What is it that Makes AoS units balanced?

[hobgoblinclub]

I hear lots of talk about how 'in AoS all/most units are viable'. Why, I wonder, is this now true when it certainly wasn't in 8th? In 8th we had net lists, every army of seemed to take the same choices as others of its race, and some poor plastic souls never saw the table. 

I don't think the answer can just be 'points', as that would mean we should have had a fix to the issue years ago, and in every edition. I don't think the answer can be the ability to tweak points either because, other than the SCGT process, GW are yet to make the expected tweaks. 

Is it the simplicity of the game system? The adaptability of the core rules?

For example, in previous editions, the messy movement rules meant there was a gulf in maneuverability between the fast movers, who could freely pivot, and cumbersome blocks of infantry. Now we see far more parity. Clearly some units are quicker, but everyone can weave around the board and get where they need to be. 

If movement is part of it, what else is a contributing factor? How is that, for the first time, I can genuinely pick units based on the coolness of the models and still expect them to be a force on the tabletop? 

Thanks for your thoughts. 

[polarbear]

I think the fixed hit/wound system goes a long way to evening the playing field and making every unit capable of killing the enemy. I think one danger of AoS actually is if they go too far down the path of building up armies' defensive abilities, as I think more of a bloodbath makes for a better game than grind fests.

[Madra101]

I agree with polarbear. The fact that whatever warscrolls a player uses to build their army there is a way to defeat it. 

[BaldoBeardo]

Fixed hit/wound goes a long way towards this, but the main reason?
Points.
Stuff only ever became "never take" or "auto include" because of some arbitrary assessment of effectiveness versus a number.
People revolve their entire enjoyment of the hobby from figuring out that assessment.
Without points, the potency of a particular unit came down to how it was wielded by the player in their local meta, a granularity that official rules could never accommodate.

Allowing players to determine what they are happy with means that if your opponent has that unit of Ungor that got lovingly painted but never used because they weren't any good... well, it can go on the table. It'll be fun to see if they can do anything. If nothing else, they might act as a speed bump for that auto-include unit of yours that never gets dented.

Yes, pick up games, wah, fairness and balance, boohoo.

I still believe that if you can't get on with a game against a stranger within five minutes, then you're after different play experiences anyway.

From other forums you saw when the GHB was announced, people who had been slating AoS as unplayable and crappy were suddenly "Yes, now the game works!".
Frankly, I didn't miss them in the first place.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Herald of Chaos]

As has already been said I think that the fixed hit and wound values are a big part of all units being viable.  When the smallest of troops is able to pose a threat to the mightiest of heroes and monsters it lets you take them without feeling that you are missing out or that they will be ineffective against a lot of targets.

The other thing, which might not be applicable to everyone, but is, at least for the time being for my area, is the community is different from the 8th edition community.  I think the grand alliance books which give you the option to combine so many abilities, and the newer battle times giving additional bonuses to factions make the game quite easy to push to a level where a majority of units are not up for consideration unless you are happy to take a turn 2 defeat.  However locally, while there is always a lot of discussion about how you could do it, few people are actually fielding those overpowering combinations.  I am finding the community and players are behind the most part of the balance in my area.

[Kramer]

5 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Fixed hit/wound goes a long way towards this, but the main reason?
Points.
Stuff only ever became "never take" or "auto include" because of some arbitrary assessment of effectiveness versus a number.
People revolve their entire enjoyment of the hobby from figuring out that assessment.
Without points, the potency of a particular unit came down to how it was wielded by the player in their local meta, a granularity that official rules could never accommodate.

Allowing players to determine what they are happy with means that if your opponent has that unit of Ungor that got lovingly painted but never used because they weren't any good... well, it can go on the table. It'll be fun to see if they can do anything. If nothing else, they might act as a speed bump for that auto-include unit of yours that never gets dented.

Yes, pick up games, wah, fairness and balance, boohoo.

I still believe that if you can't get on with a game against a stranger within five minutes, then you're after different play experiences anyway.

From other forums you saw when the GHB was announced, people who had been slating AoS as unplayable and crappy were suddenly "Yes, now the game works!".
Frankly, I didn't miss them in the first place.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

I don't want to say I don't agree because what you are saying is an experience and the way you experience things is always true for you. 

But the way I experience the change is very different. For me the fun is in the challenge that you find within the limits of the game. limits either in the scenario or the point limits.

i find no joy in open play because their is no challenge. But i find a lot of fun in matched and narrative play. And the thing that makes it different from whfb? 

