[Balance as a Wicked Problem]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

One of those is, in my opinion, room for expression or creativity. I think a lot of people want to be able to build a list that is uniquely their own, without feeling like they have to make bad choices by including their pet units along the way. This aspect of the game is somewhat related to balance, but not in a way that would be expressed in tournament win rates, for example. If every faction had one build that could compete at the top level, we might see very balanced tournament results, but it might not help players who want to build their dream list of all dwarves Cities of Sigmar, necessarily.

Another great example of how stakeholders often have a very diverse set of needs/wants impacting their perception of balance (if indirectly).  I, for example, want to run a Khorne list largely built around BOC units, particularly 6x Tuskgor Chariots.  Thus is leaning into two supposedly weaker factions and weaker units within those factions but it looks darn fun to me.  Fortunately within my Zoom League we have several different ways to balance out this scenario whether that involves my opponent agreeing to run a fluffier list as well or our agreeing to a more narrative centric scenario and win conditions.

[Balance as a Wicked Problem]

23 hours ago, FlatTooth said:

Also y’all get right out of here with the “well REAL battles weren’t balanced!” Logic. I’m not commanding a huge campaign with multiple forces, utilizing terrain and hoping to whatever gods I pray to that my people make it through another winter. 
 

I’m throwing dice around with my friends and I don’t want to lose because my book got the bad rules designer or the uninspired rules designer. Is that unreasonable?

 

The point isn’t that because real battles weren’t balanced AoS doesn’t need to be.  The point was that an adjacent game category in historical war gaming has had to deal with unbalanced armies if they want to be able to play out actual battles (not just examine historical theory) and as a result evolved a way to allow friends to throw dice and have fun in those situations.  The way they accomplished that was to make it so both parties have different win conditions.  There may or may not be something to learn from this.

Given that balance in armies has proven difficult to achieve symmetric battle plans in many cases may not actual improve fairness but skew the balance even more.  Arguably GW has acknowledged that with Sons (and to a lesser extent Mawtribes) with their counts as for objective rules and even the ability to throw out a battleplan’s special conditions for objectives.

Again, 9e 40k seems to have taken further steps in acknowledging this by giving armies unique secondaries tailored to their skill sets.  BoC is regularly highlighted as a weaker tome.  What if they could wrack up VP for having units in every quadrant though?  All of a sudden their ambush ability gives them a lot of options and forces their opponents to make different choices.  This would be a not unreasonable translation of the lessons of historical gaming to AoS that makes it even more fun to throw dice with friends.

[Balance as a Wicked Problem]

In the original thread I made a similar point having come to AoS from historical war games.  There, to your point, the scenarios are often unbalanced from a “points perspective”.  Balance, if we choose to use that term, in such games is not achieved through equalizing the armies but rather through giving each side different victory conditions.  I am intrigued by the introduction of secondaries in 9e 40k and how that could translate into AoS 3.0.

[Balance as a Wicked Problem]

Thank you.  Thought you’d also hit on a key definition issue earlier in the thread with your “No True Scotsman” and “perfect being the enemy of good” comments.  Even when people put forward a clear definition initially it often proves slippery once the discussion really gets going.  

Not hitting it perfectly here but the second definition of balance you give seems particularly vulnerable to the former as people will argue that ONLY factions X, Y & Z win tournaments.  This is inevitably followed by someone pointing out wins by other factions.  There is then always some argument why those wins should be viewed exceptionally and thus do not disprove the original argument.  

The first definition seems to be particularly vulnerable to the latter.  If the “ideal” is 45-55 and we got to 40-60 how much should we be focused on changing things?  Should the focus be on raising the 40% winners or lowering the 60% winners?  Certainly with the number of factions and sub-factions there are methods that could raise the bottom at the expense of the middle as opposed to the top so would we feel better if we moved from 40-60 to 45-60?

These definitional issues to deeper discussion seem to abound.

[Can You Pick the Winner Just from the Lists - An AoS Experiment]

The results are in.

Fyreslayers went 4-2.  They went 3-0 in the first set of games but when the tables flipped proved harder to pilot by players unfamiliar with the faction.  Retaining the buff bubbles proved especially difficult for first time players.  

Mawtribes also went 4-2 but with the opposite approach.  As it is arguably the most played faction in Zoom League both Fyreslayers and Khorne were ready for them in the first set of matches, resulting in the list going 1-2.  But said familiarity made it the easiest list for other players to pick up and succeed with and thus went 3-0 when the tables flipped.

