Edit: MW, think of it this way -- if you play a ranked game online (like Hearthstone or StarCraft), every win makes it progressively harder to keep winning, because you'll be matched with progressively more difficult players. To me, this is preferable to winning every game, because that would get boring really quickly. The goal of the game, for me, is to keep it equally challenging (roughly speaking) for both players. The outcome of the game is still determined by skill and good decision-making; the only difference is, the better player starts off with fewer resources or disadvantageous circumstances.
And how does having no point system help with this, if we're all guesstimating the wroth of all units? How much disadvatnage is too much of a disadvantage?
Edit: MW, think of it this way -- if you play a ranked game online (like Hearthstone or StarCraft), every win makes it progressively harder to keep winning, because you'll be matched with progressively more difficult players. To me, this is preferable to winning every game, because that would get boring really quickly. The goal of the game, for me, is to keep it equally challenging (roughly speaking) for both players. The outcome of the game is still determined by skill and good decision-making; the only difference is, the better player starts off with fewer resources or disadvantageous circumstances.
And how does having no point system help with this, if we're all guesstimating the wroth of all units? How much disadvatnage is too much of a disadvantage?
In a system with no points, you're each forced to assess the strength of the other's army. Like you said, it's guestimation. How strong is too strong? Well, when you win a disproportionate number of games, or if wins come too easily, you need to tone it down (against that opponent).
How is it different from other games with point systems?
Well, that's pretty easy. Because there is no book that says, 'that's 100 points worth of value', a person can't point to a list and say, 'see, we're on even footing' and someone doesn't have to feel bad if they lose disproportionately. The opponent tweaks it down til the game is a challenge for both people. When the pendulum swings the other way, it's too much. Because there isn't per-unit valuation, an army is scored holistically, and ultimately, based on the general's performance. That means force multipliers and exceptionally clever generals are accounted for, and that taking some bad units because you like them isn't a big deal.
In other games like golf and chess, your ranking or ability determines your handicap. Realistically, you're gonna know in a war game after a game or two with someone if you need to handicap, and most people don't live somewhere that offers them unlimited play partners (30 regulars would probably be a big pool, I think).
I mean, let's be practical, too. At some point, if one person is a sophisticated, competitive gamer and the other is hopeless, they may just have to recognize that they don't make good gaming buddies.
All this being said, this sort of play isn't for everyone. In my context, there are only 6 regulars and 4 people who come very sporadically (and occasionally some guests) so this type of play is not unreasonable.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)
Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?
In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.
Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.
I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.
The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.
I do not think that I am unique in this.
I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it.
Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory?
Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.
Its sad to be in your area seriously. I had many pick up AoS games in my area and we had quite a bit of fun. And as far as I know, many of them were vets of WFB, most of us competitive, and I as a ex-warmahordes gamer and current infinity gamer still enjoy it.
It's good to see you enjoying the game, Mik. I remember the heart wrenching posts you put up when it was on the horizon and the truthful information was coming out about the rules. It was practically breaking you on here. Fast forward to you having fun with it, it shows the game is useable.
At this point, I have two friends who want to play 6th edition WHFB, a full store that would rather play 8th or 9th age only, a couple stores willing to try Azyr rules, and two high school age brothers who thoroughly enjoy AoS. I can play any and all of it. But my first choice would be 6th, then 8th, then AoS.
And when 40k gets sigmarized (when, not if), I hope those of us who miss WHFB won't be so smug that we laugh at the 40k players who find 40k to be such a wonderful game as their game world is wrecked. The writing is on the wall. This is going to happen at some point: might not be next year, might be 4 years, but it's gonna happen.
And when 40k gets sigmarized (when, not if), I hope those of us who miss WHFB won't be so smug that we laugh at the 40k players who find 40k to be such a wonderful game as their game world is wrecked. The writing is on the wall. This is going to happen at some point: might not be next year, might be 4 years, but it's gonna happen.
There are players that consider 40k to be, in its heart, a game with simple base mechanics, but cluttered with many rules that are just exceptions to the core ones and which define or serve a specific situation or types of unit. I actually think that a possible sigmarization of 40k would do the game an enormous favour. It lends itself very well to the design philosophy of AoS in all things except the many possibilities of model customization. I can't imagine how they'll cram all the stuff a SM can take in a single scroll
MWHistorian wrote: I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)
Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?
In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.
Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.
I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.
The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.
I do not think that I am unique in this.
I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it.
Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory?
Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.
Its sad to be in your area seriously. I had many pick up AoS games in my area and we had quite a bit of fun. And as far as I know, many of them were vets of WFB, most of us competitive, and I as a ex-warmahordes gamer and current infinity gamer still enjoy it.
Nice to see you're contributing a lot to the discussion.
Dismissing itn as "whining" is the same as dismissing pro-GW talks as "white knighting".
Whining is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of whining man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling against the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "detractors" are acting.
We get it, some of you don't like AoS or GW or people who apparently like what you don't like. Here's the thing though, we heard you all the first time. And the second. And the third...
Seriously, theres a small echo chamber of the same people showing up every thread since AoS release week. I totally can understand people complaining on the week it came out, but a month later is just ridiculous. And the "arguments" aren't even logical or remotely resonable.
"AoS is objectively bad. AoS can't be played. AoS isn't complete/wasn't tested/isn't a game. The models are boring so they're bad. Everything is too expensive. This game is exclusionary because there are no points." The list goes on and on, and yet none of these are remotely productive or even sensible.
AoS can't be objectively anything other than a game. Good. Bad. It all depends on who you ask.
The game absolutely does work in the way it is intended to be played. People have played games, rules as written and it unarguable does function. Whether or not it functions in the way you want it to is irrelevant. This game isn't WHFB, and unless GW changes their mind again, it never will be. If its not the type of game you want to play then go play a different game. There are plenty of games that at some point stop receiveing support, WHFB wasn't the first and it wont be the last.
If you don't like the new models then fair enough. You don't have to post in every thread every week to remind us. I hate every single WMH mini, do you see me regularly posting in the WMH forum telling everyone? No, because I know the models aren't my style and I have no reasonable expectation that forum posters should be harangued about it. I can tolerate people criticizing design, pricing, etc but not if its the same person making the same generalized complaint every week about models for a game that they've been dumpstering on the forum. That's basically the definition of gakposting.
And to everyone who's complained in this thread and others about a lack of points excluding them because the game lacks depth and they can no longer play pick-up games or tournaments like before. Congratulations, because WHFB was just as exclusionary if not more so. It was a game which required massive investment in miniatures to play the average sized pick-up game, required massive expensive rulebooks, and had an online community notrious for being self-important, condescending gakholes. I've seen them mock just about every other tabletop game while extolling the intense depth and strategy of WHFB. You know, when they werent throwing fits about how the newest edition was destroying balance.
You want to hear something on topic? Here goes. I like AoS. Sure its not revolutionary, and given the way its designed, I cant comment on balance. What it does wonderfully is allow me and my friends to finally play a fantasy themed Warhammer game, amongst ourselves, at our local GW, and with complete newbies.
I don't have to make some massive time and cash investment just to field on army for pick-up games. Better yet, I can now keep multiple small armies on hand to loan to my friends who don't want to spend money on fantasy models.
The design of the game, with unit special rules, makes every unit feel like it has some purpose other than simply being a "power unit" or a "space filler". The lack of any force restrictions lets me make armies and scenarios that conceptually I find interesting. Right now Im planning an army called the Grim March, a small group of fatalistic dwarves, humans, and dark elves who hunt the generals of Nagash in retribution of lost kin. That's something I could never do I WHFB without the permission of my opponent.
The focus on a scenario based style of play allows for more flexibility in creating narratives in the game. For example I can field a single Chaos war mammoth against a horde of enemy infantry. Or an small number of defenders can try and control an area against waves of enemies.
All of those were reasons that I gave AoS a chance, and found that I liked it.
I respect the fact that not everyone will like AoS, but I don't see that respect being returned. If the dissenting crowd wants to make a thread to discuss their dislike, I respect that. If you want a to make a thread where you can argue about the game with pro-AoS poster, I respect that. But up to now this thread, the opinions thread, and two news and rumors threads have all devolved into arguing. Its honestly feeling pretty tiresome and unnecessarily hostile.
Back on topic, I would love 40K to be AoS-ized. The current game is far too sprawling and expensive.
In an ideal world, GW would design a clever way to account for all the possible options that SMs can take. That won't happen, probably there will just be a bucket-load of SM war scrolls so everything is covered in some way at least. Or maybe a lot of the complication will just be thrown away.
Kilkrazy wrote: Back on topic, I would love 40K to be AoS-ized. The current game is far too sprawling and expensive.
In an ideal world, GW would design a clever way to account for all the possible options that SMs can take. That won't happen, probably there will just be a bucket-load of SM war scrolls so everything is covered in some way at least. Or maybe a lot of the complication will just be thrown away.
The one thing I'm not a fan of with the AoS warscrolls which I think might help solve that would be to change the >X way the scrolls are written, and either give hard boundaries or specific troop numbers. So like, a warscroll of tac maries is either:
A) between 5-10 marines and can take 1 special or heavy weapon. If the squad numbers ten they can take a second special weapon.
B) is 5 marines and can take a special or heavy weapon. A squad can be 10 marines and take 2 special weapons or 1 heavy and 1 special weapons.
Basically it'd be the same as SM currently, but the upgrades are simply granted to the unit like in AoS. All they'd need to do is keep the existing wargear and weapon stat page which in total takes about one page front and back so it really isnt too bad. Then they could just print default weapons (bolter, bolt pistol, and ccw) on the card with the special rules.
I don't mind AoS as an alternative.
I rather liked WHFB 8th edition, except of the impact of "spell 6"; but instead of WHFB i could also play Warmaster if i wanted to really focus on maneuvering (and not mainly armybuilding).
AoS is not my thing, but i understand what it is and what it is for.
I would mind 40k being AoS, because it would not be an alternative, it would just remove an alternative.
40k has balance issues just as WHFB had
40k already is a skirmish game
In 40k you can already combine almost any miniatures you like.
40k formations are not unlike warscrolls and warscoll combinations.
But 40k has something i personaly always missed in WFHB: objective based battles. And in current edition the impact of objectives is bigger then ever. Furthermore it is a game that can be played "competitively"
So in 40kAoS-ing it would not add a lot, it would however remove a lot. 40k also is the best selling wargame, so that also does not seem to be what a sales based company should do.
If GW has no game left that can be played "competitively", they remove themselves from that market and might lose sales on the game that sells best in the whole industry.
Whining is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of whining man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling against the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "detractors" are acting.
With respect, you not liking the arguments doesn't make them 'not legitimate'. Them holding an alternative viewpoint contrary to yours and detailing it isn't 'no attempt to make good discussion'. Or would you rather a sycophantic 'everything is brilliant' echo chamber instead?
People are pissed for a lot of (to them) very valid reasons. As for efforts to act civil, you're not helping. Those complaining sre a 'gaks how of whining Man children'? Really? Want me to hold your high horse while you come down off of it? Not needed mate, not needed at all.
And for what it's worth, I'm quite sympathetic to aos, even though it's not a game I find enjoyable. I think there is a niche for it. I like what it attempts to push scenario design on the players. My issues is that mechanically, I personall find it dull and uninteresting. I'd much rather they'd built it on the lotr engine, and put in some interesting reaction mechanics rather than the same old igougo roll 3s and 4s formula
I don't have to make some massive time and cash investment just to field on army for pick-up games. Better yet, I can now keep multiple small armies on hand to loan to my friends who don't want to spend money on fantasy models.
Very true, I personally think with the 'scenario heavy' approach though, it requires a lot more work pre game to design a workable and interesting scenario, especially if you are designing co operatiely with an opponent. This is fine, at home, with a close group of friends (it's how we play) but for stores, with pick up gsmes and time constraints, I can see it as being far less efficient than 'x points, roll scenario'.
The design of the game, with unit special rules, makes every unit feel like it has some purpose other than simply being a "power unit" or a "space filler". The lack of any force restrictions lets me make armies and scenarios that conceptually I find interesting. Right now Im planning an army called the Grim March, a small group of fatalistic dwarves, humans, and dark elves who hunt the generals of Nagash in retribution of lost kin. That's something I could never do I WHFB without the permission of my opponent.
The focus on a scenario based style of play allows for more flexibility in creating narratives in the game. For example I can field a single Chaos war mammoth against a horde of enemy infantry. Or an small number of defenders can try and control an area against waves of enemies.
My issue here is that you could always do this. And not just in aos. In any game. It's how we've played flames of war for several years now. No points. Unique scenarios etc. The historical game playing crowd are chortling into their beards that the fantasy players are now talking about 'being able' to design and play unique scenarios. I think it shines a light on a very negative quality of the playerbase- thst they/we somehow need permission from gw to be told that we can now create our games, and take charge of our own gsmes. Because we never could before, apparently.
It's a fun approach though. It's one thing that I like about aos- the player driven creation of scenarios with the idea of 'appropriate' units facing off against each other for that particular scenario- as you say, mammoth vs infantry, or 'horatio defends the bridge'. What you could try as well is an 'inverse escalation' game. Defender starts with a skirmish line against the core of the enemy force. When the skirmish line is broken, the defender gets his main force and the attacker gets limited reinforcements(everything went into the initial wave). In the game we ran, we face the defender an 'ambush' unit that could strike out when the attacker hit a certain point in the board. Great fun, and we really enjoyed the game.
That said. I think it requires a certain play environment and isn't suitable without like minded players and extensive pre game work. If you have that, then great. Otherwise, aos does suffer and limit
@Dreadnight: it sees a bit strange indeed that AoS seems to give some players the idea that they can now do something they could not do before: play scenario's.
But i do fully understand why this is so:
The historical gamers are not the most open and modern type of gamers.
I live in The Netherlands (near the border of Germany) and i collect and play since 1990 and consider myself a veteran gamer.
The places where a new player meets the hobby are not the places where you find the "scenario gamers". Not at all.
You find them in gaming clubs where the average age is 10-20 years higher then the new gamer and where often the games that are played most in the world are hardly played at all. The focus often is also often on realism, history and scenario's and less on "painting cool miniatures" and having a battle for fun and/or challenge.
The new wargamer and the competitive gamer and the "historical/scenario gamers" are two different communities that often do not mix well and hardly ever meet.
I do meet them both, but at different events and locations.
Most "historical/scenario" gamers that i met in GW or independant stores where the grumpy old men (think Waldorf/Statler) that complain about what is wrong with the games of today.
And "competitive" gamers as well as gamers in the hobby just for the creative fun, do not understand what is fun about painting a lot of the same style soldiers to play something that has already happened.
With AoS, GW goes a bit back to the 40k Rogue Trader / WHFB 3rd edition era, where scenario's where an important aspect of the game as well.
For us old folk that is nothing new, for many wargamers it is.
Whining is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of whining man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "detractors" are acting.
With respect, you not liking the arguments doesn't make them 'not legitimate'. Them holding an alternative viewpoint contrary to yours and detailing it isn't 'no attempt to make good discussion'. Or would you rather a sycophantic 'everything is brilliant' echo chamber instead?
My appologies, I was unclear in my statement. I didn't mean to imply that there are no arguments against AoS at all. What I meant was that this crowd of constant detractors are not utilizing any sense of reason in their argumentation.
Basically they are mad that WHFB is gone, and don't like the direction GW has taken The franchise via AoS. That is perfectly clear, and well within their right to hold that opinion. However they are showing up in every thread simply to mock the game and then start fights on the premise that they must be right and AoS is "objectively bad/wrong/broken". For no other reason than them not liking the style of game it is designed to be.
Deadnight wrote: People are pissed for a lot of (to them) very valid reasons. As for efforts to act civil, you're not helping. Those complaining sre a 'gaks how of whining Man children'? Really? Want me to hold your high horse while you come down off of it? Not needed mate, not needed at all.
I understand that they're pissed. I'm not of the opinion that they can't nor shouldn't be. That still doesnt give them some new found freedom to start verbal fights with everyone who likes what they don't. Â what gets me the most is that they are coming to these threads trying to discuss AoS just to post random smatterings on unproductive frustrations.
And I agree that what I said was harsh, and definately not productive. However, as a 40k and now AoS player I've gotten pretty fed up seeing the same handful of people constantly show up in the threads/boards of games they hate, just to fire off a few shots of condescending hate before slinking off to stroke their ego.
