Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 skullking wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 bubber wrote:
As there's no points value any more, what's the point of play testing?

All sorts of reasons. Even if you buy into the idea that the game isn't at all balanced anymore because points are gone (tip: there are loads of balanced games that don't have points systems, and WFB wasn't balanced with points anyway)

I'm curious as to what these balanced games are that require no points values. Are they 'pick and play' games like AoS, or more like board games, where each team is pre-set to a very specific degree. Seems like points (or whatever you term the denomination of a model's value and effectiveness in a game) are there solely for providing a game with a variety of different pieces with a means of making it fair to all players. Can you provide some examples of these games? I am genuinely interested in learning more about the concept of having games that can function without any structure like points. I don't personally think AoS has figured it out, but they've taken a crack at it, and that's cool. I hope they can figure out a balancing mechanism for the game that works, as I have always loved the concept of 'play with whatever you want', but I have yet to see it really work.

In my experience with Black Powder there are plenty reasons why it works well:

They give examples of balanced armies
They have a formula to make your own points (so you can make custom units)
They have battle examples to give you an idea of scenarios to play
You can look into a history book and get ideas from there
They also have a structure in the way two armies are built. They still need commanders and a chain of command etc which means some thought needs to be put into a cohesive force, they also have recommended units per commander.

AOS has nothing of the above. They merely say space is the limit, or 100 models is recommended. Which is not much to go off, which is why, in my opinion, so many people are trying to find a way to balance or play this game. Because AOS has no tools to help them out. For a "Scenario" driven game it is pretty poor really, containing little (so far) in the way of scenarios.

Have you read the book that comes with the Age of Sigmar box?

Because it actually gives two examples of balanced armies. One for Stormcast, and one for Bloodbound.

The Warscroll Battalions are also pretty balanced and essentially armies in their own rights.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Have you read the book that comes with the Age of Sigmar box?

Because it actually gives two examples of balanced armies. One for Stormcast, and one for Bloodbound.

The Warscroll Battalions are also pretty balanced and essentially armies in their own rights.

Unlike other games having formations with a select few units also sounds pretty bland for a sand box game style take what you want game. I mean those examples are all well and good... if you own those models or want to take them. The ones in black powder have a whole section dedicated with how to set up a game and examples of scenarios and armies. With rules for making your own troops too.

AOS has some warscrolls which feature more than 1 unit on them, which is ok if you happen to have the models. They also have a couple of scenarios spread across some expensive books. What AOS needed was a system to create your own warscroll battalions (AKA armies or forces) and a system for creating a wide variety of scenarios. Obviously that was a little hard to do in their lunch break.

TBF BP also has fewer moving parts mechanically.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Basically what needs to happen for a 'Balanced Game' is both players need to talk to each other before the game and work out what they both want for the game and then put what looks like a balanced force on the table to the both of them. You also have to take in account things terrain and scenario when doing such.

Which means the game isn't balanced. If you have to balance it yourselves before every game, the game isn't balanced.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Basically what needs to happen for a 'Balanced Game' is both players need to talk to each other before the game and work out what they both want for the game and then put what looks like a balanced force on the table to the both of them. You also have to take in account things terrain and scenario when doing such.

Which means the game isn't balanced. If you have to balance it yourselves before every game, the game isn't balanced.

Its also very difficult to do it that way. Until you actually play them, you don't really have any idea how powerful any of the new units are (or any of the legacy army units really), so its all guesswork anyway.

Not to mention everyone's opinion about what's "balanced" is going to differ. I could spend all day trying to make a list that "feels" balanced to me, but it won't make a difference to someone who's convinced themselves that my faction is inherently broken and believes they can't be balanced no matter how you run them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I also just love building terrain.

Oddly enough I'm the same way, I seem to have more fun building models than I do painting them. It's fun watching the thing come together and start to take shape, but since I can't paint for gak I feel like I've ruined it once paint goes on.

I feel you guys on it being more fun building than painting.

I LOVE building the stuff. I would gladly build other people's models just for the sheer joy of gluing things (including my fingers quite often) together.

