"Open Matched": An idea of relaxed points suitable for other styles

[wayniac]

It's no surprise that Matched Play is often the default mode of operation for AOS, whether for good or ill.  However, I also feel that while it does balance the playing field suitably well, which is a must for events and tournaments, it's a bit TOO restrictive when it comes to regular games or campaign games.  Given that there is little or no actual guidelines on structure which is usually the reason why Open and Narrative play are so rare, I've decided to brainstorm some ideas to relax the Matched Play rules a bit to still provide a basic structure, thereby alleviating the major issue with Open/Narrative (i.e. not having anything to go on besides "Does this seem fair?") but not being nearly so restrictive.

These are just some ideas, I plan to experiment with this in my group and see how it actually pans out.  In my notes I refer to this style as "Open Matched" because it's sort of a mix between the two.  The gist of it is as follows:

Synopsis: The idea is to modify the existing Matched Play rules to allow for a more open and less restrictive approach while still keeping some semblance of structure around building army lists, thereby alleviating the major problem with both Open and Narrative play.

• Strongly encourages using a battleplan from something other than the Pitched Battles section of The General's Handbook, and encourages ad-hoc changes, for example assigning a points value to a battalion that doesn't have points in The General's Handbook (e.g. any of the Start Collecting! battalions), or appending a keyword to a warscroll for thematic purposes (e.g. allowing a Nurgle player to apply the NURGLE keyword to Beastmen in their army)
• Uses the "Points Only" matched play variant (i.e. no battleline requirements or restrictions on leaders/artillery/behemoth), with emphasis on the fact that points are a very rough guideline and so armies don't necessarily need to have equal points depending on the scenario (e.g. a "Last Stand" scenario where the Attacker has more points than the Defender) and also that it should not matter if one person is a little bit over the agreed-upon points limit.
• The 1st Rule of One changes to be: Each spell can be successfully cast only one per turn rather than once per wizard per turn. instead of "attempted", so if you cast a spell and your opponent unbinds it, you can try to cast that same spell again with another wizard, but you cannot chain cast the same spell multiple times.
• Mixed Alliance armies are allowed, but you don't get any command traits or artefacts if you have more than one Grand Alliance.
• Armies have a bonus 25% reserve pool for summoning, but this reserve pool cannot be used to summon anything with the MONSTER keyword.  You can, however, set aside reinforcement points as normal (which can be used to summon Monsters).  This addition I feel will be the most controversial, but I'm trying to strike a balance between Matched Play making summoning untenable and Open Play making it totally broken; I think 25% is a good compromise with the "no Monsters" restriction since you can set aside extra points to summon a Monster if you wish.

What do you think?  I am not really a powergamer type so is there anything that is prone to a lot of abuse that I'm missing?  I'm aware the 25% extra is often considered to be "unfair" by the competitive crowd, but again I think it's a good compromise between the highly restricted summoning in Matched Play and the wide open summoning in Open and Narrative.  This style of play isn't meant for cutthroat games anyways, and the points more or less to give some idea of army sizes without resorting to "X warscrolls" type of things.

[Galas]

Put this in a nice PDF and i will buy you two!

[KHHaunts]

funnily enough i do most of this in most of my games. Its my favorite way to play.

So all thumbs up from me!

will try some of your ideas

 

[wayniac]

After getting some suggestions elsewhere I am thinking of changing the 25% rule to instead be as follows:

• Summoning works as normal for Matched Play, with being able to put points into reserve to summon additional units except that units that have been slain may be summoned at no additional cost (in effect, the cost of the unit goes into the reserve pool, allowing you to recycle units but not add additional ones without putting aside additional points).  This may not be used on units with the MONSTER keyword, even if reinforcement points were used to initially summon them, due to the energy required to summon such powerful creatures.

