Poll: Balance vs Gameplay

[Gitzdee]

Hi all i want to talk about something thats been bothering me for a while. With every edition since i started playing GW games, rules have been getting easier, streamlined, watered down or balanced whatever u want to call it. Has it actually been good for the gameplay in the end? Im starting to have my doubts. I used to like my bonesplitterz better when i had more thematic artifacts/spells and dump them all on a random hero i liked, it wasnt the best, but it was flavourfull. In 40k i loved the different armour values on tanks. It was really fun when u shoot a tank from the front or rear. I miss pie plates and flamers. I miss shooting bouncy canonballs though ranks of skeletons that in turn get ressed with by a bunch of necromancers. Yes it was a balance nightmare but my immersion in the game was at its best with those kind of rules. I do like what endless spells tried to do, it added a nice element to the table. Do we think 4th edition is bringing this back or keep watering down? What u all think about the state of AoS at the moment? Do u prefer balance or gameplay?

(Sorry my english is really bad today)

Edit: also want to add that i prefer more extreme statlines to represent models better. Give those chaos warriors a bunch of armour, thats what they look like. And bring back some kind of speed stat, bring back things like fear and frenzy. I hated stupidity with a passion but it i am still talking about those moments.

Edited March 31 by Gitzdee

[Vasshpit]

I honestly can't pick one or the other as I think both are equally as important. 

That fine middle ground is what I'm aiming for. 

A little bit off topic but I wonder if tabletop games designers start using AI to balance a game instead of art production could we get to this perfect middle?

[Gitzdee]

36 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

I honestly can't pick one or the other as I think both are equally as important. 

That fine middle ground is what I'm aiming for. 

A little bit off topic but I wonder if tabletop games designers start using AI to balance a game instead of art production could we get to this perfect middle?

I actually think AI could be perfect for balancing statlines. Playtesting has a centain skill from the player involved that AI doesnt need. It think its hard for AI to create immersion though.

[Vasshpit]

11 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

It think its hard for AI to create immersion though.

100% leave the imaginative to us flesh bags but stat balance could definitely use a mathematical and mechanical touch. 

Not surprised to see gameplay take the lead here. It's such a teeter totter in my view. Take old orcs and goblins, they were very "thematic". Heh. So much so it affected a good deal of balance, gameplay, and enjoyment. 

 

I'm very curious to see where Kruleboyz go for 4th when it comes to gameplay vs balance. The bits of rules we've seen have somewhat turned their theme upside down; killaboss ability is void with no battleshock, everyone will be "poisoning" on 6s, etc. 

I still think that middle ground is achievable with fun and thematic rules and still knowing through tactical ability that you've got a good chance of winning. 

[Sarouan]

Between the 2 ? Gameplay 100 %. Balance and stats in a vacuum are useless.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

On 4/1/2024 at 12:24 AM, Gitzdee said:

Hi all i want to talk about something thats been bothering me for a while. With every edition since i started playing GW games, rules have been getting easier, streamlined, watered down or balanced whatever u want to call it. Has it actually been good for the gameplay in the end? Im starting to have my doubts. I used to like my bonesplitterz better when i had more thematic artifacts/spells and dump them all on a random hero i liked, it wasnt the best, but it was flavourfull. In 40k i loved the different armour values on tanks. It was really fun when u shoot a tank from the front or rear. I miss pie plates and flamers. I miss shooting bouncy canonballs though ranks of skeletons that in turn get ressed with by a bunch of necromancers. Yes it was a balance nightmare but my immersion in the game was at its best with those kind of rules. I do like what endless spells tried to do, it added a nice element to the table. Do we think 4th edition is bringing this back or keep watering down? What u all think about the state of AoS at the moment? Do u prefer balance or gameplay?

(Sorry my english is really bad today)

Edit: also want to add that i prefer more extreme statlines to represent models better. Give those chaos warriors a bunch of armour, thats what they look like. And bring back some kind of speed stat, bring back things like fear and frenzy. I hated stupidity with a passion but it i am still talking about those moments.

I don't know if what you describe is best put in terms of gameplay and balance. It seems more like a tension between something like maybe game flow and detail. By "game flow" I mean the desire to have the game run smoothly and not be interrupted by having to look up stuff or people stumbling over hard to use rules. And by "detail" I mean the desire to represent what is happening in the fiction closely by having dedicated rules and systems.

I think you always want both in every game. You want the game to play fluidly, but you also want the rules to reflect the flavour of the fiction. But when doing both at the same time is not possible, you need to come down on one side or the other. I think AoS comes down on the side of game flow (or at least tries to; it's not always successful) rather than detail most of the time. Older editions of WHFB and to an extent also TOW err on the side of detail more often.

