Does competitiveness ruin AoS?

[BloodTithe]

3 minutes ago, Trout said:

The only annoying thing about competitiveness is that when I play Beastclaw Raiders people assume I'm a power gamer who picked up some kind of netlist. The truth is I just fell in love with their icy looks and picked up an Icewind Assault box.

Are beastclaw raiders seen as over powered at the moment? And yep they have some beautiful models for sure ! I don't blame you for wanting to collect them. I looked at a box in the shop today and had to remind myself that I'm collecting 5 armies already ?

[BloodTithe]

2 minutes ago, CJPT said:

I don't think competitiveness ruins games necessarily, but mismatched attitudes between players (or parts of a local community) does. Thing is, there's not much you can reasonably do to change people's attitudes, so in the first instance the best solution is to curate your own group of players who play like you do.

The issue with this is that like-minded groups of friends rarely set the tone for the entire community - the most competitive players do, because they necessarily dominate the biggest events. That attitude then trickles down into local/store communities, and people feel pushed out - or, at least, pushed back to their private friends-only groups.

Thing is, this is only an issue if the difference between a 'fun' list and a 'competitive list' is extremely pronounced - as it is in AoS. The best thing GW could do to make the game more welcoming is to issue more regular FAQ/GH updates to create more movement at the top of the meta. If they established a more regular rate of metagame change, investing big in the latest cheese list becomes less attractive - it won't put off everybody, but it would make the division between fun and competitive a little fuzzier by encouraging the best players to build more 'traditional' armies, rather than pouring everything into a flavour-of-the-moment cheese.

This has to be the most perfect response so far. You would have my vote to run things at GWs rules making HQ ?.

What you have suggested would literally solve EVERYTHING! who would go out and buy three boxes of $50 / £40 figures just for one weapon option in each, if they were worried that updates to the rules could come within a couple of weeks that limit you to one of those weapons per unit. 

[Trout]

5 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

Are beastclaw raiders seen as over powered at the moment? And yep they have some beautiful models for sure ! I don't blame you for wanting to collect them. I looked at a box in the shop today and had to remind myself that I'm collecting 5 armies already ?

Yeah, Stonehorns are very strong and take half damage and thundertusks do a long range 6 mortal wounds when in full health. Running pure Beastclaw balances out because of the low model count but in a mixed destruction list you can use a swarm of grots or something like that to make up for it.

 

Personally, I just run the Icewind Assault box as is right now.

[przenicki1987]

Im tzeentch player and i would say only one stone's need to be poked or they take out in one snowball my herald gaunt or any normal mage so its fucked up i rlly think about vortex for herald to poke em in range 36 if i win 1st turn

Wysłane z mojego SM-G928F przy użyciu Tapatalka

[BloodTithe]

48 minutes ago, Trout said:

Yeah, Stonehorns are very strong and take half damage and thundertusks do a long range 6 mortal wounds when in full health. Running pure Beastclaw balances out because of the low model count but in a mixed destruction list you can use a swarm of grots or something like that to make up for it.

 

Personally, I just run the Icewind Assault box as is right now.

Wow half damage! That's crazy. And 6 mortal wounds at range ! That's just dirty. 

Cool that you got an army in a box ? how many points was in there?

[Trout]

Just now, BloodTithe said:

Wow half damage! That's crazy. And 6 mortal wounds at range ! That's just dirty. 

Cool that you got an army in a box ? how many points was in there?

The two behemoths can be configured in 6 different ways (three different types of riders and two different types of mounts), so it depends on how you configure it, but it's somewhere in the 1400 to 1700 range.

[BloodTithe]

5 minutes ago, Trout said:

The two behemoths can be configured in 6 different ways (three different types of riders and two different types of mounts), so it depends on how you configure it, but it's somewhere in the 1400 to 1700 range.

That's pretty cool for one box. Must have felt like Christmas opening that lot. I've just looked over the rules for the frost Lords though and they don't look over powered at all. They seem fair for their points. Nothing game breaking in my eyes. 