Deadnight wrote: And for what it's worth, I'm quite sympathetic to aos, even though it's not a game I find enjoyable. I think there is a niche for it. I like what it attempts to push scenario design on the players. My issues is that mechanically, I personall find it dull and uninteresting. I'd much rather they'd built it on the lotr engine, and put in some interesting reaction mechanics rather than the same old igougo roll 3s and 4s formula
See what you said is actually a productive point that can be used as a basis for discussion. I don't really know much about the LotR system so I'll have to take a look at it. I absolutely agree with you though that there are a lot of repetitive die checks in AoS. I've often wondered, moreso for 40k, if using a wider die range such as d20s would help differentiate units and break up monotony in rolls.
The design of the game, with unit special rules, makes every unit feel like it has some purpose other than simply being a "power unit" or a "space filler". The lack of any force restrictions lets me make armies and scenarios that conceptually I find interesting. Right now Im planning an army called the Grim March, a small group of fatalistic dwarves, humans, and dark elves who hunt the generals of Nagash in retribution of lost kin. That's something I could never do I WHFB without the permission of my opponent.
The focus on a scenario based style of play allows for more flexibility in creating narratives in the game. For example I can field a single Chaos war mammoth against a horde of enemy infantry. Or an small number of defenders can try and control an area against waves of enemies.
My issue here is that you could always do this. And not just in aos. In any game. It's how we've played flames of war for several years now. No points. Unique scenarios etc. The historical game playing crowd are chortling into their beards that the fantasy players are now talking about 'being able' to design and play unique scenarios. I think it shines a light on a very negative quality of the playerbase- thst they/we somehow need permission from gw to be told that we can now create our games, and take charge of our own gsmes. Because we never could before, apparently.
It's a fun approach though. It's one thing that I like about aos- the player driven creation of scenarios with the idea of 'appropriate' units facing off against each other for that particular scenario- as you say, mammoth vs infantry, or 'horatio defends the bridge'. What you could try as well is an 'inverse escalation' game. Defender starts with a skirmish line against the core of the enemy force. When the skirmish line is broken, the defender gets his main force and the attacker gets limited reinforcements(everything went into the initial wave). In the game we ran, we face the defender an 'ambush' unit that could strike out when the attacker hit a certain point in the board. Great fun, and we really enjoyed the game.
That said. I think it requires a certain play environment and isn't suitable without like minded players and extensive pre game work. If you have that, then great. Otherwise, aos does suffer and limit
I understand that its always been possible with any rules, in fact me and my friends do this often in 40k. However, I feel the lack of points and force organization will open this up to be a lot more possible in pick-up games. Because you need your opponent to agree with what you are collectively playing, most people would just play an average point amount with one of the rulebook play modes. Now that you need to discuss briefly what the scenario is and what you'll be fielding, it opens that line of communication where people will hopefully be more receptive to unusual scenarions.
40k has balance issues just as WHFB hadÂ
40k already is a skirmish gameÂ
In 40k you can already combine almost any miniatures you like.Â
40k formations are not unlike warscrolls and warscoll combinations.
I know its not quite what you are trying to say, but I also get a feeling that the recent changest in 40k are designed to add some of what makes AoS more flexible while still maintaining the existing complexity of previous editions. Maybe not something as drastic as the AoS unit special rules, but a bit more condesing of exceptions to the core rules?
I'm curious how you feel were GW to clean up the special rules a bit? Because right now it feels quite like a mess to me, and I know in my usual circle of play there are often moments of confusion where people misremember or forget rules which would have had a significant effect on previous turns.
1. Dump the To Hit/To Wound/To Save mechanism and substitute a flat Roll A 6 To Cause Damage. Adjust unit strengths by changing their Attacks, Range, and Hits.
2. Continue with the current mechanism and work out a Quicxk Reference Table giving average number of successes for numbersof dice 10, 12, 20, 24 and so on. Instead of rolling 20 dice you get 3 hits and two dice.
I personally don't mind special rules. In any system.
IMO it's what makes most gaming systems interesting.
And the bigger the miniature, the more special rules there should be IMO.
So i don't mind that Epic (6mm) has less special rules then 28mm (40k) which again has less special rules than 54mm game or a RolePlayingGame.
For my taste, AoS has too few special rules in a tactical sense. In regard to special rules per unit, i do not have an opinion yet, because we are just getting started.
A steamlined set of special rules is to be preferred above a chaotic set, but in general i would prefer players reading a bit more and better then, pardon my french, "dumbing it al down too much".
Jack Flask wrote: ... Because you need your opponent to agree with what you are collectively playing, ...
You do? Why?
There is no such requirement in the AoS rules. They're just written around the principle that you deploy what you want until you either run out of miniatures or run out of space to put them. There is no indication in the rules that players are expected to sit down with a prospective opponent and nut out a scenario.
That's, IMO, precisely what's missing from the AoS rules. They should have been entirely scenario-driven, and should have just done away with any pretense of being suitable for pick-up games in the first place.
I'm curious how you feel were GW to clean up the special rules a bit? Because right now it feels quite like a mess to me, and I know in my usual circle of play there are often moments of confusion where people misremember or forget rules which would have had a significant effect on previous turns.
The main problem is with special rules that do nothing other than confer other special rules. That's just pointless complexity for no reasonable purpose (I don't consider a special rule having a funky, themed name to be a 'reasonable purpose' if it means just having to remember which other special rules it refers to).
Kilkrazy wrote: Two easy ways to reduce dice rolling in AoS.
1. Dump the To Hit/To Wound/To Save mechanism and substitute a flat Roll A 6 To Cause Damage. Adjust unit strengths by changing their Attacks, Range, and Hits.
2. Continue with the current mechanism and work out a Quicxk Reference Table giving average number of successes for numbersof dice 10, 12, 20, 24 and so on. Instead of rolling 20 dice you get 3 hits and two dice.
While I think that it wouldn't change the outcome of two identical situations (and this has surely been discussed in one thread or another) I think that reducing types of roll and different abilities that buff/debuff them takes away some of the appeal that GW games have for some people. "First you have to hit my model, but are you strong enough to wound it? It is now tougher because I gave it some skub. Well your skub-powered blade was stronger, but my armor will stop it...". There are times when units do something cool on sixes or and this may somewhat skew the odds so this have to be taken into account. Hit/wound/save is a long time GW thing and it just comes with the game. Will it quicken the game. Probably. Will people like it? As you stated it depends whether they
I remember reading something about how GW wants players to roll lots of dice as they consider it part of the fun in a game. It kind of keep your hand busy doing something on the table instead of picking your nose . I can't cite a source, if an official stated it or if it was just a side comment in a WD column, though. Someone may lend a hand in finding it if it indeed exists and is not an artificial memory artifact of mine.
While someone can definitely make alterations to AoS, arguing that it is for the better of the system, gameplay and players, the question remains whether the players will like the game and that is not strictly tied to how good the game is, or is perceived to be (har har, thread pun) by the majority of people (as seen on the forums )
The main reason: i am quite the unlucky dice roller and if i have lots, the average gets a bit better (it's harder to miss with 10 dice then it is to miss with 1 die).
So my 40k Ork unit that shoots does a lot better then my X-Wing Tie-fighter that tries to dodge or to hit.
It's a statistical fact that more dice more often give a result closer to the expected average.
If you only roll 50 dice total in a complete game (X-Wing), luck (or the lack thereof) more frequently has a a big impact on the game then if 1000 dice are rolled.
And yes, I also just like throwing lots of dice! :-)
I like throwing a bunch of dice around too, but there's one huge advantage.
There's just guy in my Warmachine group with hard plastic, comically oversized dice that he throws on the battlefield with this awful backhanded wrist flick, throwing the spinning die high in the air, landing on and knocking over units (he's the guy who set up the group, so I guess nobody calls him on it, but I wouldn't dare play someone who did that). With more dice, you have to use smaller dice - probably those cubes of tiny, rounded Chessex dice. You can't just throw them on the battlefield, because they'd be difficult to see, count, and remove misses. So it would be physically unlikely he could destroy a well painted miniature with his grotesque wrist flick launch.
I admit, it's kind of a weird thing, but... yeah... tiny dice.
Gushing is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of gushing man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling for the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "apologists" are acting.
We get it, some of you like AoS or GW or people who apparently like what you don't like. Here's the thing though, we heard you all the first time. And the second. And the third...
Seriously, theres a small echo chamber of the same people showing up every thread since AoS release week. I totally can understand people excited on the week it came out, but a month later is just ridiculous. And the "arguments" aren't even logical or remotely resonable.
"AoS is objectively good. AoS can be played. AoS is complete/was tested/is a game. The models are awesome so they're good. Everything isn't too expensive. This game is inviting because there are no points." The list goes on and on, and yet none of these are remotely productive or even sensible.
I'll stop there. See how dismissive and insulting your arguments are?
There has been a lot of valid criticisms made for AOS. In a discussion thread, you will get opposing view points to your own. If you don't want to hear them, read a blog instead of a discussion forum.
There has been a lot of valid criticisms made for AOS. In a discussion thread, you will get opposing view points to your own. If you don't want to hear them, read a blog instead of a discussion forum.
But the people making these criticisms aren't interested in having a discussion. They make drive-by comments like, "AoS is the worst game evah!" which have no value as criticism and can only lead to discussions about why they feel like being a jerk is helpful.
When criticisms that can be discussed are had, there is no ground to be had. AoS doesn't have points. That doesn't make it bad, but some people don't like it. So what discussion can you have there? It's either "your opinion is wrong", which is never helpful, or it's "let's agree to disagree", which means there's no discussion to be had.
If we could agree on a few simple tenets to help discussion actually happen, maybe these criticisms could lead to something productive. How about:
1) Your personal opinion as to whether you like or dislike a feature can be stated, but once stated, it does not need to be continually restated within the same thread. It should also be topic appropriate. As an example, a thread talking about how nifty the Celestant Prime model is does not require any commentary on one's dislike of AoS as a game.
2) AoS makes decisions which some people like, and some people don't, so any criticism which is based entirely upon whether someone likes a decision is useless. Disliking something doesn't make it wrong, nor does it provide any insight into anything other than your own personal tastes. That is not criticism. That is whining.
3) Making criticisms which also work as criticisms against those you disagree with are not unhelpful. Such as "AoS is for people who've never played a wargame before", which implies that people who enjoy it are inexperienced wargamers. And I've seen far worse insinuations.
4) Repeating the same, tired criticisms over and over is still just whining, no matter how valid that criticism is. We get it. Games Workshop is overpriced and there are other publishers who create equally nice models for considerably less. But there's nothing we can do about it, except to leave the game and play something else. Let's assume that people in the Age of Sigmar forum are interested in playing Age of Sigmar, and that convincing them to play something else is off topic and a bit dickish.
I lot of this thread seems based on theory and not actually playing.
Played my first game, Orcs & goblins vs Lizardmen 75 wound game. (Lizardmen no summoning to keep it simple)
The combat was really fun, being able to pile into any combat within 3 inches.
Giant and 4 kroxigors pretty much wiped each other out.
10 Black orks and grimgore vs 30 saurus warriors pretty much wiped each other out.
I had a doomdiver which pretty much missed (or didnt wound) every single time, even with the ability to retarget if he misses his first target (which is a fun rule).
I used a 10 man slugga boyz squad as ruglud's armored orcs which was kinda fitting since pistols (counts as crossbows) aren't too far out of the norm in AOS, and ruglud himself did pretty awesome.
I had a 5 man boar rider squad charge up the right flank to attack the dinosaur with a diamond lascannon on it (you know the one I'm talking about) and they failed hard, 1 rider made it out alive to run away.
Lizardman hero on carnisaur was pretty hardcore with his ability to automatically cause additional battleshock in a bubble around it. It took Gorbad Ironclaw, rugluds armored orcs and a boar chariot to bring him down and he pretty much took them all out with him.
At the end it was a very very minor orc victory with 97% of the lizardmen models destroyed, and 95% of the orc models destroyed.
So as for balance, doing 75 wounds seemed to balance it pretty good I'd say (couldn't have made more balanced armies if we tried).
Anyway, for all you naysayers just try a pickup game and see if you have fun (which you will) a lot of energy is being spent here that could otherwise be spent having fun!
There has been a lot of valid criticisms made for AOS. In a discussion thread, you will get opposing view points to your own. If you don't want to hear them, read a blog instead of a discussion forum.
But the people making these criticisms aren't interested in having a discussion. They make drive-by comments like, "AoS is the worst game evah!" which have no value as criticism and can only lead to discussions about why they feel like being a jerk is helpful.
It can get pretty frustrating, when a poster does not seem to contribute to the conversion in a meaningful way.
However, a poster the other day brought my attention back to something I had forgotten - when signed into the forum, you will find an "ignore" button on every post you see.
While I don't think its good to ignore every poster who makes an annoying post, the ignore button is excellent if there's a poster you feel never contributes to a discussion in a meaningful way. With just one click, you never see them again, and the forums seem much less cluttered, and much more content rich.
However, a poster the other day brought my attention back to something I had forgotten - when signed into the forum, you will find an "ignore" button on every post you see.
In general, I don't believe in banning, blocking, or ignoring those who disagree with me. I find it to be petty, and it prevents whatever future contributions they may bring from ever being seen or engaged with. I feel like the internet is way too quick to isolate itself from dissent, creating echo chamber pockets that end up making people develop extremist views. Just like playing AoS, a certain level of compromise can be reached such that all parties find something enjoyable about their time together.
I did, however, ignore one poster. As much as I'm loathe to do so, I think that at the point where you basically dare other people to "ignore" you, you've admitted that you are just being a dick and the only way that you'll stop is if others exercise "force" to stop you.
Jack Flask wrote: ... Because you need your opponent to agree with what you are collectively playing, ...
You do? Why?
There is no such requirement in the AoS rules. They're just written around the principle that you deploy what you want until you either run out of miniatures or run out of space to put them. There is no indication in the rules that players are expected to sit down with a prospective opponent and nut out a scenario.
You have to agree with what you're playing against for every game in existence, whether the rules say it or not, since you can't force someone who doesn't want to play with you to do so.
The reality is that if Joe and Sam do not have a meeting of the minds of on fairness, they will walk away from the game. In point based systems, if Joe and Sam meet, they assume that if their armies are the correct additive total, it must be fair; and this is not necessarily true.
The only difference with AoS is that it forces players to judge fairness themselves, instead of rely on a point-based system. It may be a subtle difference, but I think it creates an environment that is less of a draw for those who want to play with a list-based advantage, because once you win a couple of times with a powerful combo, opponents will realize it and "charge" you for it.
Man players use the rules of "competitive games" to build armies to win.
Most posts on this and many other wargaming forums only focus on what to do to win, what is best for points:
"he current meta" of a system.
What was Always so for WHFB and 40k, but it's the same thing with X-Wing, Warmachine, Mailfaux, Flames-of-War (maybe a bit less) and many more.
The only games i know where that is not the main subject are games like Blood Bowl, Epic, Warmaster, where the main subject is how to learn to use a specific type of army, not how to build the army.
AoS seems to be more about what people want to (buy, paint) and play. And instead of making rules to let people play fair (which never ever worked in WHFB), the players now have to be honest and see to it that games are more or less balanced.
That always was possible off course. But in practice there are too many players that use the rules not to build a balanced army, but to get an advantage.
IMO this often shows a lack of social skills.
ORicK wrote: IMO this often shows a lack of social skills.
IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.
IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.
Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.
You may believe that the advantage you gain from minmaxing your point limitation is earned fairly and as such, you deserve the advantage because of your superior logistical skills, but not everybody agrees on that. I actually do and think that army building is part of the challenge of conflict. However, with army lists being shared on the internet, leading to people taking better armies without working for it, or the end result becoming a handful of homogenized super lists, that maybe army points are no longer a reflection of player skill - and indeed, I would say that downloading an army list for the purpose of gaining an (unearned) advantage over your opponents does reflect poorly on a person's nature.
