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

[Overread]

5 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

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. 

I think one has to take a healthy view on things from both sides. The game is both a model show and a wargame at the same time. If it wasn't then we'd be pushing around square cards with the unit names on them. There's certainly a balancing point. 

I remember one thing that turned me away from Skaven during Old World times was that the army relied upon LOTS of slave rats, not clan rats, slave rats. You put loads on the table and promptly took loads off as they died/ran in droves. The idea worked well for skaven, a few powerful units behind and lots of slaves. The problem was the cost in time and money to put together all those models to only take them off the table. It was a poor balance because you were investing a lot into something that was leaving the table without doing much save to die. It was the intention of the unit, but it wasn't that satisfying a prospect. 

 

Same reason is why GW is making some big characters hard to kill with concentrated fire. People who put money and time into units like Morathi want her to do something and stay on the table for a bit.

[whispersofblood]

8 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think one has to take a healthy view on things from both sides. The game is both a model show and a wargame at the same time. If it wasn't then we'd be pushing around square cards with the unit names on them. There's certainly a balancing point. 

I remember one thing that turned me away from Skaven during Old World times was that the army relied upon LOTS of slave rats, not clan rats, slave rats. You put loads on the table and promptly took loads off as they died/ran in droves. The idea worked well for skaven, a few powerful units behind and lots of slaves. The problem was the cost in time and money to put together all those models to only take them off the table. It was a poor balance because you were investing a lot into something that was leaving the table without doing much save to die. It was the intention of the unit, but it wasn't that satisfying a prospect. 

 

Same reason is why GW is making some big characters hard to kill with concentrated fire. People who put money and time into units like Morathi want her to do something and stay on the table for a bit.

Morathi and Archaon are the minority in a vast ocean of impressive models that can be focused down. And no, there isn't a "healthy view" in most situations its actually a logical fallacy called called Argument to Moderation, or the Golden Mean Fallacy. 

Your argument is a subjective one, for many people what you didn't like about Skaven, is what they love. It didn't provide value for you, so I assume you chose a faction more in line with what you valued. They game is about the clash of these archtypes, 40k is a better game because they have improved the diversity and capability of the way each faction plays, in pursuit of the winning the game.

BoC being unplayable is a problem from the enjoying your models pov, but trying to create a fixed standard of model attrition in a game with a spectrum of faction archetypes is impossible if you want to retain true variety.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

5 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Every model is there to be sacrificed in pursuit of the objective, winning the game by accumulating the most points. 

One of my all time AoS highlights was teaching my daughter and two of her friends to play.  I’d set up a Khorne vs Sylvaneth match (based on the description of the fantasy characters they’d said they’d liked with one girl asking for the biggest baddest Deamon I had).  The two girls playing Khorne were super into it and after picking up, admiring and commenting on how cool a mortal unit looked she put it down on the table and charged it right into Durthu shouting “Get out there and die Meatshield!”  

Thought to myself, now there’s a kid who gets it.  Both tactically (throw those mortals out as chaff until you bring the Bloodthirster in) and attitude wise (have fun with it).

[PraetorDragoon]

Alpha Strikes that determined the game in turn 1 or turn 2 were the most boring games I've played. Spending the first two turns maneuvering and having small skirmishes, then a big deciding fight in turn 3-4 and mop up in Turn 5 works the best for me. Gives a nice balance between having minis on the table and tactics.

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, PraetorDragoon said:

Alpha Strikes that determined the game in turn 1 or turn 2 were the most boring games I've played. Spending the first two turns maneuvering and having small skirmishes, then a big deciding fight in turn 3-4 and mop up in Turn 5 works the best for me. Gives a nice balance between having minis on the table and tactics.

There are 7 turns in the game. 

Turn 1: Army list

Turn 2: Deployment

If you don't play two turns of the game you will lose. 

[Maddpainting]

That is not turns, that is setting up the game. 

[PraetorDragoon]

37 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

There are 7 turns in the game. 

Turn 1: Army list

Turn 2: Deployment

If you don't play two turns of the game you will lose. 