[Gauche]

I don't think competitiveness ruins AoS but shooting sure does. Lately I've been playing an all or almost all melee Destruction list and taking it into other melee or near all melee and the game plays so much better. I hope shooting is drastically nerfed, not just the outlier units but in the core rules. Get rid of shooting into your own combat and get rid of shooting from a unit in combat if the individual model is in melee range of an enemy. Or make it 3" of an enemy, even easier.

I get that this would add complexity to the game but as it stands I fear for the next GHB. They're going to nerf Kunnin' Rukk/Thundertusks, probably Skyfires even though they're new, and probably Kurnoth Hunters. I don't think they're going to nerf Stormcast at all and the Aetherstrike gunline is going to be the top of the heap. Even with reduced prices on stuff Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, and more I think melee armies will have a hard time competing. Aetherstrike even devotes a good amount of points/Artefacts to anti-shooting, if they don't have to do that then they'll get even better against melee.

Shooting is just too good in this game, it benefits HEAVILY from the double turn and it has zero downsides in any situation. The core rules of the game were made to be melee heavy, that's not how we play at a competitive level at the moment. For those keeping track of 40K 8th Edition I think AoS needs to learn a lot from that game, just as 40K took a lot from us.

[roberto]

12 hours ago, Salsa said:

Competitiviness does not ruin anything. It is always the people.

 

Testosterone mixed with poor self-esteem is a nasty combination.

[BloodTithe]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

I played WHFB pretty regularly.  Toward the end I was pretty disgusted with the spreadsheeting though because I was seeing the same builds over and over.

Changes off the top of my head:

Yeah the skyfire thing.  Those guys are too cheap.

Stormcast in general.  You never see varanguard... but the stormcast cav are pretty plentiful around here.  

Teleporting into combat is a pretty awesome utility.  That they seem to get for free.  I think that I'd like to see a tax be put on a unit that gets to just bypass the movement phase altogether and just slam into combat where it wants.

Skeletons and units that gain power the more models they have.  

Kunnin Rukk.  Pretty much all of Kunnin Rukk.  

I would love to see a mainstay type rule like LOTR has.  Where you can't have more non-battleline than you have battleline.  Be it points, models, whatever.  Something.  This whole "i brought three min size units of reavers for my battleline lol" stuff ine very game is kind of annoying.  

 

What is this kunnin rukk people are mentioning? I'm not aware of this. 

Yer there is a big issue with the so called "other" units. Many of them need to be "rare" units and limited.  That last idea you had is intriguing. It would MASSIVELY change the game. The only thing I would say against it is that I buy more elite units to deliberately make my army cheaper to buy ? AoS is expensive dammit. If I had to buy loads of boxes of battle line units I'd be broke 

[BloodTithe]

55 minutes ago, Gauche said:

I don't think competitiveness ruins AoS but shooting sure does. Lately I've been playing an all or almost all melee Destruction list and taking it into other melee or near all melee and the game plays so much better. I hope shooting is drastically nerfed, not just the outlier units but in the core rules. Get rid of shooting into your own combat and get rid of shooting from a unit in combat if the individual model is in melee range of an enemy. Or make it 3" of an enemy, even easier.

I get that this would add complexity to the game but as it stands I fear for the next GHB. They're going to nerf Kunnin' Rukk/Thundertusks, probably Skyfires even though they're new, and probably Kurnoth Hunters. I don't think they're going to nerf Stormcast at all and the Aetherstrike gunline is going to be the top of the heap. Even with reduced prices on stuff Ironjawz, Fyreslayers, and more I think melee armies will have a hard time competing. Aetherstrike even devotes a good amount of points/Artefacts to anti-shooting, if they don't have to do that then they'll get even better against melee.

Shooting is just too good in this game, it benefits HEAVILY from the double turn and it has zero downsides in any situation. The core rules of the game were made to be melee heavy, that's not how we play at a competitive level at the moment. For those keeping track of 40K 8th Edition I think AoS needs to learn a lot from that game, just as 40K took a lot from us.