Can you play a balanced game with points? Absolutely. Though I argue that balance isn't something that is objectively balanced, but instead something which simply feels balanced. You have a game where it feels like you have a chance of winning, not a game where you actually do - and I think that a large part of that feel comes from the faith that points create a balanced game. You think the game is balanced and confirmation bias does the rest. In that case, I don't think points are the only (or best) way to get that feeling of balance from a game, and it could be had just as easily by any system which one puts their faith in, so long as it didn't push your faith to its breaking point. After all, 40k apparently has some seriously broken units, but the are limited enough that you blame the units themselves instead of losing faith in point values.
Sqorgar wrote: Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.
That is literally the worst explanation of balance I have ever heard.
A) An army of any value is going to be at a distinct disadvantage if it is built with no anti-tank weaponry if the opposing army if built of entirely tanks. You have to put at least SOME thought into what you bring, at least a little of the responsibility is on the player to not leave a hole like that in their list.
B) In well balanced games points ARE representative of the value of a unit in an army. It is a distinctly GW problem were things are overcosted and undercosted, leading to this game of finding the best cost efficiency. Warmachine is not perfect, but they aim for that and are willing to put in work to achieve it. Infinity simply does not have that problem. Nor does any other tabletop non-GW wargame to any serious extent that I am aware of.
Arguing points don't work simply shows a complete lack of understanding of non-GW games.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: After all, 40k apparently has some seriously broken units, but the are limited enough that you blame the units themselves instead of losing faith in point values.
IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.
Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.
You may believe that the advantage you gain from minmaxing your point limitation is earned fairly and as such, you deserve the advantage because of your superior logistical skills, but not everybody agrees on that. I actually do and think that army building is part of the challenge of conflict. However, with army lists being shared on the internet, leading to people taking better armies without working for it, or the end result becoming a handful of homogenized super lists, that maybe army points are no longer a reflection of player skill - and indeed, I would say that downloading an army list for the purpose of gaining an (unearned) advantage over your opponents does reflect poorly on a person's nature.
Can you play a balanced game with points? Absolutely. Though I argue that balance isn't something that is objectively balanced, but instead something which simply feels balanced. You have a game where it feels like you have a chance of winning, not a game where you actually do - and I think that a large part of that feel comes from the faith that points create a balanced game. You think the game is balanced and confirmation bias does the rest. In that case, I don't think points are the only (or best) way to get that feeling of balance from a game, and it could be had just as easily by any system which one puts their faith in, so long as it didn't push your faith to its breaking point. After all, 40k apparently has some seriously broken units, but the are limited enough that you blame the units themselves instead of losing faith in point values.
You make a great deal of assumptions in your post. You're looking at points system as if everyone is getting ready for a tournament. Some people use points systems to see if they can get their favorite units in or to give them a ballpark for how large of an army they should work to build.
I've heard it before, "points are only so people can build in the maximum advantage to win. Thus, points are unfair."
No.
When both people are building their army to win it puts them on equal footing. It's no worse than people building sub par lists to be on equal ground. There's no moral superiority with either, just different styles of play.
I'm a "casual narrative" player but I've never had a problem with competitive minded players in games that are balanced. Most if not all the problems you associate with points are unique to GW games. And that's because of the poor execution of points, not the idea of points themselves.
ORicK wrote: IMO this often shows a lack of social skills.
IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.
That there. Right there.
At what point has there been any statement that the game is supposed to be balanced or fair.
I am not arguing that GW have stumbled on some utopian gaming ideal, but the fact that points values or any kind of comp rules would suggest that they didn't do a bad job - it wasn't even a consideration.
A lot of posts seem to stem from a similar assumption - that GW were aiming at re-doing WFB and botched it.
They didn't. They have created (in all likelihood) exactly what they set out to create.
Some get it, some don't. It may turn out to be the Emperor's new clothes. Early indications appear to be that at worst it is selling as well as WFB was.
All they have done is placed the responsibility for enjoyment in the hands of the people playing the game there and then.
In my local club, there's a very clear divide at present. The 'serious' tournament gamers have thus far played (literally) a couple of games of AoS, decided it's not for them at this time, and continue to play 8th. These guys are not TFG by any means, but their enjoyment of the game stems from competitive balance.
My group of friends have taken to AoS. We have played plenty of games, many have been obviously one-sided, but we are enjoying it. We're playing the scenarios over 'pitched battles', no comp, and the only houserule has been using bases instead of models.
Neither of these viewpoints are wrong. But neither are they an objective assessment of AoS.
Sqorgar wrote: Thought we covered this already. Points are not a balancing mechanism. Points are about creating efficiency from constraint. The entire point to a point system is to be so efficient in minmaxing the points that you gain a significant advantage in battle. If points were actually a balancing mechanism, they would be representative of a unit's actual worth in the army. Any army of a specific value should be perfectly balanced against any other army of the same value, and that's NEVER been the case. Ever.
That is literally the worst explanation of balance I have ever heard.
It's NOT a definition of balance. I'm simply stating that if points WERE a mechanism for balance, they would be better at doing their job.
A) An army of any value is going to be at a distinct disadvantage if it is built with no anti-tank weaponry if the opposing army if built of entirely tanks. You have to put at least SOME thought into what you bring, at least a little of the responsibility is on the player to not leave a hole like that in their list.
I could argue that the rock-paper-scissors unit dependencies are their own balancing mechanism, separate from and above points. In the way that points do not create balanced games, the RPS dependencies make some up the slack. Even then, I'm not sure that those are the ONLY balancing mechanisms in play.
I guess one could argue that points aren't a balancing mechanism themselves, but when taken with a bunch of other factors, a fair game can be had... most of the time.
B) In well balanced games points ARE representative of the value of a unit in an army. It is a distinctly GW problem were things are overcosted and undercosted, leading to this game of finding the best cost efficiency. Warmachine is not perfect, but they aim for that and are willing to put in work to achieve it. Infinity simply does not have that problem. Nor does any other tabletop non-GW wargame to any serious extent that I am aware of.
So, in a well balanced game, points are representative of a well balanced game? And in an unbalanced games, points are representative of an unbalanced game? So, it's not really points that are creating balance, is it?
You can argue that it is the implementation of the points systems at fault, but the simple fact is, points do not balance a game. They can not. Not in any game with situational value. There are other mechanisms to manage that which are more important than points. The only thing points really do is limit the size of your army and has very little to say on the effectiveness of it. All those other factors define how effective it is, and thus, how fair the fight is.
Arguing points don't work simply shows a complete lack of understanding of non-GW games.
I didn't say points don't work. They do what they do, but they aren't a mechanism of balance, at least to any worthwhile extent. Using wounds in AoS has problems as well, but at the extreme edge cases, is it any worse than than Warmachine's points at their worst?
You can argue that it is the implementation of the points systems at fault, but the simple fact is, points do not balance a game. They can not. Not in any game with situational value. There are other mechanisms to manage that which are more important than points. The only thing points really do is limit the size of your army and has very little to say on the effectiveness of it.
That is bull. Points balance a lot. Your not telling me that in a system with points 10 phoenix guard vs 10 dwarf warriors are balanced less then in a system where they are not.
10WK vs 10 IG in w40k , totaly balanced without points.
I guess one could argue that points aren't a balancing mechanism themselves, but when taken with a bunch of other factors, a fair game can be had... most of the time.
Pretty much what I've always said, bar the 'most of the time' jibe.
So, in a well balanced game, points are representative of a well balanced game? And in an unbalanced games, points are representative of an unbalanced game? So, it's not really points that are creating balance, is it?
See my first comment, the latter is an example of points implemented poorly. So yes, points do create balance. When you do your bloody job.
You can argue that it is the implementation of the points systems at fault, but the simple fact is, points do not balance a game. They can not. Not in any game with situational value. There are other mechanisms to manage that which are more important than points. The only thing points really do is limit the size of your army and has very little to say on the effectiveness of it. All those other factors define how effective it is, and thus, how fair the fight is.
Points have everything to do with the 'effectiveness' of a list - you know, when things are costed appropriately they give an in game value equivelant to their cost, you know, 'effectiveness'. Regarding the size of your army, it kind of makes sense to have that too...
Points are a tool. They are not the only tool. You don't just build a house with a hammer. They have to be used right, and along with other tools (unit restrictions, scenario design, multiple multiple winning conditions, multiple lists, sideboards Etc), help to build a proper game.
Points are a tool that is used to help both the structure and the balance of a game. So you are correct In a way, but your conclusion veers off a bit towards the end.
You're looking at points system as if everyone is getting ready for a tournament.
Nope. I'm looking at point systems as if everyone was trying to have a fair fight. To most players, equal points is the definition of a fair fight, whether that is true or not, whether it is likely or not.
I've heard it before, "points are only so people can build in the maximum advantage to win. Thus, points are unfair."
No.
When both people are building their army to win it puts them on equal footing. It's no worse than people building sub par lists to be on equal ground. There's no moral superiority with either, just different styles of play.
So, if you have two people, one very competitive and looking to eke out every advantage they can, and a casual player building a fluff army, they can never have a fair game because they start out inherently unequal? So, it is impossible to balance a game for both parties? And yet you resent Age of Sigmar for choosing the wrong party to build the game for?
I don't agree with you at all. I think they can have a fair fight, but it will require compromise from both parties. It may result in neither player having exactly the game they wanted, but they can still have fun. I think the opinion that points represent an impartial, objective measure of game balance is what allows competitive players to not make compromises, and that is why we must treat them as subjective estimates that do not figure in elements of gameplay that are fundamentally important. We need to look at balance, whatever your definition of it may be, as a collection of mechanisms, of which point values are the most obvious, but perhaps not the most important.
Most if not all the problems you associate with points are unique to GW games.
How could that possibly be? I've never played a GW game before Age of Sigmar, and it doesn't have any points! I have no idea how GW games use points.
It is far more accurate to say that the problems I associate with points come from Warmachine, which you absolutely refuse to concede any ground on, so there's not much worth to find in that discussion.
So, if you have two people, one very competitive and looking to eke out every advantage they can, and a casual player building a fluff army, they can never have a fair game because they start out inherently unequal? So, it is impossible to balance a game for both parties?
Some of those fluff armies are pretty brutal to be fair.
All this demonstrates is poor game design to allow exploitation of the system.
Sqorgar wrote: So, if you have two people, one very competitive and looking to eke out every advantage they can, and a casual player building a fluff army, they can never have a fair game because they start out inherently unequal? So, it is impossible to balance a game for both parties? And yet you resent Age of Sigmar for choosing the wrong party to build the game for?
They might not be 100% equal but the response from AoS fans is to not play people who's idea of what the game should be differs slightly from your own. In a well balanced game yes the competitive player may have an advantage, but the two can play together and both enjoy it.
Hell, Infinity sectorials, Warmachine themed lists, most other games actually give bonuses to fluffy lists, but that is besides the point.
Simple fact is if you can't build a game for both camps you have no place working in a professional game design role.
So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.
I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?
Personally, I blame the players. Points, and other balancing systems, work most of the time. But through minmaxing those edge cases, players can exploit loopholes to create completely unfair games in their favor. Those kind of players are not very fun to play against - to the point which the majority of the miniature community is actually afraid of them. When AoS had no points, the main argument was, what if we play against TFG? People are afraid of what that guy will do, and their entire definition of balance and fairness is based on what that jerk will do with a system, not what the most common experience will be.
Points have everything to do with the 'effectiveness' of a list - you know, when things are costed appropriately they give an in game value equivelant to their cost, you know, 'effectiveness'. Regarding the size of your army, it kind of makes sense to have that too...
I'm going to have to use Warmachine examples for this, but...
How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder? In a map with no forests, it is worthless, making whatever cost you select too much. On a table with lots of forests, pathfinder's ability to increase mobility becomes arguably the most important ability on the board. With only one or two forests, creates a tactical advantage for the units (they perform better in these areas) that may be at odds with the tactical needs of the team (what if the opponent doesn't go near the forest at all?) The only way to create a point value for something like pathfinder is to make an estimate, which will absolutely be wrong some of the time. And pathfinder is a relatively minor ability compared to some.
The reason why pathfinder's points are roughly accurate is because of the typical WM player's tendencies to play with minimal, unobstructive terrain. The lack of extreme variety means that the default usage is common enough to be useful. Because the points only work in specific cases, in order to maximize the efficiency of the game, WM players change how they play to suit those cases. Forests are on the table just to give the pathfinders something to do, all other units go around (the forests are never so large that it is easier to go half speed through them than full speed around), toeing the edge at the end of movement to gain the benefits of concealment without hampering movement.
So the points define the game as mostly this way, the players adapt their way of playing to that way, then they say that points are balanced because it works out in their experience. Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy, in my opinion.
Points are a tool. They are not the only tool. You don't just build a house with a hammer. They have to be used right, and along with other tools (unit restrictions, scenario design, multiple multiple winning conditions, multiple lists, sideboards Etc), help to build a proper game.
Points are a tool that is used to help both the structure and the balance of a game. So you are correct In a way, but your conclusion veers off a bit towards the end.
I would be happy if this conversation ended with just the concession that points are but one part of balance that do not act alone. If we could at least agree on that much, I think the discussion of AoS being unbalanced because it does not have points would be over. Instead, we'd have to look for and identify the other balancing mechanism and check those against AoS to see if maybe one of those other mechanisms wasn't compensating. That would be a much more interesting discussion than points = balance, no points = no balance that we've been circling for a while now.
Sqorgar wrote: How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder?
Ridiculously easily
There is a recommended amount of terrain to use, and you average the usefulness around that. That is literally the job of a game designer, to work that out. Playtesting helps when thousands of games can be played and you can gauge from people's reactions if it needs to be cheaper or more expensive.
You have this idea that if any two lists at the same points value are not 100% perfectly matched then the whole system is flawed and goes out the window. Every non-GW game on the market proves this wrong.
I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers.
You usually place the blame of a faulty product to the person who made the product, especially when it is shown in other products that it can be done.
Who are you gonna blame if your food is bad? The person who cooked it. You don't put the blame on the person eating the bad food, claiming that he/she is doing it wrong.
So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.
I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?
I don't place any 'blame'. I place a 'responsibility' and a 'duty' on game designers to design a robust, healthy, functional and balanced game.
How can't it factor in all those other factors? That's why we having playtesting and a little thing called 'quality control'. Thats it's job - to find the kinks and iron them out.
Is it the designers fault? Absolutely. If you've actually read any of my comments, you will note I mention the 'use of other tools' alongside the use of points. Points aren't the only tool in the box, but are extremely useful when used right.
As to the comment about instead of patching with other systems, use a different system 'that isnt flawed' - two points.
One. Points and other systems work. So why walk away from it?
Two. tell me of this system that 'isnt innately flawed'?
How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder? In a map with no forests, it is worthless, making whatever cost you select too much. On a table with lots of forests, pathfinder's ability to increase mobility becomes arguably the most important ability on the board. With only one or two forests, creates a tactical advantage for the units (they perform better in these areas) that may be at odds with the tactical needs of the team (what if the opponent doesn't go near the forest at all?) The only way to create a point value for something like pathfinder is to make an estimate, which will absolutely be wrong some of the time. And pathfinder is a relatively minor ability compared to some.
The reason why pathfinder's points are roughly accurate is because of the typical WM player's tendencies to play with minimal, unobstructive terrain. The lack of extreme variety means that the default usage is common enough to be useful. Because the points only work in specific cases, in order to maximize the efficiency of the game, WM players change how they play to suit those cases. Forests are on the table just to give the pathfinders something to do, all other units go around (the forests are never so large that it is easier to go half speed through them than full speed around), toeing the edge at the end of movement to gain the benefits of concealment without hampering movement.
How do points factor in the usefulness of pathfinder. Easy. define the requirements per board of what terrain should be there. Make those variables into constants and then you can account for them.
Points are a tool. They are not the only tool. You don't just build a house with a hammer. They have to be used right, and along with other tools (unit restrictions, scenario design, multiple multiple winning conditions, multiple lists, sideboards Etc), help to build a proper game.
Points are a tool that is used to help both the structure and the balance of a game. So you are correct In a way, but your conclusion veers off a bit towards the end.
I would be happy if this conversation ended with just the concession that points are but one part of balance that do not act alone. If we could at least agree on that much, I think the discussion of AoS being unbalanced because it does not have points would be over. Instead, we'd have to look for and identify the other balancing mechanism and check those against AoS to see if maybe one of those other mechanisms wasn't compensating. That would be a much more interesting discussion than points = balance, no points = no balance that we've been circling for a while now.