And games that are determined in list building are the most boring ones of them all. (I do remember an anecdote where two Warmachine players show up, compare lists, congratulate the winner, and pack up and leave. This is not something what I want from a game.)

While list building and deployement do matter, I think that its on the game designers to make sure that with unit balance and with scenario design the impact of a bad list and a bad deployment is limited and can still lead to a tactical and enjoyable game. In the end, I want to play all five game rounds of a match, and not have the game be over when the first player of round 2 makes an alpha strike that determines the game. I don't enjoy those games.

[whispersofblood]

56 minutes ago, PraetorDragoon said:

And games that are determined in list building are the most boring ones of them all. (I do remember an anecdote where two Warmachine players show up, compare lists, congratulate the winner, and pack up and leave. This is not something what I want from a game.)

While list building and deployement do matter, I think that its on the game designers to make sure that with unit balance and with scenario design the impact of a bad list and a bad deployment is limited and can still lead to a tactical and enjoyable game. In the end, I want to play all five game rounds of a match, and not have the game be over when the first player of round 2 makes an alpha strike that determines the game. I don't enjoy those games.

That happened in Warmachine because of fixed movement values, interactive game boards, and massive legacy collections of models that had extremely low effectiveness.You could do the same in WHFB for mostly the same reason. 

When I say army list it's seems to me that you hear "competitive builds". When I say army list I mean having an army, a plan for that army, and tools in your army for when that plan doesn't work. Further, OP factions tend to be able to include too much of those things for the relative power of the units in the book.

If you choose to limit yourself inside your faction to specific scrolls you need to adjust the expectation for your ability to win games. It's really simple.

The deployment phase is your first movement phase. The most important phase of the game, if you mess up deployment you will spend multiple turns either at a direct disadvantage or a indirect disadvantage as you try to fix your poor positioning.

Are you suggesting that in your opinion that the rules of the game should mean that if you play the first 20% of the match pooring you should be in the game? How is that possible? If you equalize the the strength of factions player skill maximizes. Meaning low skill players will lose more and those loses will be more definitive and more punishing. 

Just because you are pushing models around doesn't mean then the game is in contention. 5 turns is a time limit for a single match, not a time target for a game of AoS. You have 5 turns to get a victory, that doesn'tean you are garunteed to have 5 turns. In fact we have scenerios that specifically end in the 3rd turn, we also have scenerios where mathematically matches can be done bottom of 3. Who said or lead you to believe that the game should last 5 turns?

Finally. If you are getting alphastriked and losing games, you need to go to your faction's thread and make a post asking for help. Then you need to play more games. 

[PraetorDragoon]

4 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Are you suggesting that in your opinion that the rules of the game should mean that if you play the first 20% of the match pooring you should be in the game? How is that possible? If you equalize the the strength of factions player skill maximizes. Meaning low skill players will lose more and those loses will be more definitive and more punishing.

Yes.

[whispersofblood]

Just now, PraetorDragoon said:

Yes.

Well then it's time for some brutal honesty. Contests of skill aren't for you. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

There are 7 turns in the game. 

Turn 1: Army list

Turn 2: Deployment

If you don't play two turns of the game you will lose. 

List building is a component of the game and deployment can certainly slow or accelerate model attrition.  But to keep it positive and on track again this thread is about the idealized rate of attrition.  No models can actually be lost in those phases and I’m going to go out on a limb and guess most players “ideal game” doesn’t involve their opponent bringing a bad list and deploying poorly.  

[whispersofblood]

15 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

List building is a component of the game and deployment can certainly slow or accelerate model attrition.  But to keep it positive and on track again this thread is about the idealized rate of attrition.  No models can actually be lost in those phases and I’m going to go out on a limb and guess most players “ideal game” doesn’t involve their opponent bringing a bad list and deploying poorly.  

I actually am being positive. Maybe the message is being lost, most of the problems people have with fall under two categories. 1) A skill gap and 2) expectations. Vince and Tom at Warhammer Weekly did their NPE poll and analysis yesterday. And, it all seems to boil down to players feeling a sense of powerlessness, in the face of what is happening on the board. Your Daughter and her friends have the right of it. Its not about how long a model is on the board, its what it does while its on the board, and what it cost your opponent to take it off. 

If you approach the game with the right attitude, most of these problems fade a way and we can deal with the real outliers like Beast of Chaos, and we can figure out a way to integrate KO, and police the effectiveness of Seraphon. But if we want a game with legitimate variety in play style exists (Which has always been one of the strengths of WHFB and AoS) then trying to standardized a model attrition curve isn't really possible. The irony here is that the slow walk into the middle of board, 2-3 turns of ineffectual fighting and then the objective grab was the original criticism of AoS.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

31 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

I actually am being positive. Maybe the message is being lost, most of the problems people have with fall under two categories. 1) A skill gap and 2) expectations. Vince and Tom at Warhammer Weekly did their NPE poll and analysis yesterday. And, it all seems to boil down to players feeling a sense of powerlessness, in the face of what is happening on the board. Your Daughter and her friends have the right of it. Its not about how long a model is on the board, its what it does while its on the board, and what it cost your opponent to take it off. 

If you approach the game with the right attitude, most of these problems fade a way and we can deal with the real outliers like Beast of Chaos, and we can figure out a way to integrate KO, and police the effectiveness of Seraphon. But if we want a game with legitimate variety in play style exists (Which has always been one of the strengths of WHFB and AoS) then trying to standardized a model attrition curve isn't really possible. The irony here is that the slow walk into the middle of board, 2-3 turns of ineffectual fighting and then the objective grab was the original criticism of AoS.

Appreciate the clarification, especially the insight into what you perceive as the problems as it gets to one of the points I made in original post in that there does seem to be a correlation between how people feel about attrition rates and their perspective on other issues in the game from the double turn to power creep or MW spam, etc.  

[hoonked]

2 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Well then it's time for some brutal honesty. Contests of skill aren't for you. 

12 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

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. 

[...]

I'm disappointed with how this "feels bad therefore it must be bad" ideology has permeated the hobby. 

In all honesty, it simply seems to me that different users of tga have extremely different expectations of what an Aos game should be.

I don't want a game of Aos to be a cutthroat "contest of skill", if I were looking for a game to seriously compete in I'd honestly prefer better balanced games than the ones GW makes. And if I were looking for an extremely competitive game, I'd prefer a game where models were cheaper and could be painted/assembled in less time so that I could playtest multiple armies. To be completely honest I don't care at all about the competitive play aspect of Aos, which is also why I prefer to play casually and I don't participate in tournaments.

When I approach an Aos game, I do so primarily to have a lightweight fun. The "feeling" of fun is the crucial part for me, because as far as I'm concerned my hobby has to be fun first and foremost.

And given that: yes, I don't like being tabled just because the deployment wasn't perfect. I want my models to stick around a bit, I want the game to last more turns and at the end of the game I want to feel like my models actually did something, even if I lost.

[yukishiro1]

In the brave new world of ranged AOS, you don't even need to ****** up your deployment to get cleared off the table, all that needs to happen is you lose the roll-off and get double-turned on the T1 to T2 transition, and the ranged army has about an 85% chance of winning the game from that point. Unless you play a faction like IDK that can control where the ranged attacks go, screening won't typically stop you from starting your T2 with half or less of your army. 

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, hoonked said:

In all honesty, it simply seems to me that different users of tga have extremely different expectations of what an Aos game should be.

I don't want a game of Aos to be a cutthroat "contest of skill", if I were looking for a game to seriously compete in I'd honestly prefer better balanced games than the ones GW makes. And if I were looking for an extremely competitive game, I'd prefer a game where models were cheaper and could be painted/assembled in less time so that I could playtest multiple armies. To be completely honest I don't care at all about the competitive play aspect of Aos, which is also why I prefer to play casually and I don't participate in tournaments.

When I approach an Aos game, I do so primarily to have a lightweight fun. The "feeling" of fun is the crucial part for me, because as far as I'm concerned my hobby has to be fun first and foremost.