Personally, I prefer leaning into good game flow more, which is why I like AoS better than older WHFB editions.

[Gitzdee]

I think the gameflow of AoS is somewhat unintuitive from time to time. Things like the double turn, removing models from the back of a unit, battleshock, mortal wounds, making weird coherentie chains etc dont help. I dont think AoS is not a bad game, but to me it feels like things dont behave as i expect them to. 

Edited April 2 by Gitzdee

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 minutes ago, Gitzdee said:

I think the gameflow of AoS is somewhat unintuitive from time to time. Things like the double turn, removing models from the back of a unit, battleshock, mortal wounds, making weird coherentie chains etc dont help. I dont think AoS is not a bad game, but to me it feels like things dont behave as i expect them to. 

I agree, there are a bunch of areas where the game flows badly right now which will hopefully be addressed in the next edition. Battleshock and battle tactics are some of the worst offenders, whenever they become relevant people need to pause and go "how does this work again?" or "let me look at the list of tactics for a few minutes".

For me, in many cases, I am comfortable with rules that don't really make sense in the fiction if they at least play quickly. Like the rules for moving over obstacles in AoS, where you pay movement to go up, and then down again. Yeah, it probably doesn't make much sense that Pontifex Zenestra gets carried up a sheer cliff face in her palanquin, but do I really think the game would be better or more fun if we had list defining which units can climb and which cannot, or a rule to determine whether a unit needs to climb or just walk up an incline? I personally don't think so, and I think it's good that the designers made the trade off in this case.

[Sarouan]

TBH, I don't really understand the point of this poll. It's silly to oppose gameplay and balance, because balance can't happen without gameplay while the opposite is true. A game never needs to be balanced to be fun : it's only players thinking balance as some kind of gaming holy grail who can't enjoy a game they don't see as "balanced" - and even so, it's always a subjective point of view because they'll only aknowledge balance from their specific view of what balance is (mostly points used to build a list).

So of course, it's never perfect and constantly changing. Because balance doesn't come from numbers or stats, it also needs to involve the players themselves and balance themselves each other so that a battle seems "fair".

Fun fact : last game I played, I forgot one of my units in my bag and I didn't notice until the end of the game. My army was basically unbalanced in comparison to my opponent's, because I obviously had less points than him with my list. However, he didn't know and I didn't know either : so in our eyes, the game was balanced (it was tensed and I indeed managed to win, neither me nor him though the game was "stolen"). But in terms of points, it wasn't balanced at all. It just shows how balance is a trick of the mind, and it actually doesn't make the game any more fun or competitive than it can be.

[Gitzdee]

Yeah maybe balance wasnt the right word for what i am trying to say. Its more about numbers representung what a model/army/game is supposed reflect? Sorry my english is lacking at the moment.

Edit: still dont know what other word to use XD

Edited April 2 by Gitzdee

[Beliman]

19 hours ago, Gitzdee said:

Yeah maybe balance wasnt the right word for what i am trying to say. Its more about numbers representung what a model/army/game is supposed reflect? Sorry my english is lacking at the moment.

100% a lot of people doesn't understand most of AOS. Maybe it's because there are a lot of games that visually explain how the game should be played, but there are a lot of question that are hard to answer in the first AOS game unless "it's all about the gameplay, don't look for anything behind it":

• So, units can still shoot when I tie them in melee? aham.
• I see, my cannons are not that good compared with that 10 dudes with bows.
• That monster is crazy strong! I can't wait to use my Cygor.
• So charging doesn't give me any buff ******...? Ok

I'm not saying that this should be exactly the same for all games, but AoS seems to ignore most of the warfare logic that people expect from a wargame

[Sarouan]

12 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I'm not saying that this should be exactly the same for all games, but AoS seems to ignore most of the warfare logic that people expect from a wargame

That's because you have a very specific view of what a wargame should be, and you somewhat expect AoS to follow it.

Thing is : that doesn't make it true. AoS game designers have their own views that may not be the same, and that's fine. To each their own. There aren't actually any hard rules saying how a game or a wargame must be.

Edited April 3 by Sarouan

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

Thing is : that doesn't make it true. AoS game designers have their own views that may not be the same, and that's fine. To each their own. There aren't actually any hard rules saying how a game or a wargame must be.

The point is that we don't know Gw's writters view: maybe it's just an inheritance of early AoS (note: JM Hewitt already made it clear the problems of AoS ranged profiles btw), maybe it's because they have a unique vision for their game, or maybe it's all about balance and numbers (like @Gitzdee says above).

