What is it that Makes AoS units balanced?

[SuperHappyTime]

On 10/15/2016 at 1:59 AM, hobgoblinclub said:

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. 

A few things I can think of.

1. There's a nice duality among AoS boxes, where some of the dual kits can build a group of tough guys or a group of damage dealers.

2. The Bolter Marines vs IK/Land Raider isn't here. Maybe the biggest reason I don't play 40K is because there are somethings that can't be touched except for from a few special units. Don't bring anti-flying vs 2-3 flyers? GG. In AoS, everything can hit everything. There isn't any 0% chances.

3. Movement rules aren't too annoying but I don't think this is as big an issue. There were some goofy charge rules in 8th Ed that were bad/annoying. Things such as no redirects if more than two enemies fled, or if a unit fled through another unit, it was protected from charges. Breaking up the block allows us to put more terrain on the table but doesn't really make for the "Everything is usable".

4. I feel like "Everything is usable" is a bit of a pullover from the Warmahordes forums. It's a true statement. But when it comes to powergaming, that isn't the case. Powergaming boils down to spamming a few key units (like 40K, where there's Flyrant and Spore Spam, or Jetbikes and Wraithknights Spam).

[Paul Conti]

I think the big balancing factor isn't so much the bottom being better, it's that its so easy for things to die. Models just fly off the table. No matter how big and tough a unit is, you can wipe it out pretty easily.

The death of the deathstar unit and characters powered up with ridiculous armor and ward saves is over. A couple of canon balls is the right medicine for pretty much any problem.

[daedalus81]

On 10/17/2016 at 8:04 AM, 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?

Note - this is not directed at any particular person.  This is just an indictment of the line of thought I see above.

I hate hate hate this argument.  It is so lazy and used far too often.

Points are a framework and consist of about half the puzzle.  If you expect a new player to understand all the facets on game one and instead tell him, "points are stupid" instead of "that's a nice list, but here are some things you should consider about list building" then you are the problem.  Not points.

Points are a relative assessment of a units ability with the expectation that it gets used at least some of the time for its intended purpose.  If I use decimators against single monsters i'm going to have a bad time.  It doesn't mean the points for decimators are wrong.  

Understanding points, abilities, synergies, and roles for units is what list building encompasses and requires far more forethought than can be expected of a new player, which is why we guide them instead of deriding the system.

[BaldoBeardo]

Note - this is not directed at any particular person.  This is just an indictment of the line of thought I see above.

Aw, and I had my passive-aggressomatron all fired up, too... [emoji6]

I'm still trying to nail down exactly what my issue is as it's just been needling me.

Like assault rifles, Einstein's theories and thinking you have the house to yourself, you're correct - it's not points per se, it's how they're used that causes problems.

Best real life behavioural example I can think of;
Years ago, there was a guy in our GW who cheated. Like, constantly. The mathematics involved in his army lists would flummox even the most rainman of rainmen.
Points limits and quotas were a challenge, a limitation, something to be chafed against and circumvented somehow.
Then Inquisitor got released, and we ran a store campaign, using the 'Do what you like' character generation rules.
This guy came up with a great character that was a one trick pony, it wasn't even that great a trick, and he had so many drawbacks and self imposed limitations it was comical.
But he enjoyed the story of that character. By making him responsible for his own limitations, he overdid them because he wanted a fun challenge.

Or it's like mangling insects/animal cruelty are hallmarks of serial killers in later life.

If you realise early on that points are the guide, an aiming point that should only really be considered when you hit it/go over, great. Keep it up.

Because otherwise you wind up netlisting, losing enjoyment of the game because you're too preoccupied with units 'making their points back', and all these other kinda things that you end up getting bored of the hobby and only come back when GW reboot the franchise and.. yeah. [emoji15]




Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[daedalus81]

I think people taking the perspective of earning points back are wrong, too, in some regards anyway.  Obviously you'd have to have some units earning more than they cost for you to get ahead, but there are supporting units and actions that make that achievable.  The narrow perspectives of the extremes miss the nuance in the middle.

A perfect point system is never achievable simply because not all units have the same purpose.  People need to assess all the factors.  The thought process is no different when picking which weapon goes on cavalry - do I go for the more even, but weaker damage or do I choose lances for explosive charges and lesser phases following that?

Perhaps in earlier editions I would leaned away from points a little bit, but then it's all we had anyway.  This setup feels different to me.  I feel very comfortable with the responsiveness of GW and the simplified mechanics, which allow a living system.