Does competitiveness ruin AoS?

[Ollie Grimwood]

It's all about context if you're at a GT and the event pack is telling you no holds barred competitive or thats what you've agreed with your opponent then that's what to expect. If it's, let's play a story or let's just use what's in our collection and looks cool then that's what to expect. Just be honest and up front about what you both want out of the game.

Having played a bit of sport (rugby union) and been at wargaming tournaments I can tell you even on the top tables wargaming is pretty tame, "smashing face" is figurative in wargaming for a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kamose]

59 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

It's all about context if you're at a GT and the event pack is telling you no holds barred competitive or thats what you've agreed with your opponent then that's what to expect. If it's, let's play a story or let's just use what's in our collection and looks cool then that's what to expect. Just be honest and up front about what you both want out of the game.

Well said and true! ?

[Sleboda]

8 hours 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.

Honestly?  Just don't worry about it.  Eyeball it in Open if balance matters. It's about the models and social aspects. Balance isn't really important unless you are doing a tournament,  which I believe is the last way we should be playing AoS.

When AoS came out there were no points and my games were really,  really enjoyable. All it took was a fun opponent, a cooperative mindset, and lots of pretty models. 

 

[wayniac]

33 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Honestly?  Just don't worry about it.  Eyeball it in Open if balance matters. It's about the models and social aspects. Balance isn't really important unless you are doing a tournament,  which I believe is the last way we should be playing AoS.

When AoS came out there were no points and my games were really,  really enjoyable. All it took was a fun opponent, a cooperative mindset, and lots of pretty models. 

 

Sadly that mindset seems to be incredibly rare, and people demand balance because they don't want to eyeball it.

[Sleboda]

Yeah, but you be fair,  decades of training that games must be balanced makes it hard for new thinking to flourish.

[Thornshield]

It's not easy to eyeball 'balance' unless you know the units capabilities well and equally how capable a player is. Points can be a crutch to rely on, but do give a quick semblance of balance for any form of gameplay.

They are especially useful for events where players have a wide range of skills, so that it doesn't quickly devolve into an overly one-sided non game.

I think points used well is better than no points at all, and this is coming from a predominantly narrative player.

[Popisdead]

 A certain level of it ruins any game, but keep in mind you are competing against someone.

One of the biggest factors in a good game is your opponent.  

Don't be surprised in a tournament if you get rolled by a net list but if you are running around derping opponents and people drop off the scene guess what could be a factor there?

 

I love Eldar but I like having opponents and friends.  So when I play them I tend to force draws rather than roll my opponent.  They paid money for their army, spent time painting it and would like it to do things other than be taken off the table.

[Mayple]

I've never really gotten behind the idea that two units should be "equal" point for point. Sure, an estimated so-so value that places them in the same ballpark, but not anything that dictates that they are equal to one another on the battlefield. To put forth a hypothetical example, if unit A and unit B both costs 100 points, but unit A excells at killing monsters, while unit B can run really fast, I wouldn't expect either of them to be performing equally well as eachother in all situations. One would excell at this, and the other at that. Nor would I expect the value of 'can run really fast' to be scaled according to the 'can kill monsters really good' 

I don't think balance means equal, nor should it.

[BloodTithe]

1 hour ago, Mayple said:

I've never really gotten behind the idea that two units should be "equal" point for point. Sure, an estimated so-so value that places them in the same ballpark, but not anything that dictates that they are equal to one another on the battlefield. To put forth a hypothetical example, if unit A and unit B both costs 100 points, but unit A excells at killing monsters, while unit B can run really fast, I wouldn't expect either of them to be performing equally well as eachother in all situations. One would excell at this, and the other at that. Nor would I expect the value of 'can run really fast' to be scaled according to the 'can kill monsters really good' 

I don't think balance means equal, nor should it.

I always look at liberators as my gold standard to compare other units against. For 100pts they are very kill-y and have extremely good mobility. Compare this to 100 pts of tree revenants and even with their re-roll ability and teleport.... they fall far far too short. I think on principle two 100 pts units should be equal. Why should it matter if I decide to do a 100pts-a-side or 1000? Armies of equal points should be equal in an ideal world. Then again I guess if you have a rock paper scissors thing going on.... one unit could exploit the weakness of another....

Even so, the liberator and revenants example still stands

[BloodTithe]

2 hours ago, Popisdead said:

 A certain level of it ruins any game, but keep in mind you are competing against someone.

One of the biggest factors in a good game is your opponent.  

Don't be surprised in a tournament if you get rolled by a net list but if you are running around derping opponents and people drop off the scene guess what could be a factor there?

 

I love Eldar but I like having opponents and friends.  So when I play them I tend to force draws rather than roll my opponent.  They paid money for their army, spent time painting it and would like it to do things other than be taken off the table.