But what we know is that there are people (I'm one of them) that doesn't understand some of the logic behind this mechanics. For people like me, that will play AoS no matter what, that's not a big problem. But for new people, it will be strange to understand (I'm not saying bad).

Edited April 3 by Beliman

[Sarouan]

10 minutes ago, Beliman said:

The point is that we don't know Gw's writters view: maybe it's just an inheritance of early AoS (note: JW Hewitt already made it clear the problems of AoS ranged profiles btw), maybe it's because they have a unique vision for their game, or maybe it's all about balance and numbers (like @Gitzdee says above).

But what we know is that there are people (I'm one of them) that doens't understand some of the logic behind this mechanics. For people like me, that will play AoS no matter what, that's not a big problem. But for new people, that would be strange (I'm not saying bad).

When you learn to play chess, you don't question the logic behind its mechanics : you follow them. Because that's how the game is played, how it is taught to you and that is all that matters for its new players.

New people are fine, don't worry about them. It's okay to wonder what was the logic behind game design - and their interviews help a lot about that, I suggest you watch those they already made for 4th in the previews, they actually tell a lot about it if you listen well. But again, this is a very specific question for a very specific category of players (including those who already know a lot of game systems and have favorite in some game mechanisms - thus questioning everything that doesn't fit them for self validation) that is far from being the majority.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

100% a lot of people doesn't understand most of AOS. Maybe it's because there are a lot of games that visually explain how the game should be played, but there are a lot of question that are hard to answer in the first AOS game unless "it's all about the gameplay, don't look for anything behind it":

• So, units can still shoot when I tie them in melee? aham.
• I see, my cannons are not that good compared with that 10 dudes with bows.
• That monster is crazy strong! I can't wait to use my Cygor.
• So charging doesn't give me any buff ******...? Ok

I'm not saying that this should be exactly the same for all games, but AoS seems to ignore most of the warfare logic that people expect from a wargame

I wouldn't say AoS is all about the gameplay. The lore and models are a major driver for people to get into it, after all. But I think there is room for a game where fun gameplay can take precedence over in-fiction believability at some points.

The cannon thing you mention is a good example. I don't think most people have a strong intuition about how many bows should equal one cannon. I think intuitively, you would want bows to be good against bigger units of lightly armoured dudes and cannons to be good against big, highly armoured targets. If the game does not capture that (as AoS sometimes fails to do right now), I think that's fair to criticize.

But going down the path of trying to accurately model how bows vs. cannons would behave in every situation just leads to insanity. Sure, it makes sense that a cannon is better than a unit of bowmen against a Steam Tank, but should it also be able to do high damage against a Chaos Lord? How realistic is it really to snipe a single guy with a cannonball? What about a flying unit, can a cannon even tilt upwards? If a unit is deployed in a line formation, should a cannon really be able to kill more than one or two guys at once?

I really believe that if you get lost in the minutia like this, it can make a game worse, even if it becomes more "sensemakey" at the same time.

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

When you learn to play chess, you don't question the logic behind its mechanics : you follow them. Because that's how the game is played, how it is taught to you and that is all that matters for its new players.

AoS really is not that much like chess, though. Capturing the flavour of what is supposed to be happening at the table and making it work with the mechanics is important for the kind of game that AoS is. There is a reason people hate stuff like the Screaming Bell being spammed as a screening unit, because it goes strongly against the fiction.

Edited April 3 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Beliman]

24 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

New people are fine, don't worry about them

When I was talking about "new people", I was talking about some of my friends that are not hooked (yet). Sorry to disappoint you, buy I worry about my friends.

24 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

I suggest you watch those they already made for 4th in the previews

Already did. I have high hopes with Matt Rose. That part when he talked about rewritting all warscrolls trying to be tied with their miniatures is exactly what I was talking about, and it adresses my main issues with the logic behind the game. Let's wait and see if they can accomplish that.

@Neil Arthur Hotep

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think that it's pretty clear that AoS is not a war-simulation game. But as I said, there are some issues that are hard to understand for new (and old) players. Don't get me wrong, every game needs a mix of simplification and abstraction to function. How much of this is completely subjective.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

12 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I think that it's pretty clear that AoS is not a war-simulation game. But as I said, there are some issues that are hard to understand for new (and old) players. Don't get me wrong, every game needs a mix of simplification and abstraction to function. How much of this is completely subjective.

Instead of "completely subjective", I like to think of it as "it's a decision the designers need to make". Because it really is a trade off: Very rarely can you get both smooth rules as well as sensemaking at once. I think since TOW now exists for the "all the rules" enjoyers, it makes some sense to differentiate AoS by making it more free-form. But of course, it's not that simple, since a lot of people don't choose their tabletop games primarily for the rules, but also the models and lore. There might be some World War II game out there that plays mechanically even more to my taste than AoS, but if someone told me "just go play that instead" when I say something about AoS does not resonate with me, then that would be pretty insulting.

[Sarouan]

"War simulation" isn't actually tied to game rules. No wargame made this far is actually "war simulation" accurate, they all use abstractions for game / practicality purposes (like weapon range that would normally be able to fire much further than the game range translate). However, there are players favoring some game systems above others because of what they "feel" is more accurate to their own view of a wargame should be. That's the difference.

 

58 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

AoS really is not that much like chess, though.

Of course it's not like chess. That's the point of having different game systems, and why keeping Double Turn gives AoS a distinction from other similar games.

Point is, questionning the game mechanisms can be done in every game. Why the pawn moves this way, and the fool this way ? Why play in turns ? Why isn't it "war simulation" accurate ? Why no dice ? Rules in chess are also arbitrary on design. They all have a logic and you can also not agree with it at its core. Yet new players come in and still learn to play it as it is, instead of "what it should be". AoS isn't really different on that matter.

Capturing the flavor of a what a unit is supposed to represent "in reality" is all a question of personnal point of view and imagination in a fantasy world. That's why when you narrate a battle played in game, it tends not to follow "exactly" the events in game but rather capture "its general feeling by the players" to be more evocative. Game mechanisms are just a tool to tell a story, never an end.

Edited April 3 by Sarouan

[Beliman]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Instead of "completely subjective", I like to think of it as "it's a decision the designers need to make". Because it really is a trade off: Very rarely can you get both smooth rules as well as sensemaking at once. I think since TOW now exists for the "all the rules" enjoyers, it makes some sense to differentiate AoS by making it more free-form. But of course, it's not that simple, since a lot of people don't choose their tabletop games primarily for the rules, but also the models and lore. There might be some World War II game out there that plays mechanically even more to my taste than AoS, but if someone told me "just go play that instead" when I say something about AoS does not resonate with me, then that would be pretty insulting.

Yes, of course, I was talking about the recieving end (aka, the players), not the creation process (aka, the designers reasons). Again, I don't have any problem with strightforward and simple rules, most of the games outside of warhammer already embrace this philosophy (and Imho, most of them are top quality) and I can still understand the logic behind the system without any problem.

1 hour ago, Sarouan said:

They all have a logic and you can also not agree with it at its core. Yet new players come in and still learn to play it as it is, instead of "what it should be". AoS isn't really different on that matter.

I thing that we are oversimplifiying things here. The problem is when some of this rules are not behind anyones designers vision (note: I'm not saying that AoS doens't have any vision)...

Quote

The only ranged attack in there is the hammers being thrown, so the rules were written around close up engagement with no ranged combat at all. Because that’s what we were told to do. 

What I'm trying to say is that we, the players, are the last judges. I'm saying that as a IRL example, some people don't understand understand the logic behind AoS gameplay, even if we already accept and love strightforward and simplified rules (In other words, simplified rules are not a problem).

Note: I'm not talking about that one rules of flying ship with an haproon, or the synergy between an artifact and whatever... that are exceptions and stuff that will happen with thouzands of warscrolls.

[Sarouan]

22 minutes ago, Beliman said:

I thing that we are oversimplifiying things here. The problem is when some of this rules are not behind anyones designers vision (note: I'm not saying that AoS doens't have any vision)...

See, something needs to be said here : the only people that can say what is "right" about the designer version of a game are the said designers of the game. Because they're the ones writing the rules and designing them in a particular vision. Players are just that : players. When playing, players follow the rules : they don't write new ones in the middle of it because that means it would change the rules and break the social contract with other players involved, thus breaking the game apart and leading to conflict (just see what happens with children in a schoolyard). They may not agree with this vision and they are perfectly in their right to do so. They are completely free to choose about if they want to play a game or not. But if they want to be "right" about a designer vision...then they have to stop being players and become game designers themselves, to design their own game they're envisionning. That's when they'll be "right" with a designer vision.

 

22 minutes ago, Beliman said:

What I'm trying to say is that we, the players, are the last judges. I'm saying that as a IRL example, some people don't understand understand the logic behind AoS gameplay, even if we already accept and love strightforward and simplified rules (In other words, simplified rules are not a problem).

Note: I'm not talking about that one rules of flying ship with an haproon, or the synergy between an artifact and whatever... that are exceptions and stuff that will happen with thouzands of warscrolls.

Well, if we can judge with the recent polls made here and on Twitter or the constant data GW gets from tournaments and playtesters, I'd say they already do. The real question is which players to listen to : those who are in the majority, those who are in the minority, those who don't play, those who play, those who may play ? And if you say "all of them !", that leads to an impossibility to satisfy everyone - so usually, you take the majority, it's the best practical option.

But then, what happens when the majority doesn't say what you're saying ? I mean, just see the numbers here, balance is clearly in the minority. Sure, it may mean nothing because of how low the numbers are and you may be right to say that...but what happens when real, hard data numbers in a huge, significant way suddenly makes it appear what you're saying isn't actually the main concern of players...will you accept that or still believe what you always believed to be true ? Now that's a personnal question only you can answer...and it may not be pleasing at all.

Edited April 3 by Sarouan

[Vasshpit]

11 minutes ago, Beliman said:

simplified rules are not a problem

They can be if it's at the cost of immersion for what I think are most players. The cannn vs bow example earlier is prime point. I think is safe to say that most folk understand that a cannon is way more powerful than an arrow at base level and that examples like this of real world physics and mechanics should ultimately be applied to gameplay for a "common sense" and quick to understand approach. 

One thing that I am concerned about with 4th rules previews is the 3" melee rules. Does this ultimately mean that all weapon types are so homoginized that I'm suppose to accept a spear and a dagger are the same martial tools of war? This for me is overall simplified rules at the cost of immersion. 

 

[Beliman]

I think that we are talking about diferent things @Sarouan.

The poll is for players.

@Gitzdeesaid that there is something strange about AoS rules and the logic behind it. I just made an argument about exactly with the same IRL problems that I saw with my friends.

That's all. Like it or not, that happened. But I'm really happy because it seems that the main Lead Designer already knows that and with some luck, it will be adressed in 4oS.

18 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

They can be if it's at the cost of immersion for what I think are most players

Completely agree. But I don't have any problem with simplification if the "flavour" is still there in some form.

Edited April 3 by Beliman

[Sarouan]

22 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's all. Like it or not, that happened.

Yes, you're talking about your experiences, feelings and vision. And that's why my question stands : what happens if that is in the minority ? In other words...why should GW listen to you and people thinking like you saying their vision is "wrong / strange", when the polls they have say not that ?

When you say "players have the final word", I say it's more complicated than that. Players play what is proposed. Quality of rules, what people may find "strange", logic behind the rules...it doesn't have to matter for a game to be popular. Why some silly games are still played by children around the world ? Because they were taught to play them, they keep proposing the game to other children and in such, it becomes the game everyone plays. Those who don't play are out of the circle...thankfully, in miniature wargames, we have a lot of choice. But the sad truth is that a game only matters if we find a group to play with.

And that's why GW will always be right in its vision. Because they're the one proposing the game and they have a whole network ready to spread it.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

53 minutes ago, Vasshpit said:

One thing that I am concerned about with 4th rules previews is the 3" melee rules. Does this ultimately mean that all weapon types are so homoginized that I'm suppose to accept a spear and a dagger are the same martial tools of war? This for me is overall simplified rules at the cost of immersion. 

That's one of those examples where I will firmly place myself into the camp of "it turns out I don't actually care about this", because of my personal history.

When I started AoS, I built a bunch of skeleton warriors, which have the option of swords or spears. Which I did a bunch of maths about and came to the conclusion that small units should take swords and big units should take spears. Then I though about it some more and figured out that for small units it doesn't actually matter because they do no damage. And for big units, an extra rank of models fighting from spears was almost exactly the same as +1 to hit from the swords, effectively. So that did not matter either.

Later I was building Mortek Guard and for those guys, swords were actually just the right choice. And that kind of sucked, too, because spears looked cooler. And then along the line, I played a bunch of games with people and because of rules updates, they ran some guys they built with hand weapons as guys with spears. And I noticed how little that affected me at all, because they did all the attacking dice math anyway.

And then the new Deathrattle Skeletons came out with a build option of swords or spears, but no rules difference between the two, and I just though that was smart because that way you can actually just build what looks cooler. So that's where I am living right now.

I hope that for warscrolls where the choice between weapon profiles is actually meaningful (like 'Ardboyz), they just make two different warscrolls with separate point costs. And for others, I am totally fine with the choice being cosmetic.

Edited April 3 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Beliman]

11 minutes ago, Sarouan said:

And that's why my question stands : what happens if that is in the minority ?

I don't know, but I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not forcing anyone, I even voted Gameplay, so am I winning, no?

I'm just a player, and I just pointed out some issues that I had experienced. If you like it and non of your friends have any critique or issue with AoS, good for you.