Shooting needs to be massively refined in the game. I can't stand the "it's in range so I have perfect line of sight even though there are 3 units in the way" thing. And yep shooting into/out of combat is crazy. Worst of all though: WHY are chaos and death armies all lacking in archers horrendously?!?! I personally love archers and I want the shooting phase to remain ( but massively improved) but order armies have incredible ranged options where as even basic archers are missing from everyehere else. What is the deal with that. 

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, BloodTithe said:

In an ideal world, a 100 pts unit should stack up to a different 100 pts unit.

I used to think this,  too.  Like, for 25 years. 

Not anymore. 

A single unit in a game about lots of units, has no reasonable expectation of being equal to a different single of the same points.

This way of thinking was on its way out with AoS as released with no points, but folks couldn't wrap their minds around no-points gaming, so GW backslid.

Gah! We were sooooooo close!

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, BloodTithe said:

Shooting needs to be massively refined in the game. I can't stand the "it's in range so I have perfect line of sight even though there are 3 units in the way" thing.

 there is this mystical creation, long lost in the mists of laziness ... a concept that old tyme hobbyists embraced but this current video game influenced crop ignores ... that makes the games much more balanced and rewarding.

In hushed whispers in dark corners of questionable pubs, they invoke its name ...

 

 

Terrain!

[fued]

the thing that ruins the game, is when you arrive at a tourney and people complain about your OP list(even when you sit around and see a bunch of other lists that are optimised, including the person who is complaining?)

If you are playing for the hobby/social aspect, that's cool and i'm happy for you to do so, and ill vote for you to win best sports/painted. 

If someone turns up with a list like that at a casual games day, then plays to win every time then there is an issue, 

 

[chord]

5 hours ago, BloodTithe said:

I love the idea, but doesn't that show how unbalanced the game is, if you have to give the opponent a unit of free reinforcements because they are being beaten that badly? Then it isn't matched play it's more narrative/open play. In an ideal world, a 100 pts unit should stack up to a different 100 pts unit. But this simply isn't the case. You can make a balanced list that can be almost impossible to win with against a highly competitive list 

Well yeah its not balanced.  It never will be. AoS games will only ever be truly balanced if the two opponents use the same armies.  Think of most competitive games/sports, the same rules, players etc.  

The community needs to stop putting a square peg in a triangle hole

 

[Nin Win]

9 hours ago, BloodTithe said:

I love the idea, but doesn't that show how unbalanced the game is, if you have to give the opponent a unit of free reinforcements because they are being beaten that badly? Then it isn't matched play it's more narrative/open play. In an ideal world, a 100 pts unit should stack up to a different 100 pts unit. But this simply isn't the case. You can make a balanced list that can be almost impossible to win with against a highly competitive list 

I think this is expecting too much of a points system.  They really only work as a guideline for setting up games.  There are simply too many variables for a 100 point unit to be the equal of every other 100 point unit.  Synergy is probably the easiest way to demonstrate this.  The unit needs to be able to be taken by someone who just wants the unit but it also needs to be able to be taken by someone who also wants to include heroes, battalions, allegiance/faction abilities or just other units that have abilities that boost one another.  So the same 100 points gets you different levels of power in different lists.  It would be quite complicated to try to account for this.  Well beyond the point system in the General's Handbook.

Even in matched play you need to avoid a mismatch of mind set and list building method for a pick up game to work.

[BloodTithe]

6 hours ago, Sleboda said:

 there is this mystical creation, long lost in the mists of laziness ... a concept that old tyme hobbyists embraced but this current video game influenced crop ignores ... that makes the games much more balanced and rewarding.

In hushed whispers in dark corners of questionable pubs, they invoke its name ...

 

 

Terrain!

Thanks buddy. It's awesome that you are insinuating I'm "lazy". And hey guess what. I do love video games. But I don't agree with you. Firstly, I have tons of scenery. And lastly, you shouldn't need to fill your board with scenery to fix a broken rule. If you also read my post properly you would have seen that I mostly want more ranged options for non-order armies. All the scenery in the world will not fix that. And the line of sight rules are just some bit ridiculous. Even the LotR game had a great penalty for shooting at a character hidden behind another unit of figures. And the shooting into and out of combat makes no sense. And funnily enough scenery doesn't fix that either. I'm not saying that scenery isn't essential and doesn't make the game better. Nor am I saying it doesn't help certain armies a lot. But that wasn't my point

[BloodTithe]

6 hours ago, fued said:

the thing that ruins the game, is when you arrive at a tourney and people complain about your OP list(even when you sit around and see a bunch of other lists that are optimised, including the person who is complaining?)