Again. How frustrating for you that you love an army and have to be concerned about even using them because they are unbalanced. Sucks ?

[BloodTithe]

2 hours ago, Thornshield said:

It's not easy to eyeball 'balance' unless you know the units capabilities well and equally how capable a player is. Points can be a crutch to rely on, but do give a quick semblance of balance for any form of gameplay.

They are especially useful for events where players have a wide range of skills, so that it doesn't quickly devolve into an overly one-sided non game.

I think points used well is better than no points at all, and this is coming from a predominantly narrative player.

I agree. In principle I love points. Then again it doesn't surprise me they can't get it right.  Look at the state of 7th edition 40k. Yeesh.

[Popisdead]

1 minute ago, BloodTithe said:

Again. How frustrating for you that you love an army and have to be concerned about even using them because they are unbalanced. Sucks ?

Yeah,.. it does a little.  

 

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, if not: I agree, if yes: heh yeah

 

I have to defend using Rangers, no Wraithknights, no Str D, no bikes.  Defend what I have owned for 25 years to just play.

 

Granted... it never takes more than one game to convince my opponent and there are worse people out there using what's hawt to win.  

[rokapoke]

4 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

I always look at liberators as my gold standard to compare other units against. For 100pts they are very kill-y and have extremely good mobility. Compare this to 100 pts of tree revenants and even with their re-roll ability and teleport.... they fall far far too short. I think on principle two 100 pts units should be equal. Why should it matter if I decide to do a 100pts-a-side or 1000? Armies of equal points should be equal in an ideal world. Then again I guess if you have a rock paper scissors thing going on.... one unit could exploit the weakness of another....

Even so, the liberator and revenants example still stands

(American) football has a salary cap. If each team had a payroll exactly to that limit, would you expect each team to have a record of 8 wins and 8 losses at the end of the year? No. Why? Equal cost doesn't mean equal quality.

In rock-paper-scissors, the three choices are equal. But paper always beats rock!

Balance =/= every unit being equal, even for the same cost. I'd think they should generally be close-ish, but it will never be perfect. As it stands, every Matched Play game I've ever been involved in has been pretty darn close. 

[BloodTithe]

Can I just say thanks to everyone for their excellent contributions to this topic. It was my first ever topic I've started here on tga and it has had over 90 responses. All very mature and considered thoughts that have given me lots to think about. Thanks everyone. I'm interested to see what else comes from this discussion. I'm glad iv found such an awesome online community to chat with ??? now admire my WIP stormcasts that have taken me a ridiculously long time to paint and are nowhere near done ?

 

 

[BloodTithe]

4 minutes ago, Popisdead said:

Yeah,.. it does a little.  

 

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, if not: I agree, if yes: heh yeah

 

I have to defend using Rangers, no Wraithknights, no Str D, no bikes.  Defend what I have owned for 25 years to just play.

 

Granted... it never takes more than one game to convince my opponent and there are worse people out there using what's hawt to win.  

I'm being 100% serious. It isn't fair that 7th edition 40k balancing is such a mess. Why should it be the case that you have to even think like that when you want to use eldar. 

[Mayple]

1 minute ago, BloodTithe said:

I always look at liberators as my gold standard to compare other units against. For 100pts they are very kill-y and have extremely good mobility. Compare this to 100 pts of tree revenants and even with their re-roll ability and teleport.... they fall far far too short. I think on principle two 100 pts units should be equal. Why should it matter if I decide to do a 100pts-a-side or 1000? Armies of equal points should be equal in an ideal world. Then again I guess if you have a rock paper scissors thing going on.... one unit could exploit the weakness of another....

Even so, the liberator and revenants example still stands

I like your thinking. Liberators are definitely a good baseline to work from. 

I'll disagree with the tree revenant comparison, if only because the tree revenants are absolutely terrible. Whoever wrote their stats did so at gunpoint, for sure (Which is a shame, they look great) - That being said, I'm sure someone out there might know a trick or two that justifies their value, but that person ain't me. If Liberators are the golden standard of comparison, the tree revenants are the barely sentient lifeform that grossly mutated from a two month old box of chips you found in the back of your fridge. 

[BloodTithe]

Just now, Mayple said:

I like your thinking. Liberators are definitely a good baseline to work from. 

I'll disagree with the tree revenant comparison, if only because the tree revenants are absolutely terrible. Whoever wrote their stats did so at gunpoint, for sure (Which is a shame, they look great) - That being said, I'm sure someone out there might know a trick or two that justifies their value, but that person ain't me. If Liberators are the golden standard of comparison, the tree revenants are the barely sentient lifeform that grossly mutated from a two month old box of chips you found in the back of your fridge. 