This is one area I really like about modern GW. Their kits go together quite nicely.

I attribute the love of model building to a good 20+ year history of Gundam building though, and countless other military kits even before that.

I can see myself buying that new Prime model just for the sheer curiosity of seeing how it all goes together. Much like every other big ticket centerpiece End Times kit I bought.

I'm in the same boat as all of you. Building the figure is definitely the most entertaining part for me. Once a figure is built I honestly have no desire to paint it. I've taken to painting parts on the sprue now to avoid this problem and when all parts are painted to a decent quality I get the "reward" of putting it together

NoggintheNog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Basically what needs to happen for a 'Balanced Game' is both players need to talk to each other before the game and work out what they both want for the game and then put what looks like a balanced force on the table to the both of them. You also have to take in account things terrain and scenario when doing such.

Which means the game isn't balanced. If you have to balance it yourselves before every game, the game isn't balanced.

Its also very difficult to do it that way. Until you actually play them, you don't really have any idea how powerful any of the new units are (or any of the legacy army units really), so its all guesswork anyway.

This is what the games tells you to do though.
>You find player
>You two spend a few moments talking about what you both want to do.
>If you two are on the same page of thought you put Terrain and Models on the table and play.
>If you can't or won't come to an agreement you move on.
This can be applied to both AoS/Non-Point System and WH40k/Point System.

 Anpu42 wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Basically what needs to happen for a 'Balanced Game' is both players need to talk to each other before the game and work out what they both want for the game and then put what looks like a balanced force on the table to the both of them. You also have to take in account things terrain and scenario when doing such.

Which means the game isn't balanced. If you have to balance it yourselves before every game, the game isn't balanced.

Its also very difficult to do it that way. Until you actually play them, you don't really have any idea how powerful any of the new units are (or any of the legacy army units really), so its all guesswork anyway.

This is what the games tells you to do though.
>You find player
>You two spend a few moments talking about what you both want to do.
>If you two are on the same page of thought you put Terrain and Models on the table and play.
>If you can't or won't come to an agreement you move on.
This can be applied to both AoS/Non-Point System and WH40k/Point System.

But it's harder to convey what you want and harder to get on the same page. In AoS, everyone has their own idea of what a balanced game is. Player A might tailor a list based on a limited number of wounds. Player B might tailor his list around a set number of models. It's fine if Player A only plays against like-minded players who balance based on wounds and it's groovy if Player B plays with plays with players who agree on a model limit as their balance mechanism. But problems arise if Player A and Player B want to play; whose balancing mechanism will we use? Model equality sounds groovy until Player A drops down 20 clanrats to face off against 20 Sigmarines. Wounds are another reasonable possibility until one Player places down a bunch of greater daemons that match the wounds of a force of a force of Empire Statetroopers. Back in the day it was as simple as saying "Want to play a 1000 point game, what do ya say?" Your opponent might agree or decline and that was that. AoS requires players to start from scratch, create the balancing mechanism and hammer out a contract. When points were around, the contract was already there and all it needed was an agreement to play. Points weren't perfect but it was a universal system that players understood and could build around. Now, every time someone looks for a game they have to pray to Sigmar that they can figure out the details in under 10 minutes.

Sprue pics for Celestant Prime folks. Ghal Maraz is NOT a small weapon lol. Also looks like you have an option on posing cause there's 2 of Ghal Maraz there. The "Come at me bro" pose or the graceful descent pose.

MacMuckles wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Basically what needs to happen for a 'Balanced Game' is both players need to talk to each other before the game and work out what they both want for the game and then put what looks like a balanced force on the table to the both of them. You also have to take in account things terrain and scenario when doing such.

Which means the game isn't balanced. If you have to balance it yourselves before every game, the game isn't balanced.

Its also very difficult to do it that way. Until you actually play them, you don't really have any idea how powerful any of the new units are (or any of the legacy army units really), so its all guesswork anyway.