Khorne went 3-3 after a good start going 2-1 but losing again to Fyreslayers when the tables turned and to Mawtribes as well.

Bonsplitterz struggled to 1-5 but had the distinction of picking up the first victory against Fyreslayers when the tables turned and had shots at two more victories snatched away late in the game.

[Bonesplitterz vs Mawtribes - Shifting Objectives @ 2K]

Aren’t you glad I didn’t listen to you and got him anyway 😎

[Bonesplitterz vs Mawtribes - Shifting Objectives @ 2K]

5 hours ago, Televiper11 said:

Survey says... nope. 

Well, you drew me out of my buff bubbles and forced a grinding game that came down to the second turn of R4 where you had by far the strongest unit on the table (good old Pebbles w/only a few wounds)  but I just had my units in better positions to score late game VP.

And gosh darn it you somehow came out ahead on this match up!

[Can You Pick the Winner Just from the Lists - An AoS Experiment]

On 1/31/2021 at 5:58 AM, Skreech Verminking said:

If you’ve got at least one skavenplayer using at least 1Doomwheel unit and the vial of the fulminator artifact.

I’m most certain the winner can not in any way possible be already determined before the game starts.

 

As soon as I get ahold of 300 painted clan rats (still can’t believe you painted that many, props again) and a Doomwheel my friend we’ll give it a try!  😎

[Can You Pick the Winner Just from the Lists - An AoS Experiment]

On 1/30/2021 at 10:59 PM, Reuben Parker said:

I’ve picked fyreslayers as khorne and Ogre wound counts seem way too low and pile in on death VB plus the HGB blob will probably be too much for them. 
 

BS again seems to have a low wound count for themselves as BS can often be up around 200 and the shooting Rukk really isn’t what it used to be after all the nerfs. Idol is nice but is the only standout threat. 

We do always enjoy it when Pebbles, as our Rogue Idol is affectionately known, gets on the table but you’re right that it does come at a cost of other models on the table (not that I’m complaining as the guy moving them all around...).

As the Fyreslayer player hope you’re right!

[Attitude of Gratitude for Getting to Determine Which Matters More, The List or the Player?]

TTS would be another great way to get around the taboos.

I am incredibly curious how that knowledge actually plays out in the lists people build.  If I can figure it out my hope is to post all the lists and then have a poll to see if the wisdom of the crowd can identify the winning list?   Another great way to test the list vs player hypothesis.

[How to Start Collecting Tzeentch]

Just got done playing a TZ Mortals list built around blocks of Kairic Accolytes.  Combination of the points we were playing at and lack of the models didn’t have the Tzaangor to screen them and thus had to deploy in a manner that avoided their getting into combat as they tended to “evaporate on impact” (even with the no Battleshock Artefact from Guild).  That I guess would be my request for future follow up given your obvious passion for TZ - your thoughts on how to deploy different TZ Mortals builds to be able to contest objectives but avoid losing low wound/low save models early.

[What I Learned from Blisterskin and Guild of Summoners re:What Works & What Doesn’t Over Zoom]

4 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Very interesting report!  I haven't yet played over video, but looks like that might have to be a thing for the next few months.  Gonna have to reevaluate my armies now.  I think Beasts of Chaos might make for a more fun video-battle experience for the opponent, especially more Warherd heavy.  

Maybe I should switch my Huskard on Thundertusk to a Frostlord though

 

Bullgors and Big Boys work well over Zoom.  Huge blocks of Ungors or Gods can take some time to move around if you’re trying to do anything too tricky but some of the Ambush tactics are a good workaround.

In one of our one off games we had an epic last stand where a combination of bad rolls for BCR and great Saves for BoC saw a Beastlord survive a full blast from a Frostlord on Stonehorn.

If you do try playing a stream game would love to hear what is working for other people.

[Why I Play the Game - BCR vs BoC Battle Report]

The tokens mark each of the potential landing spots for the objective.   With Starstrike the middle one falls at the beginning of the second round.  The other two fall at the start of the 3rd round.  Conveniently the line on which those two fall also marks out the initial deployment zones (12” from enemy territory).  Again, probably overkill for an in-person game but incredibly helpful when streaming.

[Escalation and Evolution of a New Meta]

Just have some yarn.  Have used it for enough different battleplans now that I usually have the right size available.   Was helpful in-person but great in this context.