That was my whole point my good man or woman.  Why on earth are they the same points value?!? It's insane. Liberators are better in every way but both cost the same. Makes no sense. Even with the revenants abilities, Liberators come out on top. 

[BloodTithe]

7 minutes ago, rokapoke said:

(American) football has a salary cap. If each team had a payroll exactly to that limit, would you expect each team to have a record of 8 wins and 8 losses at the end of the year? No. Why? Equal cost doesn't mean equal quality.

In rock-paper-scissors, the three choices are equal. But paper always beats rock!

Balance =/= every unit being equal, even for the same cost. I'd think they should generally be close-ish, but it will never be perfect. As it stands, every Matched Play game I've ever been involved in has been pretty darn close. 

Agreed but still... go compare tree revenants to Liberators..... under no circumstances are tree revenants as good. 

[Mayple]

3 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

That was my whole point my good man or woman.  Why on earth are they the same points value?!? It's insane. Liberators are better in every way but both cost the same. Makes no sense. Even with the revenants abilities, Liberators come out on top. 

Well, look at it this way. The liberators are a solid all-rounder type of unit, with a slight focus on staying power. The tree revenants are a squishy, mobility-focused, get-in-get-out type of unit. 

Under no circumstances can they go toe to toe with eachother, but you can expect the tree revenants to wipe out an artillery piece, or do some notable damage to an archer block. The tree revenants are essentially low-budget assassins. 

tl;dr: They're not supposed to go toe to toe with liberators, but they -can- carry out maneuvers that liberators could never ever hope to achieve. Don't judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, and all that jazz.

I still think they're terrible though, but let's judge them for what they are, not what they are not.

[BloodTithe]

2 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Well, look at it this way. The liberators are a solid all-rounder type of unit, with a slight focus on staying power. The tree revenants are a squishy, mobility-focused, get-in-get-out type of unit. 

Under no circumstances can they go toe to toe with eachother, but you can expect the tree revenants to wipe out an artillery piece, or do some notable damage to an archer block. The tree revenants are essentially low-budget assassins. 

tl;dr: They're not supposed to go toe to toe with liberators, but they -can- carry out maneuvers that liberators could never ever hope to achieve. Don't judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree, and all that jazz.

I still think they're terrible though, but let's judge them for what they are, not what they are not.

And yet you can keep a unit of liberators aside and lightning strike them in to do the exact same thing.... just saying ?

[Mayple]

Just now, BloodTithe said:

And yet you can keep a unit of liberators aside and lightning strike them in to do the exact same thing.... just saying ?

Sure, but that's not an innate ability of the liberator unit itself I'd imagine the tree revenants would cost more along the lines of 60-80 points if they didn't come equipped with their neat little transporting ability.  

[swarmofseals]

6 minutes ago, BloodTithe said:

And yet you can keep a unit of liberators aside and lightning strike them in to do the exact same thing.... just saying ?

Well, not quite the exact same. Tree revs do get to reroll one die per turn, which can be a charge die. That makes getting the 9" charge off much more likely.

3 minutes ago, Mayple said:

Sure, but that's not an innate ability of the liberator unit itself I'd imagine the tree revenants would cost more along the lines of 60-80 points if they didn't come equipped with their neat little transporting ability.  

This is a fair point, but it also kinda indirectly highlights a bit about what is so awkward about the tree revs. Units have to be considered in the context of their army, and while the tree rev's ability is definitely a bit better than navigating the realmroots, but it's far less special in the context of an army that already has a pretty decent army-wide deepstrike ability. 

[BunkhouseBuster]

14 hours ago, 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.

Some of us are not interested in winning games.  Some of us like to go to tournaments to socialize with other wargamers and share in a good time together, as these days are the one only way some of us can justify to our friends and family to have a whole day dedicated to Warhammer every so often.  Some of us like to play to forget about our real life troubles and enjoy a break from everything else going on.

My closest GW store runs a monthly AoS "tournament", but there are no prizes.  The store manager has said several times that his tournaments are there to help teach players their army, to help everyone learn rules, and, most importantly, have fun.

My FLGS had a "Casual tournament" for 40K last fall that had some simple and basic army composition requirements, but us "casual" players got thoroughly trounced by the WAAC players coming in and treating the day like ITC practice.  At the end of the day, I had to console one of the casual players whom was on the verge of tears due to the WAAC players's attitudes, hard lists, and their snide remarks about the "casual lists".

No, it is not unreasonable to play in a tournament for purposes other than winning.  To some of us, just playing the game is victory in itself.

Some of us are here to play WITH other players, not AGAINST them.

14 hours 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.