Is this you not reading what I've written, or commenting to other people. Because I've always said that points are just one facet of the overall 'structure'. To me, taking away points is akin to kicking out some of the biggest load bearing columns and foundations of the structure. Fine, you can adapt and build around it, but you are making an awful lot of hard work for yourself, and in the end, what you end up with, whole different. won't necessarily be superior.
Regarding alternative balancing mechanisms, that's where the issues lie. How do you do it. Again, I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. We're both here for a 'fun friendly game'. The narrative pushed here is one has to bend and forfeit 'his' game to accomodate the other. Greatsword guy is tfg if he doesn't bend. It boils down to balance via self policing, self restraint, ans balance via community pressure and social exclusion for those who want to do something different that isn't in fitting with what the group considers fair. Bullying, in other words.
The problem with a lack of points in aos can be mitigated, however. In my mind, it boils down to two possible solutions.
One. Eyeballing balance. Fine. But it's quite hard, and very easy to misjudge. Plus, all it takes is a casual at all costs tfg (they exist too) who says 'no' to your shiny toys. you know, because you both have different definitions of what's fair to play against. It requires your opponent to enable you to do what you want, and falls down the second they say 'no'. And again, ultimately this approach is just as 'innately flawed' as any other.
Two. Tailor made scenarios with competing forces pre designed and appropriate for the scenario. For the record, this is how we play flames of war. It's an absolute blast, and really scratches that creative itch, but it absolutely requires like minded people and a lot of pre game discussion and organisation. It is workable at your mates house on a Friday evening or all day gaming where you can game for six hours, but not so possible with random oponents at the store when you have ninety minutes to play...
Sqorgar wrote: How do points factor in the usefulness of an ability like pathfinder?
Ridiculously easily
There is a recommended amount of terrain to use, and you average the usefulness around that. That is literally the job of a game designer, to work that out. Playtesting helps when thousands of games can be played and you can gauge from people's reactions if it needs to be cheaper or more expensive.
You have this idea that if any two lists at the same points value are not 100% perfectly matched then the whole system is flawed and goes out the window. Every non-GW game on the market proves this wrong.[/qboard
But, is the terrain listed specifically to how many pieces are supposed to block movement as opposed to being hindering? I don't know about wh, but I've seen the look of dismay when my tau playing friend brings out kroot and the table is a cityfight board. An ability is only as good as the table allows it to be. If the only terrain to hide in is in my deployment zone, my striking scorpions are wasting their infiltrate ability, if my opponent doesn't have ap3 or better ranged weapons, my stealth won't come into play. Neither of those things are able to be fixed with points, because if the opposite occurs the unit will be much stronger than the points would suggest.
If the table has the exact same terrain every game to ensure the points were perfect, it would be a board game.
Sqorgar, can I try and sum up what you've been trying to say about points, to see if I understand it? The central idea I'm getting is:
1. points are not primarily a balance mechanism
2. points are primarily a constraint on listbuilding within which players compete to build the most effective list
3. while points can be a rough guide to power level, this function is secondary at best. We can see this with, for instance, the way certain combinations of models synergise without this synergy being reflected in their points costs.
You usually place the blame of a faulty product to the person who made the product, especially when it is shown in other products that it can be done.
Who are you gonna blame if your food is bad? The person who cooked it. You don't put the blame on the person eating the bad food, claiming that he/she is doing it wrong.
I think points work well enough for their intended purpose, if the people playing the game factor that purpose into how they use it. Using your food analogy, it would be like going to a restaurant, ordering a nice dinner, then sticking it in a blender and drinking it through a straw because it was more efficient for digestion - and then complaining that the food didn't taste good. When your only goal is digestion, you tend to make the experience less appetizing for everyone.
You usually place the blame of a faulty product to the person who made the product, especially when it is shown in other products that it can be done.
Who are you gonna blame if your food is bad? The person who cooked it. You don't put the blame on the person eating the bad food, claiming that he/she is doing it wrong.
I think points work well enough for their intended purpose, if the people playing the game factor that purpose into how they use it. Using your food analogy, it would be like going to a restaurant, ordering a nice dinner, then sticking it in a blender and drinking it through a straw because it was more efficient for digestion - and then complaining that the food didn't taste good. When your only goal is digestion, you tend to make the experience less appetizing for everyone.
It's late here so please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong but it sounds like we're back to "Competitive players are having fun wrong".
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Sqorgar, can I try and sum up what you've been trying to say about points, to see if I understand it? The central idea I'm getting is:
1. points are not primarily a balance mechanism
2. points are primarily a constraint on listbuilding within which players compete to build the most effective list
3. while points can be a rough guide to power level, this function is secondary at best. We can see this with, for instance, the way certain combinations of models synergise without this synergy being reflected in their points costs.
Is that correct?
That's a fairly accurate summary of what I've written so far, though I'd go one further and say that points are not, by nature, a balancing mechanism at all, and instead are a scenario generation mechanism. Balance CAN BE the goal of this scenario generator, using points to represent a unit's fighting value, but that it is not necessarily the case.
In Warmachine, for example, warcasters have additional points exclusively for use with warjacks as an incentive to field warjacks. Since every game requires a warcaster, they have zero points. The number of warcasters you can use is instead defined by the total number of points for the army - and even then, as an agreed upon scenario with your opponent. I don't think it is possible for both players to have the same number of points, but a different number of warcasters.
So points can be an incentive or disincentive for certain behaviors completely separate from their representation of a unit's worth to the army. So a better description of points isn't that they create balance, but that they incentivize it. (I'd also add that points tend to incentivize behaviors beyond just army balance, as units not worth their points are not taken or units well worth their cost are taken instead of more varied options).
It's late here so please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong but it sounds like we're back to "Competitive players are having fun wrong".
Not at all. If that's how they want to eat their food, and that's how they like it, then that's fine. It's just that they can't then complain that the food that was created for one purpose was not perfectly suited to a different purpose. I'm lactose intolerant, so I have to remove the cheese from my food and it almost certainly results in an inferior tasting product. But I can't complain that pizza tastes bad once you take all the cheese off.
2. points are primarily a constraint on listbuilding within which players compete to build the most effective list 3. while points can be a rough guide to power level, this function is secondary at best. We can see this with, for instance, the way certain combinations of models synergise without this synergy being reflected in their points costs.
This is basically my position with respect to points. I both love and hate points at the same time for these reasons, because fundamentally, I don't think wargames should be a test of list building skills -- at all.
Of course, one could argue, "but why would a general bring a poorly outfitted army to battle?". I would respond: a general has an idea of what resources their opponent has, and where they are going to do battle. They then formulate what of their own resources they should bring, but not in isolation: they must often consider what resources to allocate to other battles, other theatres, and to hold back for future battles.
Absent the information of who or where, asking a general to bring a crack team for any situation (take all comers, if you will), isn't really a great test of anything, nor is it realistic in any way. From a wargaming perspective, the commander either builds an army that's really good against popular opponents, an army that uses commonly known gimmicks, or some combination thereof. Once in a while, there will be a novel (unusual, unexpected) army, but not often. Even so, that novel army will be formulated with counters to specific, popular threats.
This is why, as a test of battle prowess, I think a battle is best played if the armies are adjusted based on (a) their opponent and (b) the scenario.
On the other hand, our group all likes listbuilding and army building, and building synergies is core to our enjoyment of the game.
So, OUR solution (not to say that anyone else should adopt it) is that we use points as a starting point. Each commander has a extra models not represented in those points. If the battle seems unbalanced -- since we are experienced in 40k and with playing with each other, this is not hard to determine -- the weaker army may add on some extra stuff, sometimes up to 30% more points' worth (or even more, if it's a severely lopsided battle).
I'm not telling people that they're having the "wrong kind of fun" if they think that starting off the battle where one side has an advantage is the way to play -- it's just not the kind of fun that *I* like, which IS a test of skill, but also a relatively equal challenge for both players.
I don't place any 'blame'. I place a 'responsibility' and a 'duty' on game designers to design a robust, healthy, functional and balanced game.
Designers aren't gods. They can not predict that varied different ways that players will use their product. I'd say that if a best effort was made to play within the system, and it doesn't work, then that's the designer's responsibility. If someone uses loopholes and edge cases, the player is to blame for making the game less fun.
As to the comment about instead of patching with other systems, use a different system 'that isnt flawed' - two points.
One. Points and other systems work. So why walk away from it?
Because it doesn't always work, and what it works for may not always coincide with your goals for a product. The Age of Sigmar designers obvious decided that points were at odds with their vision of the product and decided to allow players to make their own, but not to officially endorse a specific system themselves. Some players cannot fathom how such a decision could be made, but others not only have no problem with it, they LIKE it. So you can't say that the decision was objectively wrong.
Two. tell me of this system that 'isnt innately flawed'?
I think different systems work towards different goals, so it isn't a matter of whether something is flawed, but whether it is the most effective tool for the job. I happen to think that points don't work very well in the manner that I would like to play certain games, that they take more away from the experience than they add, so I am not personally tied to any particular point system that I claim is superior.
I rather liked those fake rules proposed a few weeks ago where, after tallying what was in each other's armies, you could take benefits to make up the difference. So, instead of counting a monster as X points, if you have more monsters than you opponent, they get a small bonus to killing monsters. Again, not a perfect system, but it is compatible with the idea of building your army at the table, which point values are not.
How do points factor in the usefulness of pathfinder. Easy. define the requirements per board of what terrain should be there. Make those variables into constants and then you can account for them.
In Warmachine, where players don't tend to play with a lot of varied terrain, that's probably fine. But how would you do that for Age of Sigmar, which can have Skullkeeps next to Ophidian Gates next to Realm Gates - each one with special rules that benefit some units or destroy others. You can't work around a constant terrain variable, so how much is the ability "flying" worth?
Is this you not reading what I've written, or commenting to other people.
That was more directed to everyone. I'm having this conversation with like five different people simultaneously.
Because I've always said that points are just one facet of the overall 'structure'. To me, taking away points is akin to kicking out some of the biggest load bearing columns and foundations of the structure.
Okay. This is a reasonable comment to make. I disagree that points are load bearing, but I can understand how people can come to rely on them. So you acknowledge that points have flaws, but you don't think these flaws are more troublesome than the effort it would take to learn and implement a new system?
Regarding alternative balancing mechanisms, that's where the issues lie. How do you do it. Again, I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. We're both here for a 'fun friendly game'. The narrative pushed here is one has to bend and forfeit 'his' game to accomodate the other. Greatsword guy is tfg if he doesn't bend. It boils down to balance via self policing, self restraint, ans balance via community pressure and social exclusion for those who want to do something different that isn't in fitting with what the group considers fair. Bullying, in other words.
I would argue that compromises can be made on both sides, or that the compromises made may not be as complicated as initially thought. For instance, one way to balance 50 greatswords vs 50 peasants is to allow the peasants to have 5 units of 10 peasants, and the greatswords one unit of 50 greatswords. The added maneuverability of multiple units, mixed with more tactical advantages (retreating ends you turn with one unit, plus the unit cohesion rule makes one large unit difficult to maximize, smaller units less likely to be decimated by battle shock), could give the peasants a better chance of taking on the superior units. I have no idea if this would work in practice, but it would be fun, I think, to find out.
One. Eyeballing balance.
Instead of thinking of it like that, think of it like eyeballing fun to play. Given how varied the units are in AoS, it's very likely you'll see a combination of units that could present an interesting challenge or goal. If winning is your only goal, then yes, I think a neutral third party will be required to keep one opponent from exploiting the other. Points are neutral, but not above exploitation.
Two. Tailor made scenarios with competing forces pre designed and appropriate for the scenario.
I don't think you need pre-designed forces. I think that scenarios provide different goals and different avenues for success. For instance, you could have a historic scenario where one team ended up with 45% casualties and the other 75%, with the goal of each player to lose as many or as few units as possible to most closely reach their percentage. Or another scenario could be one where one player is completely outnumbered, but his success is based on how many units survive for five rounds - perhaps he can take tough units or fast units to stay ahead?
Rather than pretending that everything is about coming out ahead in combat and combat alone, scenarios can underscore the idea that bit mosh-pits in the middle of the table aren't the only way for a play to win.
I don't place any 'blame'. I place a 'responsibility' and a 'duty' on game designers to design a robust, healthy, functional and balanced game.
Designers aren't gods. They can not predict that varied different ways that players will use their product. I'd say that if a best effort was made to play within the system, and it doesn't work, then that's the designer's responsibility. If someone uses loopholes and edge cases, the player is to blame for making the game less fun.
Indeed, thryre not gods. Indeed, they cannot predict how their product will get used. That's why you (a) playtest the hell out of it, utilising said community for feedback and modify as required and (b) maintain the rules set with errata and updates as required.
D
If someone uses loopholes, sure, thryre being a dick. But those loopholes should never have been there in the first place.
As to the comment about instead of patching with other systems, use a different system 'that isnt flawed' - two points.
One. Points and other systems work. So why walk away from it?
Because it doesn't always work, and what it works for may not always coincide with your goals for a product. The Age of Sigmar designers obvious decided that points were at odds with their vision of the product and decided to allow players to make their own, but not to officially endorse a specific system themselves. Some players cannot fathom how such a decision could be made, but others not only have no problem with it, they LIKE it. So you can't say that the decision was objectively wrong.
Of course a points based ststem was 'at odds' with the designers intent. Arguably, the aos designers wanted a product out the door with a minimum investment of both time and effort too. Designing a points based system requires both time and effort and engagement with the community, none of which gw seems interested in. So we end up with what amounts to Lazy game design backed up with comments about 'giving the game to the community'. Thanks, but I can read between the lines.
Two. tell me of this system that 'isnt innately flawed'?
I think different systems work towards different goals, so it isn't a matter of whether something is flawed, but whether it is the most effective tool for the job. I happen to think that points don't work very well in the manner that I would like to play certain games, that they take more away from the experience than they add, so I am not personally tied to any particular point system that I claim is superior.
I rather liked those fake rules proposed a few weeks ago where, after tallying what was in each other's armies, you could take benefits to make up the difference. So, instead of counting a monster as X points, if you have more monsters than you opponent, they get a small bonus to killing monsters. Again, not a perfect system, but it is compatible with the idea of building your army at the table, which point values are not.
No. answer the question please . You said points were an 'innately flawed' system and designers should walk away for a better one. So tell me of a better one. You can't just say that points are an innately flawed ststem and better ones should be used, but then claim it's irrelevant if those other systems are innately flawed as well, because of 'different goals' and then describe a set of rules you like that is 'not a perfect system' as an answer to my question.That's leaning towards being intellectually dishonest.
Deadnight wrote: How do points factor in the usefulness of pathfinder. Easy. define the requirements per board of what terrain should be there. Make those variables into constants and then you can account for them.
In Warmachine, where players don't tend to play with a lot of varied terrain, that's probably fine. But how would you do that for Age of Sigmar, which can have Skullkeeps next to Ophidian Gates next to Realm Gates - each one with special rules that benefit some units or destroy others. You can't work around a constant terrain variable, so how much is the ability "flying" worth?
Not having skullkeeps and ophidian fates and realm gates would Be my first choice.
Alternatively If you want a 'fortress assault' scenario, I don't see why this can't be achieved. You can work around a constant terrain variable so long that that variable is defined (ie no longer variable). How much is flying worth? More than pathfinder.
Is this you not reading what I've written, or commenting to other people.
That was more directed to everyone. I'm having this conversation with like five different people simultaneously.
And quoting me, thereby it's implied you are talking to me. If you are talking to everyone, then please address it to 'everyone'. Saying what you said to my quote above it basically implied you'd not read anything I'd said.
Because I've always said that points are just one facet of the overall 'structure'. To me, taking away points is akin to kicking out some of the biggest load bearing columns and foundations of the structure.
Okay. This is a reasonable comment to make. I disagree that points are load bearing, but I can understand how people can come to rely on them. So you acknowledge that points have flaws, but you don't think these flaws are more troublesome than the effort it would take to learn and implement a new system?
-1 for a brazen attempt to twist my words. Where does saying 'points are one facet of the overall structure' imply points have faults?
Points are an extremely useful structural and balancing tool. Thry very much are load bearing. But they function alongside various other systems. And no, I don't think those flaws are troublesome. Like all tools, Thry have to be used right. Your 'new system' is just as open to faults as well. Points isn't the end of the debate. It isn't the entirely of the solution. And yes, like everything, it takes work and effort, but you end up with a functional product.
