have much interaction. If the casualties slow down as the game goes on the action sort of sputters out into a stalemate for objectives, and if the casualties escalate too much it creates a late game where you don't really have much left to happen by the end. A constant rate is great for that back and forth scrappy feel, and does a lot to sell the epic clashes that a setting like this naturally lends itself to.

[Overread]

I don't think there's an answer because it has to be relative to three things

 

1) Your army nature. If you're running a big block of clanrats and a few powerful elite units then you can likely expect to see most of your army lost to death and running away most times. But that's the point, most is there to die so that the elites are protected and do the killing/objective securing. 
As noted above the opposite is true for elite style armies, who would expect to maintain a larger portion of their models for longer, because they've far fewer and they are much more powerful. 

2) The comparable rate between you and your opponent. If you've just lost 90% whilst your opponent lost 20% then something has gone wrong. If that's because you brought a really bonkers list with no valid options then that's on you; but if you've a good list for your army and your opponent still does that much damage in a turn then something is wrong with the game balance. 

It's a fine line and its made harder by the fact that this is game with full alternating player turns, so one player really can do a LOT of damage in one turn without any comeback. For that reason high lethality is bad because it means one person can cause a huge amount of damage without retaliation being possible.

3) The objective structure of the game. Losing lots of units is fine, so long as you and your opponent remain in contest for the win. This is sort of linked to point 2. Basically how much you and they lose isn't really the issue; its how much potential variation there is between you both at the chance to win the game. Ideally most games would show back and forth over the first few turns - the first 2-4 should be "reasonably" evenly matched with advantages swapping over and the final turns being the deciding moments. Earlier deciding moments should be the result of either totally insane dice rolling (ergo  the luck) or tactical genius/error on the part of the players. 

 

What isn't fun is when you "lose" the game in the first turn or two; ergo when you've played the best your army can and you still end up in a no-win situation very early on. That isn't fun because it means you now have little chance to win or draw or anything; you're basically playing to defeat. That can be ok a few times and its ok when its clear its player skill that's the deciding factor. When its game imbalance its an issue. Of course the line between player skill and imbalance is a hard one to draw and full of opinion. 

 

 

It's part of why I'm against the doubleturn because in my view getting it means a high chance for one person to early on define the game state and put the other person into a position of no-win. It shifts the balance of the game (which already has imbalance issues) drastically. And yeah a few times you might get lucky and the underdog gets the doubleturn and it balances things out ;but its purely a luck system not a game state system. 

 

Consider that people play chess for hours as well, but part of it is that for most of those hours both sides have the chance or at least think they have the chance to win. Take that away and even good sportsman and manners will eventually be eroded by reduced self confidence. 

[Doko]

I prefer the same rate of models dead everh turn.

So i have time to store them back in the box betwen turns lol.

I dont like have the dead models in the table but it take many time store 40+ models.

So if i have 100 models i would like loose around 20 each turn so i have time each turn to store them back and my oponent dont have to wait for me

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

3 hours ago, Doko said:

So i have time to store them back in the box betwen turns lol.

Gotta respect another player that keeps a clean table!

[LuminethMage]

I voted "agnostic", because for me that means we have a lot of play styles in the game. Some armies can fly over the battlefield and do huge damage in the first few rounds, some do consistent damage over time, some are most about withstanding damage. 

I think though it's better if not a majority of the games end up with most of models being taken off the table already in R1, R2. But sometimes, that's part of the fun. More time for a (couple of) beer(s) afterwards! 

[whispersofblood]

It's a wargame, not a model show. Every model is there to be sacrificed in pursuit of the objective, winning the game by accumulating the most points. 

Keeping models alive because feels is what causes a lot of players to lose games. I know because I often put pressure on models that people say or act like they are especially proud of and they almost always move them out of danger. 

Competiting in the game and acting out your love for your models is almost always going to prevent you from enjoying the game as a game. 

I voted agnostic because I want as many varied playstyles as possible and that is only possible if we buck up and find a way to enjoy the diverse set of feelings associated with a war game. I'm disappointed with how this "feels bad therefore it must be bad" ideology has permeated the hobby. 

[Melcavuk]

Thinking on it my ideal would be something like this:

Round 1 10%, the build up and maneuvering
Round 2 30%, the big clash
Round 3 20%, the resolution and minor skirmishes
Round 4 20%, the counter punch and fight to the last
Round 5 10%, the clean up both sides diminished and therefore killing less

Leaving both players with some models on the board but reflecting a clash

[gronnelg]

Some of my favorite games have been front heavy, but have then been decided in later rounds with small skirmishes and army movment. 