And given that: yes, I don't like being tabled just because the deployment wasn't perfect. I want my models to stick around a bit, I want the game to last more turns and at the end of the game I want to feel like my models actually did something, even if I lost.

Any mental exercise is a combination of specific skill and intelligence/talent. So it stands to reason that a game as a mental exercise is in fact a contest of skill. Meaning it's to see who is the most skilled. Increasing balance maximizes difference in skill, whatever that skill might be.

There isn't anything that prima facie connects enjoying painting models and enjoying the contest of skill. You can enjoy the models and accept that not participating fully in the game, but you should expect results comesurate with the effort given to that task.

I've already said KO are an outlier, but I don't even find them that bad personally. Again I'm trying to win the game not have my models on the board for the sake of it.

There is a minimum standard of competency needed to play the game. And there is definitely a minimum standard of knowledge needed before anyone starts mucking about in the mechanics of a complicated system.

For example if 300 points of Sentinels can't do 6 unsaved wounds at range the game effectively has no shooting and we are back to deathstars getting juiced by a bunch of special rules. Applying damage at range is critical to a balanced game, and anyone "feeling" like their characters shouldn't be killed are objectively incorrect and need to adjust their expectations.

Vince goes on rants about alpha strikes pretty regularly they are actually poor play. Frequently it's a good way to lose a game. HoS basically buried the last outliers and those factions got new books to give them better play options. I'd like to ask. What alpha strikes are you talking about?

Last I agree it's the feeling of your models not being in the game, but we need to have a better understanding of what participating in the game means.

[Televiper11]

58 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

In the brave new world of ranged AOS, you don't even need to ****** up your deployment to get cleared off the table, all that needs to happen is you lose the roll-off and get double-turned on the T1 to T2 transition, and the ranged army has about an 85% chance of winning the game from that point. Unless you play a faction like IDK that can control where the ranged attacks go, screening won't typically stop you from starting your T2 with half or less of your army. 

Sounds like you’ve had some really bad experiences. 

[OkayestDM]

1 hour ago, hoonked said:

In all honesty, it simply seems to me that different users of tga have extremely different expectations of what an Aos game should be.

Agreed. And the fun part is, they're all right! Hence why clear communication is so important. There is great satisfaction to be had between tossing models on the tables and rolling dice for spits and giggles, or assembling an airtight list and playing a cutthroat, no-holds-barred competitive game, so long as everybody participating is on the same page.

 

26 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

Any mental exercise is a combination of specific skill and intelligence/talent. So it stands to reason that a game as a mental exercise is in fact a contest of skill. Meaning it's to see who is the most skilled. 

Your statement is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) But it's an sterilized, monochromatic description of an experience filled with so much wonderful chaos and color (if I may wax poetic.) 

The game literally offers beautiful spectacle in the form of beautifully  painted models and terrain, wildly unprecidented upsets due to probability-defying dice, great jokes and tactically questionable moves made in the name of fun, even the satisfaction of loosing badly but making your opponent pay for it.

For some the game is about the journey, for others it's about the destination. Most importantly, neither is wrong because it's their game. 

[hoonked]

1 hour ago, whispersofblood said:

[...]

It is already clear that we are different persons with different preferences, but I would like to point out that I have a different idea about what a "game" should be. To be fair it might just be because of linguistic differences, given that English is not my native language.

While checking Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition of "game" is "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other" and only the third definition is "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".

Meanwhile, in the Treccani dictionary -an Italian dictionary, because I'm Italian- the first definition of "gioco"(game) is "Any freely chosen activity to which children or adults, individually or in groups, devote themselves with no other immediate purpose than recreation and entertainment, developing and exercising at the same time physical, manual and intellectual abilities."

Italian also has another word, "partita", to mean "a single match", but more often than not in English you tend to use "game" even when speaking about single matches.

I'm sorry for this rather long clarification, but basically what I want to say is that a game in my mind is in no way something done only to see who is the most skilled and it's not something done with the sole purpose of winning. To be fair, I personally find competitive Warhammer fairly dull.
To me, playing Aos is  something that I do for the overall "experience". I like seeing models battle on the table, I like the flavour of it all and I would prefer to play a sub-par list if it means having nice looking models on the table. I do also care about the rules of course; I do find some strategies more fun than others and the playstyle of an army is something I consider when deciding which army to build - but again - I care about how "appealing" a playstyle is to me, but I will not consider it's efficacy when deciding which army to build.

And to be honest I mostly play with people that are on the same page as mine. Warhammer to me is primarily about the hobby, the narration, the flavour, the aesthetics and not really about the competition.

Edited February 4, 2021 by hoonked

[yukishiro1]

3 hours ago, Televiper11 said:

Sounds like you’ve had some really bad experiences. 

Actually, not that many, since I mostly play IDK myself and it's one of the few factions that still has a reasonable chance of success against one of those lists when it gets the double turn. But I've a witnessed a fair few, and getting double-turned by a ranged army is the pure definition of a negative play experience. 

[Neverchosen]

It is strange I enjoy playing elite armies and such I do not like losing any models. But from another vantage I could argue I like when the loss of a model holds weight. 

[yukishiro1]

5 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Applying damage at range is critical to a balanced game, and anyone "feeling" like their characters shouldn't be killed are objectively incorrect and need to adjust their expectations.

 

I feel like you don't really know how to use the words objective and subjective. That is by definition a subjective opinion, and not necessarily one most people share. Most people interested in fantasy games like fantasy settings, and when's the last time you saw a fantasy setting where the heroes get sniped out with pinpoint accuracy at range by a hail of arrows before they even get anywhere near melee?

40k largely doesn't allow character sniping, and it works just fine. The idea that it is somehow necessary for a good game that characters can easily be sniped out at range is downright odd, and about as far from objective fact as you can get. If you subjectively believe that easy character sniping is good, that's your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it, but one thing it certainly isn't it an objective statement. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

48 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

It is strange I enjoy playing elite armies and such I do not like losing any models. But from another vantage I could argue I like when the loss of a model holds weight. 

I get that.  In Zoom League been playing a lot more elite lists than normal in my more common narrative games.  When it is a big chunk of your army hard to see that Frostlord go down or lose a Abhorrant Ghoul King on Royal Terrorgheist.  But if they fall after doing “big things” the loss is somewhat assuaged.  Been giving me the itch though to get Khorne mortals on the table where I can feel free to throw a bunch of Reavers into the whirlwind and reap the Blood Tithe.

[whispersofblood]

8 hours ago, hoonked said:

It is already clear that we are different persons with different preferences, but I would like to point out that I have a different idea about what a "game" should be. To be fair it might just be because of linguistic differences, given that English is not my native language.

While checking Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition of "game" is "a physical or mental competition conducted according to rules with the participants in direct opposition to each other" and only the third definition is "activity engaged in for diversion or amusement".

Meanwhile, in the Treccani dictionary -an Italian dictionary, because I'm Italian- the first definition of "gioco"(game) is "Any freely chosen activity to which children or adults, individually or in groups, devote themselves with no other immediate purpose than recreation and entertainment, developing and exercising at the same time physical, manual and intellectual abilities."

Italian also has another word, "partita", to mean "a single match", but more often than not in English you tend to use "game" even when speaking about single matches.

I'm sorry for this rather long clarification, but basically what I want to say is that a game in my mind is in no way something done only to see who is the most skilled and it's not something done with the sole purpose of winning. To be fair, I personally find competitive Warhammer fairly dull.
To me, playing Aos is  something that I do for the overall "experience". I like seeing models battle on the table, I like the flavour of it all and I would prefer to play a sub-par list if it means having nice looking models on the table. I do also care about the rules of course; I do find some strategies more fun than others and the playstyle of an army is something I consider when deciding which army to build - but again - I care about how "appealing" a playstyle is to me, but I will not consider it's efficacy when deciding which army to build.

And to be honest I mostly play with people that are on the same page as mine. Warhammer to me is primarily about the hobby, the narration, the flavour, the aesthetics and not really about the competition.

I've never said AoS has the sole purpose of winning, feel free to quote me if you can find it though. What I said is that when two people play it is primarily going to be skill which determines who wins. That is different from why it is enjoyable. I've also been very clear that it is about expectations (a strong belief that something will happen or be the case), if you have the expectation that the skill you apply to playing a game of AoS isn't the primary consideration to the outcome, then no amount of rules changes will satisfy you. You can play and enjoy the AoS in any fashion you want, but you can't expect any choice you make to be compatible with reality. 

Again I've never once actually mentioned competitive or tournament play as foundational to my position. It is interesting that you brought up the Italian definition, because there are keywords that you've chosen to ignore, like devote, or developing and exercising intellectual abilities. You'll notice I used the word effort, and skill quite frequently. As soon as there is more than one person taking part their will be an effort and skill gap, effectively what you are saying is that we should change the rules of painting competitions so a person who gives less effort and has less skill should be able to win. You are entitled to enjoy all the aspects of the hobby, but you aren't entitled to outcomes. IF you want to lose less devastatingly, then yes you will need to take some types of models you wouldn't have otherwise, if you want to have an aesthetically pleasing model you are bound by colour theory regardless of your knowledge of colour theory. As an Italian I would expect that you have a general knowledge that there exist rules to beauty just as there are rules to the pursuit of an engaging, and fulfilling intellectual exercise.

I don't understand where the idea that the responsibility to uphold the social contract applies only to the person who would all things considered win the match. 

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

I feel like you don't really know how to use the words objective and subjective. That is by definition a subjective opinion, and not necessarily one most people share. Most people interested in fantasy games like fantasy settings, and when's the last time you saw a fantasy setting where the heroes get sniped out with pinpoint accuracy at range by a hail of arrows before they even get anywhere near melee?

40k largely doesn't allow character sniping, and it works just fine. The idea that it is somehow necessary for a good game that characters can easily be sniped out at range is downright odd, and about as far from objective fact as you can get. If you subjectively believe that easy character sniping is good, that's your subjective opinion and you're entitled to it, but one thing it certainly isn't it an objective statement. 

Thank you for bringing up 40k.

8th edition had a limited ability to kill Characters/Heroes at range by your own definition. It became precisely the game I mentioned, a variety of SmashBat type heroes (Jump Captain w/thunder hammer) and hyper buffed death stars. GW intruded the CORE keyword to combat this problem. Thankfully most small heroes in AoS don't have that much model killing impact on the game and are glorified unit leaders, leaving them as buff pieces. So, yes your feeling that character sniping is bad mechanically is objectively incorrect as demonstrated by your own example 40k.

Now if you want to have a conversation about if that is a better state of the game than AoS, I would bow out because that would be subjective. But, you're assertion that reduced character sniping does not lead to what I said deathstars and smashbats then yes you are objectively incorrect as demonstrated by your example.

Also Narratively, fantasy characters get snipped at range all the time. In the Witcher, Ciri's male guardian gets singled out with an arrow in the middle of a melee and its dramatic and impactful. LotR, Boromir again shot through the chest in combat. Game of Thrones has several main characters who are shot entering combat. Richard the Lionheart shot from a castle rampart. Also in AoS the heroes that you would think should be quire difficult to remove via shooting actually are generally by virtue of DPRs or high wounds. 

Should it be easy? No and that isn't what I said, but 300 points of Sentinels shooting, buffed by a spell, is simple, but it isn't a lack of investment. It also isn't a guarantee against the majority of heroes.

Bringing it back to the thread, how do you either of you suggest that we can have a variety of playstyles with no structured pairing and have a generalized rate of model attrition that doesn't exclude playstyles that inherently shift that model?

[Koala]

I die Not want to be that Guy but this is going wildly offtopic.

The original question was about when we feel the big losses should Happen.

Which i find quite a smart question considering the comments.

Because it does not Matter if you feel list building should decide the game or not, If you want to play cutthroat competative or funny narrative. 

The WHEN question still does apply.

And Not Just for balance reasons. Eg Early losses speed up the later turns while later losses mean the game ends with a big bang.