As to implementing a new ststem, again, please tell me of this system that doesn't use points that isn't, as you put it earlier 'inherently flawed'? Show me utopia.
Regarding alternative balancing mechanisms, that's where the issues lie. How do you do it. Again, I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. We're both here for a 'fun friendly game'. The narrative pushed here is one has to bend and forfeit 'his' game to accomodate the other. Greatsword guy is tfg if he doesn't bend. It boils down to balance via self policing, self restraint, ans balance via community pressure and social exclusion for those who want to do something different that isn't in fitting with what the group considers fair. Bullying, in other words.
I would argue that compromises can be made on both sides, or that the compromises made may not be as complicated as initially thought. For instance, one way to balance 50 greatswords vs 50 peasants is to allow the peasants to have 5 units of 10 peasants, and the greatswords one unit of 50 greatswords. The added maneuverability of multiple units, mixed with more tactical advantages (retreating ends you turn with one unit, plus the unit cohesion rule makes one large unit difficult to maximize, smaller units less likely to be decimated by battle shock), could give the peasants a better chance of taking on the superior units. I have no idea if this would work in practice, but it would be fun, I think, to find out.
So you don't know if your solution would work in practice. Thanks. Come back and tell me if if does.
Instead of thinking of it like that, think of it like eyeballing fun to play. Given how varied the units are in AoS, it's very likely you'll see a combination of units that could present an interesting challenge or goal. If winning is your only goal, then yes, I think a neutral third party will be required to keep one opponent from exploiting the other. Points are neutral, but not above exploitation.
So eyeballing balance, plus neutral third party/gm. We do this in our group actually. Again, it can work which is why I brought it up as a solution. But it falls back on the argument where it requires a lot of work. In this case, a third player.
Two. Tailor made scenarios with competing forces pre designed and appropriate for the scenario.
I don't think you need pre-designed forces. I think that scenarios provide different goals and different avenues for success. For instance, you could have a historic scenario where one team ended up with 45% casualties and the other 75%, with the goal of each player to lose as many or as few units as possible to most closely reach their percentage. Or another scenario could be one where one player is completely outnumbered, but his success is based on how many units survive for five rounds - perhaps he can take tough units or fast units to stay ahead?.
I apologise. By pre designed lists, I mean lists appropriate and themed/ specific to the scenario being played, rather than 'blind' lists or 'bring whatever you want, because it's in the codex'. Various winning conditions can also be applied.
Rather than pretending that everything is about coming out ahead in combat and combat alone, scenarios can underscore the idea that bit mosh-pits in the middle of the table aren't the only way for a play to win.
Indeed. They can gunline from their deployment zone like sixth ed tau, not move and roll dice for six turns!
If someone uses loopholes, sure, thryre being a dick. But those loopholes should never have been there in the first place.
If I may intersect just for a second, even if what I say isn't exactly what you're arguing about. Predicting and finding loopholes is not that trivial. Users of all kind are a very clever bunch. I'm just wondering if at some point the designers of AoS scrapped the idea of trying to be exact in their layout of the rules in favour of making them digestible to a common non-wargamer person. You know, except you go to ugly lengths in being very exact when writing your rules (and I can show you how exact such rules can be by posting a short ASL paragraph) you may never be certain about fool proofing 100% your system so you might instead try and make it accessible. Carry on
If someone uses loopholes, sure, thryre being a dick. But those loopholes should never have been there in the first place.
If I may intersect just for a second, even if what I say isn't exactly what you're arguing about. Predicting and finding loopholes is not that trivial. Users of all kind are a very clever bunch. I'm just wondering if at some point the designers of AoS scrapped the idea of trying to be exact in their layout of the rules in favour of making them digestible to a common non-wargamer person.
Which is the pr version of basically investing minimal time and effort into a rule set for maximum return.
In other words 'let's not bother, let the sheep scream and moan and try and figure something out'.
Probably not to be fair, but it's worth thinking cynically for a second.
Well, my point was more about the design team coming to terms with the fact that writing extremely fool proof rules is either not that necessary or not worth it. I have no doubts, though, that there was a directive from above concerning the length of the rules and making them more accessible to a wider audience for maximum profit . I don't hold it against them though - maximizing profit is what every company tries to do. Imagine having only heard of GW and knowing that they make miniatures. You open your morning column and read the following "GW, a company known for its games that required from the gamer to read 100+ pages of rules just released their newest game having succeeded in putting down the rules on just four sheets of paper!". It's a terrific advertisement on its own.
I feel the better system is the one where we get to lay a game without me eating into my prep time for DND to build my army list.
I feel the better system is the one my wife enjoys playing enough to get multiple games in a month.
I feel the better system is the one where my friend and I can just bring a box of minis to a table and expect to play an even game without worrying about hard counter lists. Especially when we don't have to discuss it ahead of time.
I much prefer age of sigmar to any other fantasy wargame.
CoreCommander wrote: Well, my point was more about the design team coming in terms with the fact that writing extremely fool proof rules is either not that necessary or not worth it. I have no doubts, though, that there was a directive from above concerning the length of the rules and making them more accessible to a wider audience for maximum profit. Imagine having only heard of GW and knowing that they make miniatures. You open your morning column and read the following "GW, a company known for its games that required from the gamer to read 100+ pages of rules just released their newest game having succeeded in putting down the rules in just four sheets of paper". It's a terrific advertisement on its own.
I don't see it as 'terrific' though, to be fair. The cynic in me asks 'well, what have they cut out?' Is cutting out 96% of the rules a good thing? Shrug.
And don't worry - I do get it. I do see sense in having a very basic four page set of rules and I get what kind of games they're trying to push and the players they're trying to push it on- a very large part of non wargamers and people for whom a very basic and simpler/straightforward set of mechanics is preferable. For me, I prefer complex games with a lot of moving parts and interesting things going on. I can also see them trying to push away a certain section of the playerbase, rather than attempting to accomodate them. I don't necessarily see this as a good idea. (my biggest issue is the rules set is kinda boring and uninteresting. I'd have much preferred it to have been based on the lotr engine with some kind of reaction mechanism).
Playing those types of games myself (with flames of war btw), I'll even applaud them to an extent, because I see value in a game ecology and a gaming attitude that isn't 'decide on x points, roll scenario and go!' and helps foster a player attitude that is more proactive in creating and adapting their games to suit themselves as well as doing new things and playing, designing and talking about new and interesting scenario types (I'd just prefer if the game mechanics themselves were more bloody interesting!). If anything, I see it as a criticism of the playerbase that they essentially need to be told by, and given permission by gw to do this, before they'll go off and do these things. Then again, I am highly critical of gamers as a whole, so that's probably just me.
The thing is, this isn't new, or revolutionary gaming (historical gamers have always done these kinds of things), and for all the value in playing this way, it has a host of problems and issues and isn't always a 'go to' kind of option when it comes to 'what kind of game will we play tonight brain?'
In a similar way, it's taking players used to a certain 'type' of game into the wilderness, and its expecting them to find their own way, rather than giving them a compass at the very least, or at best proper gear. There are limited 'guides' in how to play differently- you know, with gw not communicating and all. They're expecting te players to somehow just 'get it' and change Their entire culture, and way of gaming with no help or direction. Of course people are peeved. Some direction would be nice, methinks. I've been lucky - those guys I played fow with are historical gamers that have been hiding in basements since the 70s. Great guys and they opened me up to new games, and new ways of playing and I'm wuite thankful for the experience. I can appreciate the merits of the type of game aos tries to be. Sadly, not every former player has had this 'apprenticeship' and consequently, (and arguably rightly so) doesn't see any value in it, or what can be achieved with it.
Indeed, thryre not gods. Indeed, they cannot predict how their product will get used. That's why you (a) playtest the hell out of it, utilising said community for feedback and modify as required and (b) maintain the rules set with errata and updates as required.
I'm against the use of errata, as I feel like it favors the more hardcore players. It kind of sucks when you get a game for the first time and there's already 10 pages of errata for it that you don't know about, because you are new and aren't as familiar with the communities or even know to look at the website for updated rules. I've been playing Warmachine for months and if they had not released new errata, I wouldn't have known there was old errata I wasn't using! I think the idea of a living rulebook is not something you can update equally across all players, of all involvement in the game.
(I hate how Warmachine's errata is. Rather than releasing a "rules pack" or something, it uses a patching format where you get stuff like, "Page 94, replace the second line with '...'", which makes it so you can't get a clear picture as to what was changed in context without cross referencing a dozen pages. Something like the Netrunner errata is even worse, since it is almost 20 pages long, with dozens and dozens of cards affected in relatively minor ways)
I don't have a better solution, but I just think that errata is not the best way to balance an imperfect game. Ideally, you wouldn't release an imperfect game, but that's just not realistic. But that's neither here nor there. This is only relevant in that I think balancing a game after the fact is far more problematic than it may initially seem.
Of course a points based ststem was 'at odds' with the designers intent. Arguably, the aos designers wanted a product out the door with a minimum investment of both time and effort too. Designing a points based system requires both time and effort and engagement with the community, none of which gw seems interested in. So we end up with what amounts to Lazy game design backed up with comments about 'giving the game to the community'. Thanks, but I can read between the lines.
I honestly don't think it was laziness, but instead an effort to put no constraints on how you play at all. There's no limits on what you can bring or how much. Want to bring 30 units of 100 models each? Go for it. I think it shows a lot of faith in the players to be able to do that. Frankly, it is was laziness, they would've put some sort of half assed limitation in the game, like bring X warscrolls or something. Since they didn't, I have to assume that no constraint was a deliberate, ideological choice.
No. answer the question please . You said points were an 'innately flawed' system and designers should walk away for a better one. So tell me of a better one. You can't just say that points are an innately flawed ststem and better ones should be used, but then claim it's irrelevant if those other systems are innately flawed as well, because of 'different goals'. That's being intellectually dishonest.
I have half the mind to not answer this question. You seem so sure you've got me in an unwinnable situation that it would drive you nuts if I never answered it.
I'll answer it though, but probably not to your satisfaction. I doubt anything I say could convince you one way or another, so I'll simply present how I see the situation, as it applies to my personal interests.
I don't think you can balance something like Age of Sigmar because it is infinitely expandable. The only way to truly balance a game for fairness is if you have a limited, known number of units up front, in predictable situations. For instance, you can only balance warscrolls if each warscroll was designed to be equivalent in power. They are not. You can not balance against wounds, as wounds are not equally easy to achieve between units. You can't balance against models, keywords, or whatever. Not completely.
So you have an open system that is always changing in which none of the individual components are comparable. How do you balance apples vs oranges? You can't, because there is no basis for how many apples an orange is worth. And what happens when you start getting pears and pineapples? You can compare them based on things like weight or cost or calories, but there's just no accounting for taste, which is the important thing. You may be able to have 5 pineapple slices for the cost of 1 apple slice, but that doesn't mean you want the pineapple slices more. So, in this case, points would be detrimental because they they can not accurately compare one fruit with another.
Age of Sigmar is the same way. It can not be balanced without constantly updating the balancing rules. A unit which is somewhat worthless now could become much more useful later with a new release. Or, battalion warscrolls, for example, improve collections of various units, meaning that there could be battalions that significantly change the effectiveness of the units within it. And GW is releasing new rules like CRAZY. We're talking multiple warscrolls for a piece of scenery! New scenarios and battalions in every book. Multiple versions of multiple units every week. How do you create points for something like that?
So if you have a game in which any attempts to balance it would end up hampering its viability in the long run (without releasing errata or updating warscrolls), the only way you can balance the game is one battle at a time. In this battle, on this table, with these units, against this opponent - this is a fair fight. AoS is a game of pieces - not just units, but terrain, factions, battalions, realm rules - that the designers want you to mix and match in every way to create the game you want to play. And there is no way to put a point value on that without constraining one's creativity in some way. If a player prefers apples, why incentivize him to eat pineapples?
So, for what AoS wants to do, points aren't just imperfect, they are detrimental. And the best alternative - the one with no innate flaws as a system - is to have no constraints at all. To let it be situational and up to the players. I'm sure you'll argue that the players are then the problem, but they are not a systematic flaw. There is no system. It's entirely situational. Even the rules are situational. If you find yourself in a good situation, it will be amazing. I think what most of the AoS deniers argue is that you won't be in a good situation or can't guarantee being in a good situation, but I think they come from an ideological place rather than a practical one. Maybe AoS can't guarantee a good opponent, but maybe it is really good in pointing out that bad ones before you play? (and for some players, that's even better)
So you don't know if your solution would work in practice. Thanks. Come back and tell me if if does.
I said I don't know if it would work, but it would be fun to find out. As in, I don't know how fair the fight would ultimately be, but I think it would be a fun and interesting fight regardless.
I can't help but think that we want different things from our games. You want to, if not win, at least know how to win, as it defines how you think and act. I don't care about winning and want to be presented with a series of interesting decisions that I can experiment with in order to watch the mechanisms of gameplay interact. I would not play a game that I knew how to win, but presented the same scenario and choices every game.
To me, a game like Warmachine is only fun if people use vastly different units each game - I, myself, own five different armies. The people I play against will use the exact same army and units every battle, trying to maximize their effectiveness in different situations - to which, I alone am responsible for providing. I'm happy to do it, but the game will get very old, very quickly for me if it is strictly about competing through familiarity.
Indeed, thryre not gods. Indeed, they cannot predict how their product will get used. That's why you (a) playtest the hell out of it, utilising said community for feedback and modify as required and (b) maintain the rules set with errata and updates as required.
I'm against the use of errata, as I feel like it favors the more hardcore players. It kind of sucks when you get a game for the first time and there's already 10 pages of errata for it that you don't know about, because you are new and aren't as familiar with the communities or even know to look at the website for updated rules. I've been playing Warmachine for months and if they had not released new errata, I wouldn't have known there was old errata I wasn't using! I think the idea of a living rulebook is not something you can update equally across all players, of all involvement in the game.
(I hate how Warmachine's errata is. Rather than releasing a "rules pack" or something, it uses a patching format where you get stuff like, "Page 94, replace the second line with '...'", which makes it so you can't get a clear picture as to what was changed in context without cross referencing a dozen pages. Something like the Netrunner errata is even worse, since it is almost 20 pages long, with dozens and dozens of cards affected in relatively minor ways)
I don't have a better solution, but I just think that errata is not the best way to balance an imperfect game. Ideally, you wouldn't release an imperfect game, but that's just not realistic. But that's neither here nor there. This is only relevant in that I think balancing a game after the fact is far more problematic than it may initially seem.
You not liking a solution doesn't invalidate it's effectiveness. Don't be so quick to dismiss.
Your personal preferences aside, which is what it amounts to essentially, errata are a very viable solution to update issues and to help maintain a balanced game. Patches have been a thing for a long time now.
I honestly don't think it was laziness, but instead an effort to put no constraints on how you play at all. There's no limits on what you can bring or how much. Want to bring 30 units of 100 models each? Go for it. I think it shows a lot of faith in the players to be able to do that. Frankly, it is was laziness, they would've put some sort of half assed limitation in the game, like bring X warscrolls or something. Since they didn't, I have to assume that no constraint was a deliberate, ideological choice.
Oh don't worry - I see that side of the argument as well. It's one of the things I like about what aos tries to do.
I have half the mind to not answer this question. You seem so sure you've got me in an unwinnable situation that it would drive you nuts if I never answered it.
Not really. You don't know me bud. I don't generally appreciate folks assuming they know what I'm thinking. This is arguing on the Internet. You not answering won't drive me 'nuts', as you claim so please, dont try and be smug. I asked that question out of genuine interest. You did seem to dodge the question, and twisted my words elsewhere in how you dismiss points as 'innately flawed' but welcome systems that are just as flawed . I genuinely appreciate the answer.
I'll answer it though, but probably not to your satisfaction. I doubt anything I say could convince you one way or another, so I'll simply present how I see the situation, as it applies to my personal interests.
I don't think you can balance something like Age of Sigmar because it is infinitely expandable. The only way to truly balance a game for fairness is if you have a limited, known number of units up front, in predictable situations. For instance, you can only balance warscrolls if each warscroll was designed to be equivalent in power. They are not. You can not balance against wounds, as wounds are not equally easy to achieve between units. You can't balance against models, keywords, or whatever. Not completely.