Since there is a precedent for this (the "Death of Nagash" scenario in the General's Handbook does this by restricting summoning to only recycle units, not add additional ones).  What I noticed from posting this on the AOS Facebook Group was an interesting phenomenon: Everyone who didn't like it specifically cited the 25% rule as being "unbalanced" due to it allowing summoning armies additional points, and many had issues with changing Matched Play to "not be equal", completely ignoring the fact that I specifically said this wasn't intended to "fix" Matched Play but add something resembling structure for Open/Narrative Play with more relaxed rules, so you weren't completely resorting to "Does this seem fair to you" with an opponent.  

Everyone who argued against it seemed to repeatedly point out how "balance should be equal and if one side is heavier it isn't balanced" and how it was "unfair", which I thought was interesting as it shows IMHO how people will latch on to points and expect it to be 100% equal points, with an equal scenario (i.e. Pitched Battle) with no special circumstances, just line equal point armies up across from each other and go.

[Sleboda]

I see where your intent is, and it's a good one, but to me it seems like you are starting from a flawed premise.  You are assuming a lack of fairness/balance is a flaw in open or narrative gaming and working to "fix" that problem. It's a bit like saying that the new vegetarian restaurant is pretty cool but they would have more customers if they would just fix the obvious issue of a lack of steaks on the menu.  Even if it's true that they might get more diners, it's not a "problem" for a vegetarian place to not serve any kind of meat.  The restaurant never meant to be a place with meat and somehow goofed up and didn't include it.  

Narrative play especially has no concern for fairness.  It's a story being told.  It's not fair to the Empire that we all know the Rebellion is gonna blow up the Death Star. You knew it, I knew it, even Tarkin probably new it but was too egotistical to admit it. That was not the point. The point was telling the story of a kid saving the galaxy.

Narrative games are a way to work with another player to tell a story, not to decide who won a fair fight. That's the who point of three styles.  You want a fair fight? Play Matched.  You want a story? Play narrative.  You want to just put your favorite models or ideas on the table and see what crazy stuff happens? Play open.

 

Again, it's cool that you want to contribute to the community, but I think you are trying to correct an error that hasn't been made.

[wayniac]

IMHO the "error" is that there's zero guidelines for Open or Narrative, although as you said Narrative often writes itself.  Open however by default is "pick what you want and hope it's balanced" which I think is part of why it was met with such resistance, not because it was bad in and of itself (although I'm sure many people felt that way) but because there was nothing to even give some guidelines for how to approach it.

[Sleboda]

11 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Open however by default is "pick what you want and hope it's balanced"

I'm saying it's a step simpler than that.   It's "pick what you want." Period. The added expectation of balance is just that,  added.

 

That lack of the guidelines you're seeking is by design, not an error. 

[Galas]

Well, its not like Wayniac its trying to send this to GW so they change the way Open and Narrative plays out, no? He is just doing an alternative system to use if you like it. For now, I'm liking the changes and I'm surely gonna play with them to see how it goes!

 

Keep the good work Wayniac. And ignore the people on Facebook waiting this to be a House-Ruled Matched play. If you wan't Matched play, just play it! 

EDIT: I have a question. The new summoning rule aply to "reviving" models like Skarr Bloodwrath and the Phoenix? So I don't need to pay again when they revive, no?

[Sleboda]

Oh yep. Yep. Good on him! 

 

My whole point is focused on perception. His whole idea is cool. It would just be served well by putting it out on its own merits, not distracting from it by positioning as a solution to a non-problem.

 

100% clear - I'm all in favor of his effort. 

[wayniac]

1 hour ago, Galas said:

Well, its not like Wayniac its trying to send this to GW so they change the way Open and Narrative plays out, no? He is just doing an alternative system to use if you like it. For now, I'm liking the changes and I'm surely gonna play with them to see how it goes!

 

Keep the good work Wayniac. And ignore the people on Facebook waiting this to be a House-Ruled Matched play. If you wan't Matched play, just play it! 

EDIT: I have a question. The new summoning rule aply to "reviving" models like Skarr Bloodwrath and the Phoenix? So I don't need to pay again when they revive, no?

That would be the basic idea.  Is the Phoenix a monster?  My intent is to not allow monsters to be restored (which would also count for things like the Ring of Immortality; it could restore a hero but not a hero on behemoth)