[Skreech Verminking]

I’ve started to play with a minimum of 200meatshields and some other stuff, just to keep the game going till turn 4-5, in a tournament setting.

I find a game much more enjoyable, when both players are able to actually play the game.

 

[Enoby]

I'm torn between relatively even and backloaded, but more backloaded being turn 3 onwards. 

Ideally, a game would be:

T1, set up positions, maybe a few faster units charge (units that are specifically built to first turn charge like Seekers) or units shoot but this should cause only a few casualties 

T2, armies clash but they have enough defences to survive the turn. Both players can survey the battle and see what the next best move is

T3, the clashes are pushed on way or the other, with each opponent gaining and losing ground 

T4, last ditch attempts can be made by the losing player to reclaim objectives, and the winning player has to defend their captured points

T5, an all out strike for as many objectives as both can claim using whatever's left - where opponents play their 'trap cards' and scoop up as many victory points as possible 

It was a little bit like this in AoS 0/1, with very few ways to make a first turn charge and only minor offensive buffs and mystic shield giving a +1 save. There was a turn (usually 2nd) where you were locked in stalemate, but had one side or the other crumble. I felt this gameplay gave more chance to adapt strategies such as moving buffs and plan retreats or counter charges. 

From the games I've played recently, every unit seems to be deleted by every other unit. It's rare to see something stuck in for multiple rounds and for decisions to have to be made in the midsts of combat besides attack order. The only exception is when a unit is specifically designed to stick around, such as the Petrifex ossiarchs or Hearthguard. 

It's probably a style that is too slow for many, but I personally like having the tools to change strategy mid game, rather than having to fully commit as units die so early on they're not available mid game.

Mostly I feel bad when I wipe off a less experienced player's best unit early on with an alpha strike (with Slaanesh isn't not too hard to get a keeper or 30 bestigors in turn 1). It feels a little unfair that they didn't get to use their unit, but it's tactically the right thing to do. 

[whispersofblood]

 

8 minutes ago, Enoby said:

Mostly I feel bad when I wipe off a less experienced player's best unit early on with an alpha strike (with Slaanesh isn't not too hard to get a keeper or 30 bestigors in turn 1). It feels a little unfair that they didn't get to use their unit, but it's tactically the right thing to do. 

Let talk about the bolded.

1. We have a lot of different words we use interchangeably; new, less experienced, hobby focused, etc. But, they all mean the same thing in the face of the ruleset. Low Skilled. And, that isn't meant to be a slight or offensive it is just an accurate measure of the skills they have to play the game. The good thing about being low skilled is that you can improve, but you can't do that by changing the game, you do that by improving your skills.

This all starts with how people get into the game, and how as a community we generally great at introducing people to the hobby, but abysmal at introducing people to the game. As a Red shirt running intro games there was really two varieties. The first was getting someone excited about the hobby it used relatively few models and generally a character that the potential new hobbyist could relate to.

The second was introducing them to the game and it included again relatively few models but the types of models was higher. This is about introducing players to the world of possibility, but it also comes with setting the expectation that they are going to lose... a lot. I spent my first 2 years playing Wahammer Fantasy as a 13/14 year old trying win, and losing games to grown men. Each loss I taught me something to be aware of next time. I read more army books and discovered more rules. This part is of the introduction is about savagely punishing misplays, stopping the game, rewinding and letting the new player try something else. Playing a 500-1000 point game with someone you are trying to bring into the hobby should take about the same time as a 2000 point battle. 

2. It feels unfair. Well it is unfair you are punching down. You have a skill gap, there isn't a game in the world that has rules that even out a skill gap. Better players win their games, 80% of the time, and that is the way it should be.

3. Its tactically the right thing to do. Then why would you not want the other player to know what is their actions have brought about? The reality is if you are losing games because of alpha strikes in 2020/21 you are either deploying poorly, or you can't construct an army list. These are both skills that can be improved. Or if you choose to build your list under a certain paradigm that doesn't align with the philosophy of the game then you should expect outcomes in line with that.

AoS is about as much on the board freedom as possible, and rules are there to create interesting tactical problems to solve. For example; the next time @Enoby you play the same player, assuming they have learned something, you will have to wonder if they left the alpha open as a trap or not. Using a players rules and abilities against them is a skill that you can only develop by first knowing their rules, and second by figuring out how the circumstances they see as optimal to use them, how to fake those circumstances, and to counter the opponent's moves.