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

Very carefully.  I didn't play before the General's Handbook because I was concerned about the dreaded Pay-to-Win-Summon-Everything players, because the WAAC players in our area would absolutely do that if they jumped into Age of Sigmar.  Luckily, they didn't.  Once the GH was published, it fixed my concern for the game (a GW "official" base of comparrison for unit strength) and added a bunch more (official Narrative play support and validation).  Since then, in our local group, we basically play Open/Narrative games with points, Rules of 1, and Allegiance Bonuses (or Matched Play without Battlefield roles, if you prefer, same thing).  And it works for us, because we don't try to bring super-powerful lists.  Instead, we aim to have fun.

The only way to balance a game without points is to figure it out with your opponent for the game.  Alas, this is a method unfamiliar and scary to Warhammer players, but something that I could see being changed in the future.  In our group, we aim to get within so many points of each other for our games, not worrying about precision of points or having perfectly balanced armies.  We are more interested in learning the game, teaching it to other players, and having fun.

Find some players to play WITH, not AGAINST.

[Sarkazim]

For me, competitiveness has ruined AoS/40k.  It's not limited to these games by any means, but I find that I can still enjoy these games in a non-competitive setting.  I have a completely different approach reasoning as to why though.  So read on if you're bored.

There is a HUGE aspect of this hobby that has died.  Players used pick an army, read the book, and buy/build/paint/play with the units they simply thought were good or cool.  Going to any major event was awesome because in addition to playing players outside your group, you didn't know what to expect.  You literally got to play another guy who built an army based on what he thought was good, or cool.  An honest effort was put into learning how to use the units that you loved for whatever reason.  I remember collecting lists that were unique, interesting, or I just had a blast playing against.  Little Grizzled here, but I really miss that about events.

As forums became more common, the disputes over what was good/bad, or even rules were debated.  I still remember when GW shut down their forums.  'Netlisting' started becoming commonplace.  This was a mix of good and bad as it did get more players into the game, especially those on a limited budget.  It also was the death of many units, because either through consensus or results, it became clear which models were optimal and which ones were a waste.

Where 'Competitive Play' ruined it for me, was when this somehow switched to being the default OVER the 'Rule of Cool'.  A key source of this frustration is because at some point in time, the term 'Competitive' somehow only applied to those who played in events.  Like those who didn't go to tournaments were less competitive, or that their armies aren't competitive.  This is my constant frustration with ITC and 40k currently, as they have done more damage than good, especially since they've modified the rules and scenarios.  

These players seem to dictate how and what to play, both online and a few will even do it in person.  Their advice is usually 'You should play this if you want to win', or 'Oh you want to play that?  Don't!'.  Even in game, they will play every game to a standard, often to the point where it's not fun.  I've observed that it's become common for one player to be very lenient on rules and measurements, while his 'competitive' opponent won't give an inch. I know it happens, or that it matters to some players, but I kind of smile when I see someone get so bent out of shape because of a hobby. 

Some are even painful just to watch.  I witnessed a 1k point game of AoS the other day and it took them 3.5 hours to get to Turn 3.  Recently I've started turning down games because of the mentality of some of these players.  They can't seem to comprehend that while they do have the right to build and play how they want, I'm under ZERO obligation to spend any of my time to play a game that adds stress to my life.  When I play a game of AoS/40k, my first instinct shouldn't be to reach across the table and deck my opponent.  Especially if that urge happens before a single model has been placed on the table.

-----

While this still exists here, I've found it pretty much in the background and even the more 'Competitive' players are helpful.  Despite my limitations and FAQs, I still love my Shadowblades army, looking forward to Nighthaunts (though, I might switch them out for Kharadron since no one is playing them here!)  I still play every game competitive.  I'm sitting at a 50/50 win rate which is about where any army should be.  There are some that are definitely more frustrating than others, but as I play them more often, I've developing strategies that at least make these opponents think.  

[CrimsonKing]

For 40k I have my own friends I can play with, but in Japan, limited number of people are willing/able to setup a 6x4 and host.

Within a group of friends it's much easier to impose restrictions and mutually agree on even armies. (We banned formations, both flyers or no flyers, etc)
I've have problems though going to club/GW and playing with randoms. Chatting about 40k with a dude who was all excited about taking the "OP droppod devs formation" alongside his "SM free motor pool" (yep, never going to play that guy and his formation spam), or sneaky neckbeards in AOS "misreading" his Daemon prince into healing D3 wounds each round in AOS...

Random games instinctively make me want to ensure my list is strong, because I assume my opponent is going to play to win, not to mention I have to be on guard for sneaky behavior.

Problem is I really want to try more AOS, but without interest from friends it's GW randoms for now and I'm not into that stress and upselling each time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk