What Percentage of Models Should be Left on the Table at the End of the Game

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my previous thread!  I love my own local gaming group/Zoom League and my limited forays into the tournament scene have been almost entirely positive but it is still great to see the broader Age of Sigmar community.  It is especially helpful to me to see beyond the extremes that some threads can gravitate too.

Now if I’d been smart would’ve added this question to my original poll as I do think they rate of attrition people prefer and the amount of models left on the table are related.  I also think both are correlated with how people feel about a lot of other issues such as battleplans, double-turns, shooting etc.

But I also think there are some areas that this is question gets at that the former doesn’t.  For example, while I’ve given my own fanciful interpretations of what each preference level might mean implicit in those comments are that the full five rounds are played through, regardless of the VP situation.  There are of course plenty of other alternative interpretations.  For instance I know players that are more than willing to concede once about half the models are gone if they feel that they have a good enough idea of whether or not victory is out of reach.  If so they’d rather move on (pre-Covid) and get their next game going or (in Zoom League given late start times) call it a night.  Alternatively I know players that want to play it out to the end, only conceding if completely tabled or the VP math isn’t just difficult, but objectively impossible.

Another alternative, perhaps one for all our Alpha Strikers out there, is that you look for a close to 50% finish... BUT you expect the vast majority the surviving models to be your own.  (Another way I think this question is distinct from my previous one.)

Anyway, thanks in advance for voting and I look forward to reading everyone’s commentary on why they prefer a given level of survival when they play.

[Televiper11]

Again, I’m utterly agnostic. To my experience, no two games of AoS are ever quite the same and GW has made an effort each year to improve their battleplans, with GHB 2020 being particularly excellent in that regard.

I would like more battleplans that have a variety of “objectives” and not just holding a space, for example objectives along the lines of their previous Hidden Agendas, so that we can further vary the outcome. For example, for each round that your General is alive gain escalating VP. 
 

To me, no single battle should be judged by the remaining models on the table. Yes, it’s nice to have survivors; being tabled isn’t fun but I’m glad it’s part of the game. I ate my fair share of humiliating defeats in that regard, particularly my first year but I learned from it. AoS as a game should be, and is, fun but not each individual battle can be. 
 

As a player I like to play though, once I see I have no path to VP victory, I start setting my own goals. That said, if it’s late or time is short, I will concede early.
 

[OkayestDM]

I like the 20-40% of models remaining, though I lean more towards the lower end of that.  To me, this means a lot happened, and both sides likely had to make some tough or desperate decisions to stay in the game.

I will, however, tip my hat to @Televiper11's point that every game is different, and that this is not the only acceptable outcome in my mind. Just, my preferred average.

 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

2 hours ago, OkayestDM said:

I like the 20-40% of models remaining, though I lean more towards the lower end of that.  To me, this means a lot happened, and both sides likely had to make some tough or desperate decisions to stay in the game.

That’s where I’ve initially down and for similar reasons.  

One of my funnier AoS memories was teaching two players the game.  One was playing Nurgle with GUO’s and Slimux plus his beasts of Nurgle buddies. The other was playing Legion of Azgorh centered around the Execution Herd and some artillery.  As new players are won’t to do both raced out to the center of the battlefield... and then stayed there in a relatively straight line for next few rounds.  Between Disgustingly Resilient and Black Shard Armor as well as some weak rolls when attacking it took “forever” for models to start dropping.  Finally some beasts broke free to tip the VPs but I’d guess 75% of the models were on the table and the two were laughing every time the paltry number of wounds that went through only to be largely negated.  “Oh No You Didn’t” became the default response to any wounds...

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

So after ~24 Hours there is again a strong contingent who is agnostic but it is interesting that there is clear majority support for higher total attrition with no interest to date in the lower loss rates.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

So voting has slowed down at the 72 Hour mark but I think that at least two things are clear.

First, while a strong agnostic contingent remains there is far more consensus total loss rate than there was for the rate of attrition at which they were lost.  This is interesting because there is definitely a push back by some advocates of game play features such as alpha strikes or double-turns that the opposition just doesn’t like losing their models at all.  Clearly even I’d bought into this somewhat in my first poll with how I phrased  one of the choices.  The pushback is that it isn’t the loss I and of itself but rather the timing (too soon) or the lack of interaction regarding the loss.  With zero votes for total loss rates of 40% or less I think the evidence is on the latter’s side.  So people aren’t as protective of their painted pieces as maybe I thought.

Second, observationally the consensus total loss rate seems to be consistent with the current experience on tabletop.   In other words I do believe that the vast majority of games end with a loss rate within the range where the majority of votes fell.  I’ve played in a few “pillow fights” with very low losses and had a few come close to total annihilation but the vast majority of the games I’ve played and watched are around that median 60%, plus or minus 10%.

[someone2040]

I voted 20-40% based on the description, but like above probably at the lower end of that.

That being said, 0-20% is probably realistically what I should have voted for based on model count alone. I think if at the very end of the game, both players have a few units running around (potentially depleted) then it's fine and probably indicative of a good game. Even if one player gets wiped, if they also took down most of the opponents army at the same time they probably both enjoyed the game.

I think it's too common currently in the game where one player gets tabled and doesn't have much to show for it, in particular getting tabled early. Tabled not necessarily meaning they lost all their units, but the game is over beyond a doubt.

[yukishiro1]

The rate of attrition in the early game is largely what informs how the models left at the end are distributed. When you have a game where it's not only possible but imminently doable to destroy the majority of your opponent's army over the T1 to T2 double turn, that lends itself to snowballing - whoever gets that initial advantage gets so far ahead that it becomes virtually impossible for them not to table the opponent before the end of the game, and therefore a game that's likely to have a massive disparity between how much of each army is left.

When you have high early-game attrition, you get blowouts. If you have steady attrition over the course of the game, even if the total numbers of models left on the table at the end are similar, you are much more likely to have a closer, more satisfying game. 

One thing AOS fails at quite badly at the moment is producing these sorts of symmetric games where both players end up with similar forces at the end. Right now, in the vast majority of cases, even when competitive AOS games go down to the wire it's usually because one player, despite getting dominated in terms of army losses, still manages to stay competitive on the scoresheet by playing to the objectives. And while that's better than that player having no chance at all, I do wish the game mechanics were tuned so that it was more realistically possible to have games where players trade blows evenly through to the end of the game, and that just hardly ever happens in AOS right now because of the front-loaded lethality. 

[Popisdead]

This is an Objectives Based Game Where Destroying enemies is part of the mechanics of the game and knowing the rules makes you a better general.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 hour ago, Popisdead said:

This is an Objectives Based Game Where Destroying enemies is part of the mechanics of the game and knowing the rules makes you a better general.

A sentiment in general I can get behind but would be curious if you’d elaborate on the knowing the rules aspect in this context.

[whispersofblood]

13 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

The rate of attrition in the early game is largely what informs how the models left at the end are distributed. When you have a game where it's not only possible but imminently doable to destroy the majority of your opponent's army over the T1 to T2 double turn, that lends itself to snowballing - whoever gets that initial advantage gets so far ahead that it becomes virtually impossible for them not to table the opponent before the end of the game, and therefore a game that's likely to have a massive disparity between how much of each army is left.

When you have high early-game attrition, you get blowouts. If you have steady attrition over the course of the game, even if the total numbers of models left on the table at the end are similar, you are much more likely to have a closer, more satisfying game. 

One thing AOS fails at quite badly at the moment is producing these sorts of symmetric games where both players end up with similar forces at the end. Right now, in the vast majority of cases, even when competitive AOS games go down to the wire it's usually because one player, despite getting dominated in terms of army losses, still manages to stay competitive on the scoresheet by playing to the objectives. And while that's better than that player having no chance at all, I do wish the game mechanics were tuned so that it was more realistically possible to have games where players trade blows evenly through to the end of the game, and that just hardly ever happens in AOS right now because of the front-loaded lethality. 

The bolded doesn't make sense. There is no double turn without both players having played a turn. 

How are getting alphaed if you are getting double turned?

Generally the opposite is true fyi alpha top of 1 and loses are strongly correlated.