So you have an open system that is always changing in which none of the individual components are comparable. How do you balance apples vs oranges? You can't, because there is no basis for how many apples an orange is worth. And what happens when you start getting pears and pineapples? You can compare them based on things like weight or cost or calories, but there's just no accounting for taste, which is the important thing. You may be able to have 5 pineapple slices for the cost of 1 apple slice, but that doesn't mean you want the pineapple slices more. So, in this case, points would be detrimental because they they can not accurately compare one fruit with another.
Age of Sigmar is the same way. It can not be balanced without constantly updating the balancing rules. A unit which is somewhat worthless now could become much more useful later with a new release. Or, battalion warscrolls, for example, improve collections of various units, meaning that there could be battalions that significantly change the effectiveness of the units within it. And GW is releasing new rules like CRAZY. We're talking multiple warscrolls for a piece of scenery! New scenarios and battalions in every book. Multiple versions of multiple units every week. How do you create points for something like that?
So if you have a game in which any attempts to balance it would end up hampering its viability in the long run (without releasing errata or updating warscrolls), the only way you can balance the game is one battle at a time. In this battle, on this table, with these units, against this opponent - this is a fair fight. AoS is a game of pieces - not just units, but terrain, factions, battalions, realm rules - that the designers want you to mix and match in every way to create the game you want to play. And there is no way to put a point value on that without constraining one's creativity in some way. If a player prefers apples, why incentivize him to eat pineapples?
So, for what AoS wants to do, points aren't just imperfect, they are detrimental. And the best alternative - the one with no innate flaws as a system - is to have no constraints at all. To let it be situational and up to the players. I'm sure you'll argue that the players are then the problem, but they are not a systematic flaw. There is no system. It's entirely situational. Even the rules are situational. If you find yourself in a good situation, it will be amazing. I think what most of the AoS deniers argue is that you won't be in a good situation or can't guarantee being in a good situation, but I think they come from an ideological place rather than a practical one. Maybe AoS can't guarantee a good opponent, but maybe it is really good in pointing out that bad ones before you play? (and for some players, that's even better)
So basically, the tl:dr is it's too big to balance. Personal taste. New stuff could shake things up. it's better to eyeball it for every game in order to achieve fun. And errata are bad because of personal preference. Ok, got it. And thank you.
Bear in mind, all games are infinitely expandable, new stuff does shake things up but can be costed right as well. And for what it's worth, errata are a solution.
So genuine question, (and bear in mind, I play this way with fow) how do you mix and match for a 'fair game' in aos? Surely, eyeballing it is as prone to error as the 'innately flawed' points system? Or for you, is the creativity this approach allows worth the error rate?
So you have an open system that is always changing in which none of the individual components are comparable. How do you balance apples vs oranges? You can't, because there is no basis for how many apples an orange is worth. And what happens when you start getting pears and pineapples? You can compare them based on things like weight or cost or calories, but there's just no accounting for taste, which is the important thing. You may be able to have 5 pineapple slices for the cost of 1 apple slice, but that doesn't mean you want the pineapple slices more. So, in this case, points would be detrimental because they they can not accurately compare one fruit with another..
To be fair, we are not talking about different fruits. We are talking about game elements sharing the same system. And you can design a universal currency and a system to value and weight them all.
So, for what AoS wants to do, points aren't just imperfect, they are detrimental. And the best alternative - the one with no innate flaws as a system - is to have no constraints at all. To let it be situational and up to the players. I'm sure you'll argue that the players are then the problem, but they are not a systematic flaw. There is no system. It's entirely situational. Even the rules are situational. If you find yourself in a good situation, it will be amazing. I think what most of the AoS deniers argue is that you won't be in a good situation or can't guarantee being in a good situation, but I think they come from an ideological place rather than a practical one. Maybe AoS can't guarantee a good opponent, but maybe it is really good in pointing out that bad ones before you play? (and for some players, that's even better)
Actually, you are partially incorrect. Since The players define and essentially are 'the system' in aos, then thry can be a systematic flaw. All you need is for someone to say 'no' or make a bad judgement call and you end up with a rubbish game. I do see value in it, but it also has potential to be 'innately flawed' to me.
I can't help but think that we want different things from our games. You want to, if not win, at least know how to win, as it defines how you think and act. I don't care about winning and want to be presented with a series of interesting decisions that I can experiment with in order to watch the mechanisms of gameplay interact. I would not play a game that I knew how to win, but presented the same scenario and choices every game.
This is the second time you try to assume how I think. Please don't. You don't know me. And for what it's worth, I don't see it as a zero/sumvor mutually exclusive. those two things you describe, I actually want both, in equal measure. Regarding wanting to know how to win 'defines how I think' is quite presumptuous of you. You don't know me.
To me, a game like Warmachine is only fun if people use vastly different units each game - I, myself, own five different armies. The people I play against will use the exact same army and units every battle, trying to maximize their effectiveness in different situations - to which, I alone am responsible for providing. I'm happy to do it, but the game will get very old, very quickly for me if it is strictly about competing through familiarity.
Sounds like your WMH group is very uncreative and unimaginative. It's a shame really - best thing about the game, IMO is trying out new stuff. Right there in page5.
For what it's worth, I appreciate your answers. Many thanks.
So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.
I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?.
There is not an innate flaw in points.
The designers design the game. The game is a logical mathematical system with a solution that can be described by the points system. By definition, a properly designed points system absolutely would factor in all the synergies etc that are controllable by the designer.
If the game allows a desert army to be composed entirely of unarmed pontoon bridge engineers, with a points value of X, which is equal to X points of tanks, infantry and artillery, that is a choice by the designer.
A sensible player would not choose to compose their army entirely of useless units, but if the designer wanted to prevent this from ever happening, they could write a force selection system that stops the player from taking more than one pontoon train.
AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.
I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?.
There is not an innate flaw in points.
The designers design the game. The game is a logical mathematical system with a solution that can be described by the points system. By definition, a properly designed points system absolutely would factor in all the synergies etc that are controllable by the designer.
If the game allows a desert army to be composed entirely of unarmed pontoon bridge engineers, with a points value of X, which is equal to X points of tanks, infantry and artillery, that is a choice by the designer.
A sensible player would not choose to compose their army entirely of useless units, but if the designer wanted to prevent this from ever happening, they could write a force selection system that stops the player from taking more than one pontoon train.
You might need to be more precise what you mean by a "logical mathematical system". Assigning a point value to a model or unit that has subjective value (context dependent), and then using these points as if they were scalar values is gibberish (mathematically speaking). If units in the armies have "true values" that are reasonably close together, and/or you use other balancing mechanism such as FOCs to help limit the damage, then you can end up with a system that makes balanced games a lot of the time. Of course, it's often not perfect, but what is?
If you're not sure what I'm talking about with this "scalar value", let me give an example from Amazon's rating system. A book has a score of 4.5 stars, that is derived because lots of people gave the book 4 or 5 stars, but a few people gave it 1 or 2 stars. These scores are ordinal values - 5 is better than 4 is better than 3... Showing them in the bar chart is perfectly sensible and appropriate, but as soon as Amazon compute the average, they stuffed up. It's fine as a marketing tool, but is gibberish mathematically speaking. Instead of using a 1-5 a scale, suppose they used an A-E scale. It's the same measure, but obviously Amazon wouldn't try to compute the average of lots of letters - nor should they do it with numbers. You CAN do things like add up, take averages, etc, with scalar values (eg, height).
So the trick for a game designer is to come up with a scalar points system that (reasonably) accurately models the units in the armies, taking into account objective and subjective qualities. Even allowing for an FOC-type structure, this is quite challenging for games with the breadth of model/unit power we see in AoS, WHFB, 40k, etc.
So back to points being a logical, mathematical system, you're quite correct, as long as they don't get abused through ignorance.
MWHistorian wrote: AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"
MWHistorian wrote: AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice. That's fine. Different taste and all. But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base. Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"
What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.
Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.
MWHistorian wrote: AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"
What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.
Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.
and for some that is not the case, a lot of wargamers dare I say most play to recreate real battles and to have fun, if you are a wargamer and you try to recreate a historical French battle its not like you expect to win as the French ( ) this I say with the assumption that most wargamers do not play fantasy style games... Again AoS is great for pickup gamers if both are seeking the same outcome as you, assuming most wargamers are trying to one up other players is just that, an assumption... AoS is simply a different styled wargame than what you want in a wargame... Seek another... Its good as a pickup game and bad dependent on the players, I find list building boring, tedious and a waste of time... But that is just me... Maybe that is why the things I bought reflect me not caring about lists (steam tank, dwarf engineer, empire engineer on steed, hellpit, savage orc, spirit hosts, flamers, cairn wraith, necromancer, AoS starter box.. Which I got for the stormcasts, will trade the khorne ones for other things... Celestant makes for a great hero)
You not liking a solution doesn't invalidate it's effectiveness. Don't be so quick to dismiss.
Which is pretty much what I've been saying about not having points in AoS. I think points are an albatross around wargaming's neck, but to a lot of people, it is more like a sacred cow.
So basically, the tl:dr is it's too big to balance.
Not too big, too situational. As in, a single number can not encompass all the variables required to evaluate a unit's value in a given situation.
CCGs are probably the closest games in this situation, as they are very situational in nature + endless expansions, and they don't use points. They let you use any card (though some limit how many copies), and the players decide guidelines (not rules) for creating effective decks. Stuff like, half the deck should be resource cards. Some games require you to make multiple decks. I think L5R has you build two different types of decks of 30 cards each, together making a 60 card deck. Star Trek CCG has two decks (seed decks for building the game space and adventure decks for the ships and crew members that play in it) and can have multiple different side decks of ten cards or so for various purposes.
While it doesn't create completely balanced game, the random nature of the CCGs mixed with the engine building aspect means that hard counters are guaranteed to show up at the right time and that more powerful cards tend to come out later in the game, so the games tend to go for a while before becoming completely one sided. Wargames just put all the units on the table from the get go, so your $100+ tank that you love is instantly worthless if your opponent fields its counter unit.
So genuine question, (and bear in mind, I play this way with fow) how do you mix and match for a 'fair game' in aos? Surely, eyeballing it is as prone to error as the 'innately flawed' points system? Or for you, is the creativity this approach allows worth the error rate?
I don't think AoS has a strict RPS style dependency. Where one unit is better at doing something, it is only slightly better - to the point where synergies can be overcome with brute force or tactical maneuvering. In that way, I don't think you need to really account for the worth of each model, but instead just need to limit their number in some way.
I think wound counts work well enough. Most people I've heard from seem to think it works well. Actually, I don't think I've heard of it not working. Has anyone tried using wounds and it didn't result in a halfway decent game?
Actually, you are partially incorrect. Since The players define and essentially are 'the system' in aos, then thry can be a systematic flaw. All you need is for someone to say 'no' or make a bad judgement call and you end up with a rubbish game. I do see value in it, but it also has potential to be 'innately flawed' to me.
Well, I think a system which, when used as intended, results in a bad game to be more flawed than a bad player. After all, you can just not play with bad players, but there's nothing you can do to ever make your favorite model worth its given points.
Sounds like your WMH group is very uncreative and unimaginative. It's a shame really - best thing about the game, IMO is trying out new stuff. Right there in page5.
Oh, they are very uncreative and unimaginative. It drives me nuts. The thing is, though, they don't seem to be particularly out of character with the online sentiments I see from other players. It's possible to hear a discussion about army design from one of them and then read the exact same discussion online a week later - a separate group of unrelated people thinking the same thoughts completely independent of each other. This has happened twice so far, and I think it is a bit creepy actually.
MWHistorian wrote: AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"
What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.
Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.
As someone who relies almost exclusively on pick up games, your views are very inaccurate about them, Talys.
What makes AOS very bad for pick up games, is the pre-negotiation before the battle with a complete stranger. It's easy to do so with a close knit group of friends. But that trying to get an even battle with someone that has different ideas of "fair" is quite difficult. Also, the idea of bringing your collection instead of a tighter thought out army makes transportation a hassle. The rules out of box are somewhat lacking and houseruling is also difficult with a stranger.
MWHistorian wrote: AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"
What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.
Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.
As someone who relies almost exclusively on pick up games, your views are very inaccurate about them, Talys.
What makes AOS very bad for pick up games, is the pre-negotiation before the battle with a complete stranger. It's easy to do so with a close knit group of friends. But that trying to get an even battle with someone that has different ideas of "fair" is quite difficult. Also, the idea of bringing your collection instead of a tighter thought out army makes transportation a hassle. The rules out of box are somewhat lacking and houseruling is also difficult with a stranger.
so far I have found it pretty easy to do it with strangers and if that fails I would let the gods of dice decide as it clearly says in the rules or "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" if 2 players cannot come a conclusion, roll a dice, winner concludes... I mean its a lot harder for 2 strangers to ignore a written rule then to add one in, imagine a player coming to play a game but he says "can we ignore the X rule because X and Y"... I am sure you could roll a dice and decide if it stays but then most players play as is written, and AoS writes clearly "talk with your opponent" the rules demand discussions
What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.
Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.
As someone who relies almost exclusively on pick up games, your views are very inaccurate about them, Talys.
What makes AOS very bad for pick up games, is the pre-negotiation before the battle with a complete stranger. It's easy to do so with a close knit group of friends. But that trying to get an even battle with someone that has different ideas of "fair" is quite difficult. Also, the idea of bringing your collection instead of a tighter thought out army makes transportation a hassle. The rules out of box are somewhat lacking and houseruling is also difficult with a stranger.
Please keep in mind that I'm not saying that ALL people who enjoy pickup games are like this. I'm not making a claim on any ratio of players who like to gain an advantage by list-building, nor am I saying there is anything wrong with it. Quite to the contrary, 95%+ of Hearthstone players are like this, and a huge chunk of Magic players. I'm this way on PC games.
All I'm saying is that AoS is a huge turnoff to people who want to list-to-win war games, and that a massive portion of that is netlisting rather than novel armies.
To address your point about difficulties with playing with strangers, I've now played about 9-10 AoS games, some with strangers, or at least people I've never played with. It's really easy to arrive at equivalence. It takes like, a few minutes at most. And really, we've not had any problems RAW other than measure from base. I will happily concede that games with friends are easier to figure out, though tbh, the main reason to play with friends for me is that I like playing in a home rather than in a club/store, prefer playing with people who really enjoy well-painted models, and prefer to NOT bump into the occasional waste-of-time game.
Honestly, when I first read the AoS rules I felt like crying. Seriously, they've changed everything about the game we loved. But then played a few games (completely destroyed a HE army without my skaven losing a single wound, or even getting hit ), saw how epic my WoC look in lose formation, and realized its an absolutely amazing game. I still think its missing stuff (Templates, blasts,MOAR SPELLS) but still, it's fun. I'm keeping all my models on square bases, except my new Bloodreavers, so I can still play WHFB. Just give AoS a chance, Mabey you'll like it
What I mean by a logical mathematical system is that an inch is an inch. A unit with a movement value of 6 inches is more valuable than a unit with a movement value of four inches.
Similarly, a unit that puts out more damage than another unit is more valuable. A unit with more hit points is harder to kill and therefore more valuable.
These are all mathematical measurements that have effect objectively on the table top. Subject to the variation of luck and player decisions, the game will play out according to these objective factors.
Kilkrazy wrote: What I mean by a logical mathematical system is that an inch is an inch. A unit with a movement value of 6 inches is more valuable than a unit with a movement value of four inches.
Similarly, a unit that puts out more damage than another unit is more valuable. A unit with more hit points is harder to kill and therefore more valuable.
These are all mathematical measurements that have effect objectively on the table top. Subject to the variation of luck and player decisions, the game will play out according to these objective factors.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant and you're 100% correct. You've highlighted the key issue for developing a points system - 6" move > 4" move, 4 damage > 2 damage, summon 2x per turn > once per turn, and so on, are objectively true but assigning a point value to the relation "is more valuable than", and then combining a bunch of these to derive the point value of a model/unit is really quite the trick.
IF your model/unit types are fairly homogeneous, you can probably get away with it, but for units that have wildly varying stats and abilities you're basically pissing in the wind. It's in this sense that trying to assign points to units is fatally flawed because you end up making up all sorts of bogus "rules" for how things fit together. Play-testing can sometimes help to hack the points allocation to adjust for the grossest errors, but there's always holes you can drive a truck through - a lot of folks like these holes, because that's where the net-lists live....
PS. I am not opposed to points and comp systems when they help me and my friends play put together exciting games. I don't like them when they produce lop-sided games, which is all too frequent in my opinion.
PPS. Not that I think NO structure makes it easy to make good games - different challenge altogether....
One reason may be that you just can't put a point value on certain things in a given context. I'll give you an example. DZC is using points very well. Yes they come with a whole lot bunch of restrictions, units aren't that unique from one another, you have to take some units (and if you you just can't play the game and will lose without question), but on the large they provide what most people defending here are looking for: a size estimate for an army with which no army should have the upper hand just by means of army construction. There are some counters and bad matches, but they'll not in be the scope of my example. For all the effort the designer has put into the point system, there is one fact that is widely accepted (well as widely as there are players and there aren't that many for now ) - Shaltari (a somewhat 40k eldar equivalent)dominate the tournaments more often than not. This is due to a combination of a passive 5+ invulnerable (that may be boosted) and more importantly, due to their teleporting mechanic (mostly troops). There was some point increases (and decreases) to some units, but the status quo remains mostly the same. How one can balance that with points? Increase the point cost of non-transports and other armies will trample over them with sheer firepower. You may be mobile but anywhere you go there will be 5 tanks waiting for your two. Increase the point cost of transports and the shaltari are suddenly left with isolated pockets of slow moving walkers or paper-thin tanks (their transports are already on the high end of the point scale). This is something, I think, points can't fix in full. I'd love to be proved wrong and to see Dave&co think of a solution, though.
Bottom line is, the units above have point values, but their functionality is so much apart from everything else in the game that their cost loses its meaning.
jonolikespie wrote: Why are so many people arguing that points and balance can't work when there are SO MANY examples of it working wonderfully?
Well, I'm not sure about that. But my stance has always been that points are fine and not having points is fine too. I've mostly been defending the latter by showing that points aren't perfect in many ways and could actually be detrimental to certain types of games. They also don't actually create balance, which is why most people seem to favor them so much. They act as limitations for army building and work more to incentivize choices.
That being said, I don't mind points in general. I don't love them though and welcome novel approaches.
IF your model/unit types are fairly homogeneous, you can probably get away with it, but for units that have wildly varying stats and abilities you're basically pissing in the wind. It's in this sense that trying to assign points to units is fatally flawed because you end up making up all sorts of bogus "rules" for how things fit together. Play-testing can sometimes help to hack the points allocation to adjust for the grossest errors, but there's always holes you can drive a truck through - a lot of folks like these holes, because that's where the net-lists live....
Speaking as a games designer (who has done some small work on GW games in the past), this is not untrue by any stretch.
We (games designers and, looking at these posts, many of you) have known that points systems are not only not 100% accurate (and thus 100% balanced) but that they cannot be. This is for several reasons, but they include synergies between units and their interaction with opposing units.
For example, the three Land Raider problem, something that was recognised during 3rd ed (and maybe before that, would have been before my time as a writer). One Land Raider probably is worth 250 points in most battles. But once you add a second, both are worth just a little bit more, as most armies can deal with one heavily armoured vehicle but two is a bigger problem. Add a third Land Raider and the problem starts compounding.
Those three Land Raiders are creating their own synergy that is not in the rules and, more to the point, is . That starts getting very, very hard to quantify.
Imagine the humble Grot for a moment. Aside from maybe providing cover to another unit (and how will we measure that in points?), he has no value against those Land Raiders (certainly nothing you can measure without using decimal points). Get enough of his mates together though, and they will cause a Tactical Squad problems. This would be an (extreme) example of interactions between armies.
Or the Drop Pod. Its value certainly changes depending on whether you put a Tactical Squad inside or Centurions. And it will change again, depending on what you arm them with (which, again, will be affected by the force they are pitted against).
On top of all that, once you add player skill to the mix, things go right out of the window. You cannot put a points value on player skill - more importantly, it cannot effectively be measured. Once you add the random element of these games (dice), it gets buried further. Imagine, for example, two players playing a game then having it discussed afterwards among the onlookers. They divide between those who say the victor was skilful, while others say the loser was unlucky on his dice rolls (as an aside, Jervis did a great article in a not-so-recent White Dwarf about luck and the perceptions of players, but I digress). If you fancy some introspection, think about your own games and why you won/lost them.
There seems to be a thought in this thread that all these numbers can just be popped into a computer and it will spew out the correct points values for every unit - and that GW is a little bit simple for not doing so. Unfortunately, that does not work. It has been tried. People just started feeding those same figures into another computer which provided them with optimum builds, and the cycle continues.
As a games designer, wanting to keep everything accessible, you use averages. Sometimes this means starting with an actual formula for calculating points (Battlefleet Gothic did - which is why those core cruisers are so close in points - and the 1st edition Warhammers did). Another method (one I like myself) is to pick a base line unit (or units), set that at 100 points and then base every other unit in the game in an around that via playtesting - that is effectively doing things 'by eye' which I am fairly certain is how GW have done things for a long stretch and, though it sounds terribly, it is done because 99% of the time, it works. Doing this every day of your working life gives you a sense of what will work and what won't. However, the goal is to build that framework that will cater to the 99%. I really don't want to sound poncey about this, but there is an element of art involved, even when you are dealing with hard mechanics. It ain't just about the maths.
There is no magic wand for points systems and resulting balance. There cannot be because of the wide variations within these games and because you buggers will always try to find the road less travelled It comes down to creating a platform within the context of an entire army that allows two reasonable players to come together and enjoy a game without things being too lopsided. At the end of the day, that is the goal.
Anyway, I am starting to waffle now, so I'll bow out...
On top of all that, once you add player skill to the mix, things go right out of the window. You cannot put a points value on player skill - more importantly, it cannot effectively be measured. Once you add the random element of these games (dice), it gets buried further. Imagine, for example, two players playing a game then having it discussed afterwards among the onlookers. They divide between those who say the victor was skilful, while others say the loser was unlucky on his dice rolls (as an aside, Jervis did a great article in a not-so-recent White Dwarf about luck and the perceptions of players, but I digress). If you fancy some introspection, think about your own games and why you won/lost them.
Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
The purpose of points is to allow two players of roughly equal skill to have a fair game.
Roughly, because (as the second part of the above paragraph talks about) chance enters into the game. Chance has nothing to do with points.
Your whole assumption about points is that it's not perfect.
No one is saying that it is or can be. What we're saying is that it's still better than anything else out there. It allows for free army construction withing confines. And this sounds counter intuitive, but confines and restrictions are often how creativity is spurred forward. (It's an art major thing I can explain later.) Also, points allow competitive play, pick up games, narrative campaigns, etc. So, its actually far less restrictive to type of games.
I'll also say, in fair match ups, it allows a greater freedom of army construction because you're not building your army to your opponents. You bring what you want regardless. (within the point limit) In AOS people can do that but it'll end up a one sided mess.
One players has a much higher skill level? Give them a point penalty. It's a base line to work from.
What you have said has been putt up often before, and is something that GW fails at more than most games design studios do (at least the more popular ones)
A lot of games don't use points in a vacuum useing both missions and a use of combined arms to even out as best for there games.
Warmachine is expecting people to be useing there units as a whole in synergy to each other.
Most other games I play also.
Some reason I think GW is pushing this can take anything you want over thinking about your army, and I think it's hurting the Avg gamer.
What I think GW neglects as a whole nowadays
-Well thought out points and army structure
-Good quality missions and scenarios
-failure at providing alternate ways of play despite pushing there players in all difernt directions.
Things I would have liked to see was an advanced sheet with a way for points and army structure.
At least 10 good missions with a scenario or campaign for all the army's to take part in up.
They really should have put some more effort into keeping the rules clear. For such a small rule set there are way many issues.
Not that much to ask from a company like GW.
Who right now I think are making the same mistakes they made with fantasy.
The next year will be interesting for the community, but I wonder how many bridges have been burned.
Minor thought I don't think I have seen a company fail so much at marketing :0 this I find even harder to understand than anything.
Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
That was unnecessary.
I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game, and that players will blame the game, not their own skill, for the imbalance. Since you cannot measure player skill, you cannot control for it in the design, and thus even the most balanced experience will still appear unbalanced to the players.
The purpose of points is to allow two players of roughly equal skill to have a fair game.
It was at this point that Sqorgar realized the conversation was going in circles.
They really should have put some more effort into keeping the rules clear. For such a small rule set there are way many issues.
Not that much to ask from a company like GW.
have you tried obeying "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" that usually sorts out any issues you have in 10 seconds or less.. I think is by far the greatest piece of rule writing ever designed in a wargame.
IF your model/unit types are fairly homogeneous, you can probably get away with it, but for units that have wildly varying stats and abilities you're basically pissing in the wind. It's in this sense that trying to assign points to units is fatally flawed because you end up making up all sorts of bogus "rules" for how things fit together. Play-testing can sometimes help to hack the points allocation to adjust for the grossest errors, but there's always holes you can drive a truck through - a lot of folks like these holes, because that's where the net-lists live....
Speaking as a games designer (who has done some small work on GW games in the past), this is not untrue by any stretch.
We (games designers and, looking at these posts, many of you) have known that points systems are not only not 100% accurate (and thus 100% balanced) but that they cannot be. This is for several reasons, but they include synergies between units and their interaction with opposing units.
For example, the three Land Raider problem, something that was recognised during 3rd ed (and maybe before that, would have been before my time as a writer). One Land Raider probably is worth 250 points in most battles. But once you add a second, both are worth just a little bit more, as most armies can deal with one heavily armoured vehicle but two is a bigger problem. Add a third Land Raider and the problem starts compounding.
Those three Land Raiders are creating their own synergy that is not in the rules and, more to the point, is . That starts getting very, very hard to quantify.
Imagine the humble Grot for a moment. Aside from maybe providing cover to another unit (and how will we measure that in points?), he has no value against those Land Raiders (certainly nothing you can measure without using decimal points). Get enough of his mates together though, and they will cause a Tactical Squad problems. This would be an (extreme) example of interactions between armies.
Or the Drop Pod. Its value certainly changes depending on whether you put a Tactical Squad inside or Centurions. And it will change again, depending on what you arm them with (which, again, will be affected by the force they are pitted against).
On top of all that, once you add player skill to the mix, things go right out of the window. You cannot put a points value on player skill - more importantly, it cannot effectively be measured. Once you add the random element of these games (dice), it gets buried further. Imagine, for example, two players playing a game then having it discussed afterwards among the onlookers. They divide between those who say the victor was skilful, while others say the loser was unlucky on his dice rolls (as an aside, Jervis did a great article in a not-so-recent White Dwarf about luck and the perceptions of players, but I digress). If you fancy some introspection, think about your own games and why you won/lost them.
There seems to be a thought in this thread that all these numbers can just be popped into a computer and it will spew out the correct points values for every unit - and that GW is a little bit simple for not doing so. Unfortunately, that does not work. It has been tried. People just started feeding those same figures into another computer which provided them with optimum builds, and the cycle continues.
As a games designer, wanting to keep everything accessible, you use averages. Sometimes this means starting with an actual formula for calculating points (Battlefleet Gothic did - which is why those core cruisers are so close in points - and the 1st edition Warhammers did). Another method (one I like myself) is to pick a base line unit (or units), set that at 100 points and then base every other unit in the game in an around that via playtesting - that is effectively doing things 'by eye' which I am fairly certain is how GW have done things for a long stretch and, though it sounds terribly, it is done because 99% of the time, it works. Doing this every day of your working life gives you a sense of what will work and what won't. However, the goal is to build that framework that will cater to the 99%. I really don't want to sound poncey about this, but there is an element of art involved, even when you are dealing with hard mechanics. It ain't just about the maths.
There is no magic wand for points systems and resulting balance. There cannot be because of the wide variations within these games and because you buggers will always try to find the road less travelled It comes down to creating a platform within the context of an entire army that allows two reasonable players to come together and enjoy a game without things being too lopsided. At the end of the day, that is the goal.
Anyway, I am starting to waffle now, so I'll bow out...
The local META can have a big affect too.
Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.
They really should have put some more effort into keeping the rules clear. For such a small rule set there are way many issues.
Not that much to ask from a company like GW.
have you tried obeying "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" that usually sorts out any issues you have in 10 seconds or less.. I think is by far the greatest piece of rule writing ever designed in a wargame.
Lots of games have that rule (I have played games with it half my life), doesn't mean that the devs should not put in more effort. GW have been doing games for a long time, they kinda should know How it works by now.
It also doesn't fix the issue coming up again, and the inconstancy that if two players agree to one interpretation. And then they both play 2 new players who roll and it plays the other way.
Anpu42 wrote: The local META can have a big affect too.
Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.
In a small community like miniature wargaming, the local meta is *huge*. In our area, *most* players don't go out and buy every model that's there, or every model that is produced. Therefore, you can garner a huge advantage by simply tailoring your lists/models to be good counters to the armies that are going to be effective against your most likely opponents -- you don't even need to decide what you're going to play until you know who you're going to play, even without going extreme (oh, the guy with all the S6... gonna bring in a Knight!). In a "casual pickup crowd", this makes a pretty big difference if you're one of the few people doing it.
Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
That was unnecessary.
Well, to be fair, there is a reason that gentleman is already on my ignore list Still, if anyone ever wonders why designers (from pretty much any company) don't frequent boards like this often, that is a good example of why.
I should also say, out of honesty, that I have never actually worked for GW. I have done some freelance writing in the past, some of which involved the creation of new units and scenarios.
I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game, and that players will blame the game, not their own skill, for the imbalance. Since you cannot measure player skill, you cannot control for it in the design, and thus even the most balanced experience will still appear unbalanced to the players.
Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.
Indeed, and that is a very good point.
Designers don't (can't!) design a game specifically for you. They have to make a game that will serve as many people as possible for as much of the time as possible.
(Actually, the starting point for most games is usually what the designer enjoys, with the hope that if he likes it, there should be others out there that do too - market forces and practicalities then kick in, hammering out the original plan).
Think people complaining of unbalance are bringing 8th conceptions of units to their thoughts about the game. Everything dies in AoS. It's much more balanced because of that.
Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
That was unnecessary.
Well, to be fair, there is a reason that gentleman is already on my ignore list Still, if anyone ever wonders why designers (from pretty much any company) don't frequent boards like this often, that is a good example of why.
I should also say, out of honesty, that I have never actually worked for GW. I have done some freelance writing in the past, some of which involved the creation of new units and scenarios.
I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game, and that players will blame the game, not their own skill, for the imbalance. Since you cannot measure player skill, you cannot control for it in the design, and thus even the most balanced experience will still appear unbalanced to the players.
Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.
Indeed, and that is a very good point.
Designers don't (can't!) design a game specifically for you. They have to make a game that will serve as many people as possible for as much of the time as possible.
(Actually, the starting point for most games is usually what the designer enjoys, with the hope that if he likes it, there should be others out there that do too - market forces and practicalities then kick in, hammering out the original plan).
This is a responce to the last part, but quoting is really weird today on iPad :(
Better games will have a better meta game, with the above thought on land raiders. 40k has a really avg meta game with difernt army's being overloaded with options,mane others with far less ability to confront what can be put on the table.
I think flyers are a perfect example of how something that could have ad a lot to the game, can really be implemented in a lazy and end up just another thing.
Some army's still don't have decent anti flyers on there own.
Let's face it as a community, age of sigmar isn't an amazing rule set, it's cheep and quick and does little more than provide for GW to sell minis. Which is fine, good even if they can work with that.
But GW killed a game to set this one up.
GW doesn't do feedback or market research so I don't think has any idea why people may have been buying less.
I play naritive games a lot, I run a RPG as a table top game with scenarios once a month, I do 1 RPG each weekend, another every 2 weeks.
I play warmachine points and non points in a variety of ways.
Infinity gives me tough games against good oponants and again, no points naritive on a semi regular basis.
As far as development I don't really think that much effort went into the game, and it only holds value for the naritive that GW mostly destroy. It's current naritive is bland and needs a lot of work. It has the chance at that, but does GW have what it takes as a company ? I wonder at that.
Let's face it as a community, age of sigmar isn't an amazing rule set, it's cheep and quick and does little more than provide for GW to sell minis.