It's just the people. The people who are trying to make age of sigmar in to a hardcore competitive game find the rules don't facilitate them and they complain and ultimately switch to other games.

Its the same difference in every sport: it's the difference between playing a match and afterward shaking hands and haviny a beer with your opponent. Or playing a match, going back to you own team and collectively ****** about how the other team ruined the game with their plays style.  

[BaldoBeardo]

But the way I experience the change is very different. For me the fun is in the challenge that you find within the limits of the game. limits either in the scenario or the point limits.
i find no joy in open play because their is no challenge. But i find a lot of fun in matched and narrative play.

Ah, I still play scenarios, and still expect the players to aim for a version of balance they're both happy with. Just not an arbitrary or (allegedly) precise one.
I'd rather get mashed in an intentionally one-sided game than win a matched play game.
Wrangling lists for efficiency killed my interest in gaming once, and at the moment I have a suspicion it may do it again.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Wraith01]

Open play and small scale games is part of what convinced me to dive in and give table top war games a chance. I have no idea what makes the game balanced compared to the pre Age of Sigmar world but I love how we play each other in my local shop and always have fun no matter what armies are on the table. 

[HobbyHammer]

I believe it is the mind set. No game is balanced, but people perseption of the game is key. People in 8th with net lists expected to win. I don't think you can approach any game is AoS, Open, Narrative or Matched expecting to win. This makes for a more cinematic experience and therefore IMO a more fun experience. We as a community are more invested in the game as we had a year to do what we want in the manner of fun. 

Another key factor again IMO is priority rolls. This stops people gaining too much of an advantage and therefore balances automatically. 

But certainly most of all is perception of the game. 

[DarkBlack]

I think that the rather large amount of random in the game (turn order, charge distance, assorted tables, etc.) and the way units change in value depending on how you manage the buffs and synergies that a larger portion of the tactical decisions revolve around makes the error on any point value very large (i.e. the difference in power given by more points efficient units is insignificant compared to the advantage gained by winning the initiative when you need it; for example).

Therefore it's much easier to get armies within the same error margin balance wise. On average this swings both ways, so it tends to even out.

[Sadysaneto]

Battleplans, i say.

[Aeonotakist]

Actually I would provide a different idea here.  I think the best thing in AOS is the very innovative rules and 'hard counter' relationship it provides.

 

For example, the SE Gryph Hound is bullshit judging from its damage and wounds. In a WHF style battle nobody will take it for any good. But with its special rule, suddenly it becomes a must to counter Skryrefire.

SO when Skryrefire raise to power, Gryph Hound will become 'very powerful'. When these Skavens are so beaten that they are not popular anymore, then Gryph Hound will become 'useless'. The power rating system is so dynamic so there is actually no power rating really taking the lead.

 

On the other hand, in 8th, most units are differenciated by A/WS/S/T/D/M/save/ward save/attack range and their ponits. I know there were so many units actually without any special rules.

[Soup Dragon]

I agree with much that has been said above. But I feel that one of the main reasons that there are very few overpowered or underpowered units is that the points values have been worked on, tweaked, and adjusted several times after much play testing by the community. Mo did an amazing job with the original Clash Comp, this went through 2 or 3 versions of tweaks before the SCGT guys got hold of it and did further refining, and again altered some points values to reflect actual game play. Then GW came along and pretty much copied those points values into the Generals Handbook.

i think this is further illustrated by the way the two most recent Battletomes - Bonesplitterz and Beastclaws (which are both post SCGT points system, and thus pointed by GW with little guidance from the community at large) seem to have produced units which seem poor for the points (eg Yhettees and sabretusks) and units which are Very strong for the points (frostlords and savage archers/kunnin  rukk ). I cannot see either Mo or the SCGT crew leaving these units at their current values after the recent Event results, but GW don't have the flexibility to rapidly rebalance things with the hindsight of recent big tournaments.

I've said for some time that units are neither overpowered nor underpowered, only mis-pointed. I think that still holds true.

[someone2040]

Honestly, we're currently just at a state where it's like GW came out with a big Ravening Hordes update for everything. They were all 'balanced' at the same time and hence most things are generally on the same kind of power scale.

Lets see how things are like in a year or twos time if GW don't rebalance points and come out with something clearly overpowered or underpowered. 

 

That being said, the rules certainly encourage things to be more balanced. Fixed to hit/to wound, freedom of movement, etc also make it so that it's harder to get into a state where you can't do anything.

[Kramer]

On 10/15/2016 at 5:30 PM, BaldoBeardo said:

Ah, I still play scenarios, and still expect the players to aim for a version of balance they're both happy with. Just not an arbitrary or (allegedly) precise one.
I'd rather get mashed in an intentionally one-sided game than win a matched play game.
Wrangling lists for efficiency killed my interest in gaming once, and at the moment I have a suspicion it may do it again.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

I get where you are coming from. Wrangling lists sounds like a terrible past time or a very late night movie  

But you are talking about taking things to the extreme. Do you find any fun in the challenge of winning at all? 

No judgement, just curious. 

[BaldoBeardo]

I get where you are coming from. Wrangling lists sounds like a terrible past time or a very late night movie [emoji6] 

But you are talking about taking things to the extreme. Do you find any fun in the challenge of winning at all? 

No judgement, just curious. 

Yes. But the thinking should be done (imo) on the board.

Points create the illusion of fairness.

You're a vet player, and a newbie rocks up with a list that yours is a hard counter for.

Which is more enjoyable - persisting with the idiot idea that the points are fair, or encourage him to chuck more stuff on (or you take stuff off) so there's a challenge?

Some years ago I won a club WFB league with wood elves.

I tabled players who I knew from experience were much better players than me.

Bit the points were equal, so it must have been my genius with a little luck, right?

I gain no joy from games that are a foregone conclusion.

My interest in WMH lasted about 6 months precisely because of the hard tourney mentality it encourages.

It was only the arrival of AoS sans points that rekindled my interest. Play, tweak, enjoy the struggle.

If things are one sided, let players recycle units mid game.

Probably why my interest in AoS is beginning to wane and I'm looking at other (smaller) systems where there's more of an RP / campaign element.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Kramer]

2 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Yes. But the thinking should be done (imo) on the board.
Points create the illusion of fairness.
You're a vet player, and a newbie rocks up with a list that yours is a hard counter for.
Which is more enjoyable - persisting with the idiot idea that the points are fair, or encourage him to chuck more stuff on (or you take stuff off) so there's a challenge?

Some years ago I won a club WFB league with wood elves.
I tabled players who I knew from experience were much better players than me.
Bit the points were equal, so it must have been my genius with a little luck, right?

I gain no joy from games that are a foregone conclusion.

It was only the arrival of AoS sans points that rekindled my interest. Play, tweak, enjoy the struggle.
If things are one sided, let players recycle units mid game.


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Thanks for sharing. I think it's great that Age of Sigmar facilitates the style of play that you love. 

I think all that is possible with points but that's a personal opinion. But can we conclude it's the people that make a game fun and fair?

[BaldoBeardo]

Oh, entirely. But even within my club, you don't see people wanting to just play AoS anymore. It's "X points of AoS". These are people who play each other week in, week out, so the 'lingua franca' shouldn't be needed. But people just need to have points, that frame of reference to cling on to.
Inside my circle of friends, there seems to be alternation.
I'm not suggesting that points are evil, bit over time I believe they encourage a play style driven by list building, rather than by enjoyment of the game.
To put another way - a hangover (winning) can be the result of a good night out, but if your aim is simply getting a hangover, that's no guarantee you'll have a good night.

Even within this forum - which is for obvious reasons pro-AoS - the prevalence of posts indicating people aiming for hangovers is increasing.

Eh, It was nice while it lasted. Let's see what the next few months do.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[hobgoblinclub]

10 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Oh, entirely. But even within my club, you don't see people wanting to just play AoS anymore. It's "X points of AoS". These are people who play each other week in, week out, so the 'lingua franca' shouldn't be needed. But people just need to have points, that frame of reference to cling on to.
Inside my circle of friends, there seems to be alternation.
I'm not suggesting that points are evil, bit over time I believe they encourage a play style driven by list building, rather than by enjoyment of the game.
To put another way - a hangover (winning) can be the result of a good night out, but if your aim is simply getting a hangover, that's no guarantee you'll have a good night.

Even within this forum - which is for obvious reasons pro-AoS - the prevalence of posts indicating people aiming for hangovers is increasing.

Eh, It was nice while it lasted. Let's see what the next few months do.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

I'm not sure your analogy is really fair. You've just picked a process with a negative conclusion and applied it to AoS matched play. You might just have easily have said 'building a list using points is like using a recipe which gives you a delicious cake at the end'. 