This is what the games tells you to do though.
>You find player
>You two spend a few moments talking about what you both want to do.
>If you two are on the same page of thought you put Terrain and Models on the table and play.
>If you can't or won't come to an agreement you move on.
This can be applied to both AoS/Non-Point System and WH40k/Point System.

But it's harder to convey what you want and harder to get on the same page. In AoS, everyone has their own idea of what a balanced game is. Player A might tailor a list based on a limited number of wounds. Player B might tailor his list around a set number of models. It's fine if Player A only plays against like-minded players who balance based on wounds and it's groovy if Player B plays with plays with players who agree on a model limit as their balance mechanism. But problems arise if Player A and Player B want to play; whose balancing mechanism will we use? Model equality sounds groovy until Player A drops down 20 clanrats to face off against 20 Sigmarines. Wounds are another reasonable possibility until one Player places down a bunch of greater daemons that match the wounds of a force of a force of Empire Statetroopers. Back in the day it was as simple as saying "Want to play a 1000 point game, what do ya say?" Your opponent might agree or decline and that was that. AoS requires players to start from scratch, create the balancing mechanism and hammer out a contract. When points were around, the contract was already there and all it needed was an agreement to play. Points weren't perfect but it was a universal system that players understood and could build around. Now, every time someone looks for a game they have to pray to Sigmar that they can figure out the details in under 10 minutes.

If I can not come to some level of agreement in 10 minutes that to me is a Red Flag that I don't want to play with that guy in the first place and he should not be playing me. Points have nothing to do with that, I have seen 20 Arguments of games based on Points, what units were aloud and how much terrain to be used.
Of course I might be tainted by the concept that I have that both players most of the time seem to want a Fun Game first and that both sides will be willing to do what it takes to have a fun game.

I'm glad the magic energy pieces are separate from the legs.

MacMuckles wrote:
I'm glad the magic energy pieces are separate from the legs.

Looks like you'd have to put them on to be honest. The bits that flow from the cape to the base would be flimsy if you didn't have the energy spiralling around him.

very nice sprue breakdown...
it looks like he can easily be built without the spirals, and the two options for the arms is cool...
the wings are gorgeous!!!
i could definitely see myself painting this guy...

thanks for sharing those pics, aov...

cheers
jah

 Anpu42 wrote:

MacMuckles wrote:

Spoiler:

 Anpu42 wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
Basically what needs to happen for a 'Balanced Game' is both players need to talk to each other before the game and work out what they both want for the game and then put what looks like a balanced force on the table to the both of them. You also have to take in account things terrain and scenario when doing such.

Which means the game isn't balanced. If you have to balance it yourselves before every game, the game isn't balanced.

Its also very difficult to do it that way. Until you actually play them, you don't really have any idea how powerful any of the new units are (or any of the legacy army units really), so its all guesswork anyway.

This is what the games tells you to do though.
>You find player
>You two spend a few moments talking about what you both want to do.
>If you two are on the same page of thought you put Terrain and Models on the table and play.
>If you can't or won't come to an agreement you move on.
This can be applied to both AoS/Non-Point System and WH40k/Point System.

But it's harder to convey what you want and harder to get on the same page. In AoS, everyone has their own idea of what a balanced game is. Player A might tailor a list based on a limited number of wounds. Player B might tailor his list around a set number of models. It's fine if Player A only plays against like-minded players who balance based on wounds and it's groovy if Player B plays with plays with players who agree on a model limit as their balance mechanism. But problems arise if Player A and Player B want to play; whose balancing mechanism will we use? Model equality sounds groovy until Player A drops down 20 clanrats to face off against 20 Sigmarines. Wounds are another reasonable possibility until one Player places down a bunch of greater daemons that match the wounds of a force of a force of Empire Statetroopers. Back in the day it was as simple as saying "Want to play a 1000 point game, what do ya say?" Your opponent might agree or decline and that was that. AoS requires players to start from scratch, create the balancing mechanism and hammer out a contract. When points were around, the contract was already there and all it needed was an agreement to play. Points weren't perfect but it was a universal system that players understood and could build around. Now, every time someone looks for a game they have to pray to Sigmar that they can figure out the details in under 10 minutes.

If I can not come to some level of agreement in 10 minutes that to me is a Red Flag that I don't want to play with that guy in the first place and he should not be playing me. Points have nothing to do with that, I have seen 20 Arguments of games based on Points, what units were aloud and how much terrain to be used.
Of course I might be tainted by the concept that I have that both players most of the time seem to want a Fun Game first and that both sides will be willing to do what it takes to have a fun game.

I see what you're saying, but it's less work when there is an established system of balance that all players of the system will be familiar with. With points, all we have to set is the number of points and then agree if we'll go through with the game. Without a standardized limiter, players have to work out whether or not the game is "fair" and if it will be fun. I don't want to agree on what our balancing mechanism is and hope it works out, I want to pit roughly equal forces against one another using a mechanism designed a professional team. The balancing shouldn't be left to me and another player, it should already be in place to allow us to play a game so that we don't have to design one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:

MacMuckles wrote:
I'm glad the magic energy pieces are separate from the legs.

Looks like you'd have to put them on to be honest. The bits that flow from the cape to the base would be flimsy if you didn't have the energy spiralling around him.

Nothing a small rock from the local park can't handle! I might leave the cape off if I do go through with this purchase, it just looks like something that would drag on the floor and tear, get dirty and trip up our Angelic Construct if he ever chose to walk around

Torn between the CP. Parts of it I love, parts of it I dont.
Like many GW models I think a better paint job would help.

Strangely his rules arent compltely OP. Sure whatever he hits will go down but unless you reserve him for a few rounds, he has a measily 2 attacks with a 33% chance to miss with them.
The comet shooting attack is really meh at best.
I thought he'd be a wrecking machine but am pleasantly surprised.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I might leave the cape off if I do go through with this purchase, it just looks like something that would drag on the floor and tear, get dirty and trip up our Angelic Construct if he ever chose to walk around

Nothing enough cool can't handle

 jah-joshua wrote:
very nice sprue breakdown...
it looks like he can easily be built without the spirals, and the two options for the arms is cool...
the wings are gorgeous!!!
i could definitely see myself painting this guy...

thanks for sharing those pics, aov...

cheers
jah

The white dwarf has a pic of prime in 3 subassemblies, and prime is free-standing with 3 ribbons holding him up, and the swirls totally separate.

Huh.

So we can build him without the swilry? May just try that then.

Would look much cooler with just the ribbons trailing behind him.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Huh.

So we can build him without the swilry? May just try that then.

Would look much cooler with just the ribbons trailing behind him.

Yup. Gonna start watching ebay for discarded swirlys to rebase some Goblin Fantatics.

Interesting idea with the fanatics.

I was thinking of doing something with the undead with the swirly stuff.

Looking at the sprue, I am even further struck by the thought that its a whole lot of swirly stuff and flowy cloak with very little main body to justify the price tag.

Great model, but holy cow I just saw the price! And he's not even a monstrous creature!

He looks great apart from all the swirling stuff.

Thankfully it looks like you could based some ruins beneath him to still have him floating or descending without having to have a brass rod visible.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Looking at the sprue, I am even further struck by the thought that its a whole lot of swirly stuff and flowy cloak with very little main body to justify the price tag.

It's like what they're doing with the forge world character series, only even more unreasonable.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I might leave the cape off if I do go through with this purchase, it just looks like something that would drag on the floor and tear, get dirty and trip up our Angelic Construct if he ever chose to walk around

Nothing enough cool can't handle

Spoiler:

Watched that film last night - really enjoyed and she was great

cool wins over reality

 Mr Morden wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I might leave the cape off if I do go through with this purchase, it just looks like something that would drag on the floor and tear, get dirty and trip up our Angelic Construct if he ever chose to walk around

Nothing enough cool can't handle

Spoiler:

Watched that film last night - really enjoyed and she was great

cool wins over reality

That was my post (the first bit about it getting dirty) I can understand the coolness factor and leaving it on. What's that gif from, btw?