[yukishiro1]

I'm not sure what you think you read there, but I don't think it's what I wrote. When you get doubled on the T1/T2 transition, obviously it is after you have taken the first turn, usually given to you by a low-drop army that is deployed so that you can't hit them very hard if you can hit them at all, but so they are then set up to double-turn you if they get the roll-off. Beyond that, I am not sure how to address your comment, since I'd only be guessing at how you misread what I wrote. 

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by yukishiro1

[Popisdead]

2 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

A sentiment in general I can get behind but would be curious if you’d elaborate on the knowing the rules aspect in this context.

The original poll was limiting in choices.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

1 minute ago, Popisdead said:

The original poll was limiting in choices.

Ahh... can cover the %s much better than the rationales!  Thank goodness for the comments section.

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

I'm not sure what you think you read there, but I don't think it's what I wrote. When you get doubled on the T1/T2 transition, obviously it is after you have taken the first turn, usually given to you by a low-drop army that is deployed so that you can't hit them very hard if you can hit them at all, but so they are then set up to double-turn you if they get the roll-off. Beyond that, I am not sure how to address your comment, since I'd only be guessing at how you misread what I wrote. 

 

I think it would make more sense if you could show an army list or something that takes advantage of what you are describing. 

[yukishiro1]

Pretty much any competitive Lumineth, KO, Tzeentch? Seraphon too if they outdrop you, but usually they won't. 

They all do fundamentally the same thing: give you turn, deploy in such a way that at most you can hit their non-important stuff on your first turn, then systematically delete the important stuff in your army over their two turns in a row (assuming they win it, of course, which is the problem we're talking about). Any competitive list from those factions will be capable of removing at least half your army by points over that double turn if they get it, at which point their win rate is somewhere in the 75-90% range. Statistically, it is extremely unlikely to win against one of these armies that gets the double turn over T1/T2. 

 

[swarmofseals]

Voted agnostic, but I think I'd generally prefer the 10-30% range.

That being said I want to point out that the poll choice descriptions create a false dichotomy between "objectives" play and "annihilation" play. The two are mutually supporting in the way the game is constructed now.

Just because I like a high casualty rate (10-30%) doesn't mean I want a game focused on killing -- rather I think that the most exciting games are the ones where both sides are in tatters by the end, and this tends to lend itself to a close finish even in objectives based play. Similarly, a super low attrition rate is actually HORRIBLE for objectives play, because the game then devolves into whomever gets onto the objectives first wins. For objective play to work you have to be able to dislodge the opponent from objectives quickly enough to swing the score back in your favor, and in a low-kill design that does not work well unless it is supported by other means of pushing enemy units around the table  (which is very rare in AOS).

I think a low model count, low attrition design would work well if there are significant mechanics to push enemy units around. If there was a morale system akin to a cross between Kings of War and WHFB that could work nicely --  units might have a morale bar, and attacks might inflict casualties, morale damage, or a mix of the two. The lower a unit's morale gets the more likely it is to break. You might be able to heal morale by winning combats, using hero abilities and the like. If you want to make it really crunchy you can push it into a Darklands type morale system where units can actually get too confident, causing them to become bloodthirsty and charge forward.

I think this would make for an absolutely fantastic system if it was well developed, but it would be a hugely different game than the way AOS is now.

[whispersofblood]

11 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Pretty much any competitive Lumineth, KO, Tzeentch? Seraphon too if they outdrop you, but usually they won't. 

They all do fundamentally the same thing: give you turn, deploy in such a way that at most you can hit their non-important stuff on your first turn, then systematically delete the important stuff in your army over their two turns in a row (assuming they win it, of course, which is the problem we're talking about). Any competitive list from those factions will be capable of removing at least half your army by points over that double turn if they get it, at which point their win rate is somewhere in the 75-90% range. Statistically, it is extremely unlikely to win against one of these armies that gets the double turn over T1/T2. 

 

So KO, DoT and LRL are why you think the core rules need to change? Can you copy paste examples please.

[yukishiro1]

Copy paste examples of what? You asked what I was talking about, I told you. It's the same for any competitive ranged-focused list. There isn't a competitive ranged-focused list in the game right now that can't comfortably remove half the enemy's army by points on the T1/T2 transition. The Snek DoK list can do it too, for example. This isn't a problem with one or two particular lists, it's a basic problem with how deadly shooting is in the game and how that interacts with the double turn.

 

 

 

[whispersofblood]

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Copy paste examples of what? You asked what I was talking about, I told you. It's the same for any competitive ranged-focused list. There isn't a competitive ranged-focused list in the game right now that can't comfortably remove half the enemy's army by points on the T1/T2 transition. The Snek DoK list can do it too, for example. This isn't a problem with one or two particular lists, it's a basic problem with how deadly shooting is in the game and how that interacts with the double turn.

 

 

 

If that's the case you should easily be able to find an example we can discuss. You're argument is that the game is populated with list and factions which can give away the turn reliably, force through the double and win the game with little or no risk, for the reasons you are saying. 

Surely for such a strong assertion you can find a single list that satisfies this argument?

[OkayestDM]

39 minutes ago, whispersofblood said:

If that's the case you should easily be able to find an example we can discuss. You're argument is that the game is populated with list and factions which can give away the turn reliably, force through the double and win the game with little or no risk, for the reasons you are saying. 

Surely for such a strong assertion you can find a single list that satisfies this argument?

Why don't we get back to the topic at hand rather than derailing this thread with off-topic arguments?

Edited February 11, 2021 by OkayestDM

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

On 2/10/2021 at 6:18 PM, swarmofseals said:

For objective play to work you have to be able to dislodge the opponent from objectives quickly enough to swing the score back in your favor, and in a low-kill design that does not work well unless it is supported by other means of pushing enemy units around the table  (which is very rare in AOS).

In general I’ve found that the higher the number of objectives, changes in objectives value, or twists like removing objectives helps in this area.  But agree there is plenty of room for things like prayers/spells that can force an opponent to move.  

More broadly I’d be fine if more factions incorporated elements that forced trade-offs, whether that was “honor” forcing an Order unit to advance on a nearby enemy or the same concept for something like bloodlust for Chaos (Khorne) or Destruction (Mawtribes) or even Death (FEC).  Bravery could be a simple mechanic for something like this.  In Movement Phase a unit has to pass a Bravery test to stand still (sure, maybe give a bonus if on an objective or in cover).  

And, as I’ve tried to acknowledge in both my initial post below the poll and in a later new culpa my intent was not to create a false dichotomy between objective play and lethality.  As I’ve noted the par anthemic all descriptors were simply meant to be illustrative rather than definitive.  That said the dichotomy is one I’ve seen raised, and I do see as particularly prevalent early in the learning curve where players struggle to balance the desire to table their opponent/avoid being tabled and playing for the misssion objectives, hence my using it in my examples.  Think you did an excellent job in describing why it might not and need not always be the case that the two are in conflict.

[yukishiro1]

A high lethality objective game is easy to design because you don't need to be clever with the objective mechanics. A lower lethality objective game is more difficult, because if you do it badly it just degenerates into "see who can cram more models onto the objective and sit there till the game ends." 

The fact that AOS does not have consolidation is particularly problematic here, because it means that you can't even move onto an objective on the same turn that you kill what was keeping you off it. Adding in consolidation is one thing I'd really like to see in AOS 3.0; yes, it adds time to the game, but it also adds a lot of strategy and prevents a lot of lame objective-holding tactics that shouldn't work but do. 

 

 

 

[OkayestDM]

2 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

A high lethality objective game is easy to design because you don't need to be clever with the objective mechanics. A lower lethality objective game is more difficult, because if you do it badly it just degenerates into "see who can cram more models onto the objective and sit there till the game ends." 

The fact that AOS does not have consolidation is particularly problematic here, because it means that you can't even move onto an objective on the same turn that you kill what was keeping you off it. Adding in consolidation is one thing I'd really like to see in AOS 3.0; yes, it adds time to the game, but it also adds a lot of strategy and prevents a lot of lame objective-holding tactics that shouldn't work but do.

Is consolidation a 40k thing? I'm unfamiliar with it, how does it work?

[yukishiro1]

Just means you get another 3" move after you fight, like the pile-in before. Similar restrictions re: only being able to move towards the closest model.