Nobody aims to get a hangover. They aim to get drunk or merry or whatever. Drunkenness in AoS is the winning. A hangover simply a negative byproduct of too much drinking, not the aim.

Is there a negative byproduct of list building? I think that's subjective. Personally prefer AoS now I can sit and tweak lists when I'm not playing. If I spend weeks mulling over a list and play some games with my honed list, claiming well-earned victories in the process, I definitely don't get a sore head in doing so. I get a sense of satisfaction, like sipping the first pint of the night.

[fued]

The more i play the more im thinking its not balanced. Especially regarding formations.

Some games are simply unwinnable from the start

[BaldoBeardo]

Hangover was used as an example of 'missing the point'; winning/aiming to win aren't intrinsically bad. But it's more important to have a good game. Across a range of forums GHB brought back the "I got destroyed, points were equal, what did I do wrong?" type posts.
Answers were always of the form "take X" or "nothing you could do, your opponent's list was completely OP" rather than what you used to see - pretty much "ask them to tone it down, or if you can take more stuff".
As has been pointed out previously in this thread, one of the great things about AoS is the fact that anything can kill anything - it's just a question of attrition and synergy.
Jeffy - lord of the end times - will always go down vs. a swarm of grots. If there's enough grots.
But the mindset of efficiency/potency is still ingrained.
Prior to GHB, I lost about 3 out of every 4 games I played. But I enjoyed playing far more than I ever recall while playing WFB.
My pool of opponents has shrunk because outside of my immediate friendship group, it's now the depressing cycle of play-assess-tweak-purchase-play once more.
I really like AoS and I've been a banner-waver for it since day 1.
Seeing the composition of some of the armies that have placed highly in tournaments, you can see the distortion already.
I'm a jaded old man who doesn't have time to spend endlessly tweaking lists. I barely get time to paint.
AoS pre-GHB fitted me perfectly.
Ah well.

(Grandpa Simpson yells at cloud photo here)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Carnelian]

9 hours ago, hobgoblinclub said:

Nobody aims to get a hangover. They aim to get drunk or merry or whatever. Drunkenness in AoS is the winning. A hangover simply a negative byproduct of too much drinking, not the aim.

Definitely don't agree with this analogy. I drink because I enjoy the taste. I play AoS because I enjoy the game itself - not because I want to to win at something.  

If I do get drunk or do win a game, that's a bonus.

Maybe that's just a difference in personalities between those who are focused on achieving something and those who are focused on enjoying the moment. Both valid

[Kramer]

6 hours ago, Carnelian said:

Definitely don't agree with this analogy. I drink because I enjoy the taste. I play AoS because I enjoy the game itself - not because I want to to win at something.  

If I do get drunk or do win a game, that's a bonus.

Maybe that's just a difference in personalities between those who are focused on achieving something and those who are focused on enjoying the moment. Both valid

I could/would take the analogy a bit further to make it suit my opinion. I drink because I like the taste and having a drink with friends. If I don't like the people I'm drinking with I still like the taste but won't have any fun.  

[Cerlin]

I think point obsession can be a problem, but they help someone like me who is new to the hobby. I started in June/July and was motivated to jump in because of the generals handbook. It gives me and a stranger a point of reference to start a game that will at least be close. It also gives me something to build too. Without points, it was just the battalions that GW had, which are pretty huge and outrageous if you look at the Grand Alliance books.

Now I have 2k of Empire (Freeguild) and I am building up my Dwarfs. They are not the most OP armies. I regularly lose to newer armies, mostly because the lore I know from WHF does not connect to the on battle effect they have.  However, I have fun and the points let me get into the game and matches with new people. Will there be some power gamers? Sure. Will there be some older guys just in it for the laughs? Yep! Why can't I play against both again? 

A good example would be a guy I played at my local store who rebuilt an old High Elf Army and did not have battle line. We played anyhow because it was fun. With points it was still close and we came down to our last 2 warscrolls. Thats why I like points. 

I will probably never have strong enough lists to do well in  tournaments, but I am still thinking about trying because it sounds fun to meet people and play against new armies. 

[hobgoblinclub]

16 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

I'm a jaded old man who doesn't have time to spend endlessly tweaking lists. I barely get time to paint.
AoS pre-GHB fitted me perfectly.
Ah well.

Ha. My life is busy too. It's the list building on Scrollbuilder that keeps me going though. Between painting and gaming, list building scratches the itch.