If you are playing for the hobby/social aspect, that's cool and i'm happy for you to do so, and ill vote for you to win best sports/painted. 

If someone turns up with a list like that at a casual games day, then plays to win every time then there is an issue, 

 

That just sounds ridiculous. I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to go to a tournament without the goal of trying to win. What did they think you were there for. Some people eh.

[fued]

Just now, BloodTithe said:

That just sounds ridiculous. I think it is unreasonable to expect anyone to go to a tournament without the goal of trying to win. What did they think you were there for. Some people eh.

yeah i wanna line my units up backwards and move them over to have picnics by the lake, how dare you kill my models while they are partying lol

[BloodTithe]

2 hours ago, Nin Win said:

I think this is expecting too much of a points system.  They really only work as a guideline for setting up games.  There are simply too many variables for a 100 point unit to be the equal of every other 100 point unit.  Synergy is probably the easiest way to demonstrate this.  The unit needs to be able to be taken by someone who just wants the unit but it also needs to be able to be taken by someone who also wants to include heroes, battalions, allegiance/faction abilities or just other units that have abilities that boost one another.  So the same 100 points gets you different levels of power in different lists.  It would be quite complicated to try to account for this.  Well beyond the point system in the General's Handbook.

Even in matched play you need to avoid a mismatch of mind set and list building method for a pick up game to work.

So you are basically saying that if I base my entire army around 1 particular unit ( say tree revenants) and my opponent Bases theirs around liberators, at an equal value of points per side, it is unreasonable for these armies to be equal? Because I know how the above battle would go down... 

I get your point about synergy but even then a unit of liberators will always be better than a unit of tree revenants. And synergy can happen on both sides. Sure you can buff the trees to make them better but you can do the same with the stormcasts 

[BloodTithe]

5 minutes ago, fued said:

yeah i wanna line my units up backwards and move them over to have picnics by the lake, how dare you kill my models while they are partying lol

????haha that should have clearly factored into your list. Shame on you

[BloodTithe]

6 hours ago, Auticus said:

Kunnin Rukk is named after a formation that the army takes.  Its typically a mix of savage orks, iron jaws, and the ogre frost cav.

The main piece is a unit of 40 savage ork archers that fire 120 shots.  Twice in a turn.  So 240 shots a turn, plus the mortal wound spooging beastclaw guys and misc sundry.   When it goes back to back, it basically annihilates whatever it faces.

This is exactly the broken stuff that ruins the game and the fact sometime even created a list like that is what made me make this thread

[BloodTithe]

7 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I used to think this,  too.  Like, for 25 years. 

Not anymore. 

A single unit in a game about lots of units, has no reasonable expectation of being equal to a different single of the same points.

This way of thinking was on its way out with AoS as released with no points, but folks couldn't wrap their minds around no-points gaming, so GW backslid.

Gah! We were sooooooo close!

The thing is. How do you balance a game with no points. People tried so many options. Like number of wounds. Number of models etc. None of those work however.

And cool but what if I want to base my army around one key unit that happens to be over cost and under powered? Or the opposite? And we know this can happen with units like kurnoth hunters. Which is where broken lists appear. I would love your idea to work but something tells me GW aren't clever enough to balance games in that way with how the competitive community has a tenancy to build lists

[Nin Win]

35 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

So you are basically saying that if I base my entire army around 1 particular unit ( say tree revenants) and my opponent Bases theirs around liberators, at an equal value of points per side, it is unreasonable for these armies to be equal? Because I know how the above battle would go down... 

Sadly I think so.  Instead of being equal, they'll both be on two different places on a continuum.  Hopefully they're close enough, but I wouldn't expect it to be so.  Once you add in spamming the same unit over and over then any bit that the point cost is off for that unit will be magnified.

24 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

The thing is. How do you balance a game with no points. People tried so many options. Like number of wounds. Number of models etc. None of those work however.

The answer is also not going to work for everyone as it involves not having a system and relies on experience and making judgement calls.  The way it works when historical miniatures designers make a scenario is that they set it up and play it and then make tweaks until both sides are played by multiple people and all find the game to be enjoyable.  Do this enough times and you'll end up with a very good sense of units without looking at their points costs.  I'm certainly not there when it comes to AOS, but I can definitely do this for games like Battlegroup or Impetus (two historical wargames).

The key though is to relax about it.  To not have it be a travesty or a violation to play against someone who has a more powerful force than you do.  So many players look at points systems and matched play rules as things they need to protect themselves from being violated by other gamers.  As if there are horrible people everywhere waiting to trick them into a game they can't win.  The key is to take off the player's hat and put on the designer's hat during game set up.  Don't attempt to rig the game in advance for either side to win.  And if you end up playing some games where you can't win, those are learning opportunities-- not in the sense of learning how to play better, but learning what a broken scenario looks like.

Quote

And cool but what if I want to base my army around one key unit that happens to be over cost and under powered? Or the opposite? And we know this can happen with units like kurnoth hunters. Which is where broken lists appear. I would love your idea to work but something tells me GW aren't clever enough to balance games in that way with how the competitive community has a tenancy to build lists

I think you're right.  So if you want to deal with a kurnoth hunter spam problem the route that is left to you is to talk to the opponent.  To work together to design a match that works right for the both of you.  And if it turns out that the opponent wants the setting up part of the game to be the point where they start trying to win, then you've found someone who's incompatible with your goals.

Conversely, if you enjoy trying to get the most power for your points possible and you meet someone who starts talking about house ruling things so you'll get less points because you are spamming Kurnoth Hunters or Skyfires, then you'll know you've found someone incompatible with your goals.

[Kamose]

"There's no wrong way to play."  

This is a sentiment I hear expressed a lot in wargaming and frankly I disagree with it.  There absolutely is a wrong way to play this and any other game.  The wrong way to play is to consistently play in a way disregards the purpose of the game (you AND your opponent's enjoyment) and to play in a way that is disrespectful or insulting to your opponent.  This may seem so obvious that is doesn't need stating but a lot of people, at least on the internet, have never learned this.

What does this look like?  For person of a competitive mindset it may be consistently playing hyper efficient "WAAC"-style lists and crushing your regular opponents whether or not they are enjoying it.  Some even claim that their opponents are 'disrespecting' them by not playing well enough.  This argument is simply false.  It is not an opponent's obligation to match your skill or choice of army or list to make the game more fun for you.  The first (skill) is not possible and unreasonable to expect; not because the hypothetical 'you' are god-like at AoS but simply because all people have varying levels of skill.  The second (army and list comp) is an example of one player dictating to another how to enjoy their hobby for purely selfish reasons.

For a narrative player, this may manifest itself as unpleasant 'surprises' inflicted on a player at the narrative event.  If the narrative they are all playing does not match the organizer's head-canon, the organizer may unjustly punish another player in an attempt 'fix' the narrative.  Intentional inflexibility and punishing your players is pointless and cruel.

Insisting on playing every game only in the ways you enjoy, whether that's 'narrative & fluffy' or 'WAAC' is selfish. In my opinion this is 'the wrong way to play'.

Let me be clear that this is possible in competitive, narrative, and really any type of gaming.  However it is likely more prevalent in competitive play for a number of reasons.  First there is simply more Matched Play than Narrative Play and so this behavior gets more exposure online.  Secondly, disrespectful behavior is more likely to be excused as friendly competition in Matched Play.  "If my opponent doesn't want to lose they need to get gud!" and that such like. Lastly Matched Play proponents are more likely assume that winning is the only 'real' purpose of any game due to their more competitive mindset. Conversely they are more likely to assume that any other play style is just muckin' about! ?