You are wrong. I'll provide as much evidence to back up my assertion as you did. None at all.
But GW killed a game to set this one up.
Did they? Everything I've heard said that WFB was already dead. Compare how WFB went out to how The Hobbit will go out in the next month or so. The Hobbit is already disappearing from store shelves, the products are rumored to be direct only until stock runs dry. No promotion. No new releases. Just a quiet, slow death - out of sight, out of mind.
Whereas WFB had the End Times before being put to pasture, and all your models work with the new game. Even if the game is different, it is a sequel. The Warhammer brand lives on. Your armies live on. It's a different game, but let's not pretend that WFB would've just continued on, as is, if Age of Sigmar hadn't stabbed it in the back. GW has bent over backwards to give WFB a grand send off and allow forward compatibility for you stuff.
The only real complaint you can have is that GW didn't admit they were killing WFB early enough, by it would've cast a gloomy shade over End Times and resulted in significantly lower sales while they were building a bridge to AoS - and the players would've been just as pissed off and just as offended at the very existence of AoS, so nothing would've been gained by either party.
GW doesn't do feedback or market research so I don't think has any idea why people may have been buying less.
I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.
Second, in most creative industries, the idea of a product being focused tested to banality and back is the worst creative decision that can be made in the eyes of players. Not doing market research would be a sign of integrity, as a game company sticks to its creative vision regardless of what the unwashed masses think. The fact is, when you don't like a company, nothing it does can please you, and you'll use whatever excuses you can to bash them. Not doing market research changes what information they have available, not what decisions they make, and there's a very high chance that market research would not change the direction of GW at all.
Third, GW is a tight lipped company. That's frustrating as hell, as fans, to not get feedback and feel like our complaints are being heard. It also makes it so we can only guess at the reasons why a decision was made, and our sick little minds always assume the most corrupt possibility must be the correct one. You see the same thing with other tight lipped companies, like Nintendo or Apple. It's okay to just say, "We don't know" instead of assuming that the company is filled with stereotypical greedy idiots, wringing their hands with dollar signs in their eyes.
I'm not a GW apologist. They make decisions that I find absolutely insane, like preventing webstores from selling their products. I don't have a long history with them, but decisions they made years ago are still frustrating. But not every decision they've made has been stupid, and not every irritation has been intentional. A little perspective is required, and I know that's asking a lot of long term GW fans, but holy crap, guys. How can you enjoy a hobby which makes you so angry, suspicious, and hateful?
As far as development I don't really think that much effort went into the game...
There's a saying that goes, a designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. I'd be surprised if AoS was the result of minimum effort. Minimum effort would be 40k rules with fantasy pasted on top. AoS is simple, but in its simplicity, quite surprising and daring.
Fantasy has been well killed off by GW for a long time, they left army's sit waiting for updates they needed, and when some did they lacked meaningful updates... I think it's hard to say that fantasy was well supported over the years.
Some army's didn't even get a book for each edition of the game.
Also I have provided my thoughts, and even in that post I have. The game has little thought to balance, there is bare minimum for missions or thought to naritive.
The options for army construction are fairly lacking with many issues in its set up, a simple wars roll to warscroll. With some of the powerful heroes being multiple as an extra advanced rule would have been awesome.
It doesn't have to be the main way they set up the game, but offering the choice would have been good.
Also with all the rule issues I am seeing, I am still out to wonder why?
I am looking at the game again, and I am still trying to work out why this game holds value.
Again I play many games that offer everything AoS does.
Now thanks to AoS killing fantasy dead here, we starting up kings of war it seems.
GW couldn't even choose a base setup, rather they try to make bases not a thing.
Cop out.
That saying I am curious to see in better context, as it sounds a bit meaningless in this context.
Sometimes a simple game is just that, at best I think it's a hope that GW can salvage what they have lost.
(Also I be leave the quote comes from Kirby, in the 2014 preamble, but the way GW handle themselves is easy enough. How they communicate with stores here makes me cringe.
I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.
The "scandalous" document in question is an yearly report for 2014. I'll find it in a minute. P.S. Ah, yes here it is http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Games-Workshop-Group-14-combined-FINAL-cover-version.pdf. Got it wrong the first time.
And the paragraph that lit the whole interned on fire itself:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche."
I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.
The "scandalous" document in question is an yearly report for 2014. I'll find it in a minute. P.S. Ah, yes here it is http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Games-Workshop-Group-14-combined-FINAL-cover-version.pdf. Got it wrong the first time.
And the paragraph that lit the whole interned on fire itself:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche."
Thanks for that. I think I understand their reasoning here. A niche market is, by definition, small and specialized. Market research in such a small arena is of limited value, especially if your competitors (like both of them) don't share sales information, or if their sales are so insignificant compared to your own that you wouldn't care. If they do something that is successful, is it because it was a better choice or because it was a better choice for their specific audience? You can't really draw trends from such a small data set. I mean, you can make assumptions, but the market is small enough that they don't need to pay other people to make assumptions for you.
I also understand why it could be seen as frustrating for fans, because it seems like "we don't care what our fans think", especially with how uncommunicative GW can be about the decisions it makes. They won't even announce new products that it has been preparing for months/years more than a week in advance. It makes the players feel isolated from the direction of the game, like followers instead of companions. But, alas, that's how GW wants to play things. I kind of get that too, as if there's one unifying behavior that applies to all GW fans, it's that they think that they know how better to run the company than GW does, and man, I'll bet that gets old real quick.
Now thanks to AoS killing fantasy dead here, we starting up kings of war it seems.
I wish you many happy moments with your new system. Enjoy your new purchases from Mantic. They'll reap the bounty of all the disheartened, countless fans that supported Fantasy and didn't let it die out.
Sqorgar wrote: I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game,...
Well, of course it does. Any competitive game (by which I mean 'game that involves 2 or more players with the object of one of those players winning, that isn't resolved entirely by blind chance') is a test of skill between the two players. If one of those players is a better player then the other, then that player will be a better player then the other.
That's not something that the game system needs to (or should) balance.
I played a lot of Chess against my elder brother as a kid. I lost fairly consistently, because he was a better player than me. I didn't blame my lack of winning on the game... I put it down to my own lack of skill, and worked on becoming a better player.
Now thanks to AoS killing fantasy dead here, we starting up kings of war it seems.
I wish you many happy moments with your new system. Enjoy your new purchases from Mantic. They'll reap the bounty of all the disheartened, countless fans that supported Fantasy and didn't let it die out.
Those books are 150$ each, that's way to high D: I won't pay that until I see the quality in the resources I would be buying. (couldent find the dread hold book on there website)
Now don't get me wrong, I want AoS to succeed here. I even think that what they have can work, but I think GW now that it has step out of its boundary needs to be the one that really sets it all rolling. They need to be putting out as much quality content for players to really get into it.
The lack of points and the changes really need support from the company in a new way, reach out to the players and throw them more.
The books at that price above may as well not exist, not many new players are going to put that kinda money down.
When you are competing in price for a brand new PS4 or Xbox1 game with your books there is something really wrong with the business strategy.
Sqorgar wrote: I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game,...
Well, of course it does. Any competitive game (by which I mean 'game that involves 2 or more players with the object of one of those players winning, that isn't resolved entirely by blind chance') is a test of skill between the two players. If one of those players is a better player then the other, then that player will be a better player then the other.
That was one half of the thought. The other half of the thought was "... and the players will blame the game, not themselves". As in, players can't recognize their own skill (maybe a bit of the Dunning-Kruger effect), so they can't see when their skill failed them. The game is easiest to blame (or luck, for bad dice rolls).
That's not something that the game system needs to (or should) balance.
You don't balance the game for player skill, but you need to minimize its effect. I know, I know. Heretic! But I'm serious. I mentioned before that LEGO, when they made their board game series, actually said that randomness helps unequal players have a fun time together. You mix the imbalanced stuff in with the balanced stuff, and you end up with a game where a wider variety of player skills can interact.
I mean, haven't you ever wondered why all the miniature games use dice instead of deterministic factors? Why don't you try it. Figure out the average successes for you various rolls and use that exclusively. If you have the highest chance of rolling a 7, then just assume you did. Play a game or two of this, where you can absolutely predict the outcome of every action. Heck, use identical armies. That is a completely balanced game. I have no idea if it would be any fun, but something tells me that the number of players you can have fun playing against will be considerably fewer.
I played a lot of Chess against my elder brother as a kid. I lost fairly consistently, because he was a better player than me. I didn't blame my lack of winning on the game... I put it down to my own lack of skill, and worked on becoming a better player.
That's because Chess has identical sides, no dice rolling, and a long history of being thought of as a game of skill. If you want a similar experience with wargames, do what I suggested above. Equal sides, deterministic actions.
I wish you many happy moments with your new system. Enjoy your new purchases from Mantic. They'll reap the bounty of all the disheartened, countless fans that supported Fantasy and didn't let it die out.
Bitter, entitled money spends just the same, but I can't help but wonder if the bump in players will be long term. I suspect that sticking it to GW with "almost Warhammer" may not prove to be lasting.
...They need to be putting out as much quality content for players to really get into it...
...When you are competing in price for a brand new PS4 or Xbox1 game with your books there is something really wrong with the business strategy.
First, everyone has their own standard for quality. Second, the game came out on 1.07.2015. In three days AoS will turn 2 months. For that period GW has released:
1. A starter with completely new miniatures and a 100 page book.
2. 3 full colour books containing background lore & missions.
3. 5 Stormcast kits (most mirroring the starter)
4. 3 Bloodbound kits (2 mirroring the starter)
5. About 10 new terrain kits.
6. A big stormcast eternal figure (next week)
Given that provided quaility is subjective, does this seem like a small amount of content for 2 months? I myself presumed that GW has released next to nothing than I sat down to check it all and was like "duuude"... I also want to mention that they've been repackaging alot of stuff.
Video games do not (atleast for me) retain their value over the years as a good printed book for example. They grow old, new computer hardware and software doesn't support them, I grow bored with replaying them etc. This is my opinion. There are video games players that have extensive libraries and collect them on their own. I'd be surprised if a person collected both games and miniatures - this is very expensive. If miniatures compete with video games for your leasure time you should think what type of experience you want as these are very different.
Games don't use dice to make things fair, they use dice to add an element of randomness which is something that happens in real life.
Your plan could be amazingly well executed, however your MG nest could have a misfire, or your preliminary bombardment fired over the enemy lines instead of on it. Or maybe your reinforcements got delayed and the list is endless.
This is what dice is for in a miniature war game, to factor in the things that can and do often go wrong in warfare. It is also an abstract way of having real life issues on the board. "Dang that sniper missed" could be him missing, or him mistaking a rock for a helmet, or him deciding he won't fire because he could give himself away and the list is endless.
This is what makes games fun, and it's your job as commander to try and reduce the issues that can go wrong when executing plans.
Dice does not negate skill, it just adds another skill, how to best use your dice. Well it should do this anyway.
It also factors in the times when men have stood firm or completed tasks against incredible odds. Dice allows a chance for these moments which stories are made of to happen on the board. In 40k terms everyone has that lone guardsmen who should have died but managed to hold or kill an enemy far greater than he.
It's not because it helps unequal players. This may be the case in board games but as the eldest of 5 siblings and off the top of my head, 40+ cousins I can tell you even board games are a cake walk if you are better than everyone else. Except snakes and ladders which is entirely dice done. But people quickly get sick of that game.
In short, dice is not something put in there for the incompetent, it is put in there as an abstract form of covering situations in warfare, such as exceptional situations or mundane issues that can effects the outcome of battles.
...They need to be putting out as much quality content for players to really get into it...
...When you are competing in price for a brand new PS4 or Xbox1 game with your books there is something really wrong with the business strategy.
First, everyone has their own standard for quality. Second, the game came out on 1.07.2015. In three days AoS will turn 2 months. For that period GW has released:
1. A starter with completely new miniatures and a 100 page book.
2. 3 full colour books containing background lore & missions.
3. 5 Stormcast kits (most mirroring the starter)
4. 3 Bloodbound kits (2 mirroring the starter)
5. About 10 new terrain kits.
6. A big stormcast eternal figure (next week)
Given that provided quaility is subjective, does this seem like a small amount of content for 2 months? I myself presumed that GW has released next to nothing than I sat down to check it all and was like "duuude"... I also want to mention that they've been repackaging alot of stuff.
Video games do not (atleast for me) retain their value over the years as a good printed book for example. They grow old, new computer hardware and software doesn't support them, I grow bored with replaying them etc. This is my opinion. There are video games players that have extensive libraries and collect them on their own. I'd be surprised if a person collected both games and miniatures - this is very expensive. If miniatures compete with video games for your leasure time you should think what type of experience you want as these are very different.
I still don't think they have done very well, for the price I expect a lot more in those books. And if it's going to follow a similar way the price will get out of control. I just don't think it's a good way to sell a game, they need a bit of everything at difernt price points.
(It's not always about how much they relese, but what they release but that's opinion)
Like always this comes at the way GW interacts with its market, we are still seeing no info on the future, no idea what they are working on.
Buying into the game is expensive if we need the books for missions and such, and a lot of players are still wondering what will happen to there army's.
It's leaving people in the dark, again and leaving them in the dark is why so many players here got grumpy. Players want to know if they will even ever get a update. I have seen lots of players pack up and leave waiting, it is rather depressing.
As for games, I don't bring it up as what compeates for my money. But at the price of the books, at current price AoS books are 40$ more than most new games. Often these games are seen as quite pricey over the rest of the world.
For that book I can buy 2 books from d&d and buy dinner for 2.
I value books highly, it's why I buy them. but I still look at there price to compare.
What I a really trying to say is. The first book should have been a lot more background, Allowing every player to see what the future holds for the themes and army's they have. But meh, GW is GW.
You don't balance the game for player skill, but you need to minimize its effect. I know, I know. Heretic! But I'm serious.
Then you are talking Rubbish. And have an extremely short term and narrow minded vision.
what is the reward then for getting better?
When you minimise player skill, you end up with situations where a total noob plays in an equal or superior level to a ten year veteran of the game. Skill and experience need to play a role. You give no value to the veterans time and experience. All that happens is you disenfranchise the long term players and make them feel irrelevant, and discredit, marginalise and invalidate their experience,time spent in the hobby and overall value.
In other words, you crap on people that have worked hard, and put time and effort into the game and they will walk a way. The community then dies.
If you don't want to balance for player skill, I have a wonderful game for you. It's called snakes and ladders.
You don't balance the game for player skill, but you need to minimize its effect. I know, I know. Heretic! But I'm serious.
Then you are talking Rubbish. And have an extremely short term and narrow minded vision.
I know, I know. Heretic...
what is the reward then for getting better?
You get to play a fun game with friends in a relaxed and enjoyable environment while you play with little plastic soldiers, pretending you are doing something deep and important?
When you minimise player skill, you end up with situations where a total noob plays in an equal or superior level to a ten year veteran of the game. Skill and experience need to play a role. You give no value to the veterans time and experience. All that happens is you disenfranchise the long term players and make them feel irrelevant, and discredit, marginalise and invalidate their experience,time spent in the hobby and overall value.
So you don't tell them, and let their own egos feed the idea that they are winning based on skill.
In other words, you crap on people that have worked hard, and put time and effort into the game and they will walk a way. The community then dies.
Dude, how much skill do you think these games have? These games are exercises in logistics, not in strategy or tactics. Success in these games is due more to one's ability to minmax than one's ability to reason, plan, and react. And that's fine. But let's not pretend we are talking about levels of competence that the average person is incapable of reaching.
If you don't want to balance for player skill, I have a wonderful game for you. It's called snakes and ladders.
Snakes and Ladders is a 16th century Indian game which is popular around the world and has survived for centuries. That's a pretty long lived success given how unimportant player skill is.
What, player skill makes the game imbalanced? WTF?
That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Bar none.
GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO REWARD PLAYER SKILL. If you want an even 50-50% chance, why play the game at all? Why not just toss a coin to see who won, and then try to come up with a reason why you won afterwards (because narrative gaming)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: Dude, how much skill do you think these games have? These games are exercises in logistics, not in strategy or tactics. Success in these games is due more to one's ability to minmax than one's ability to reason, plan, and react. And that's fine. But let's not pretend we are talking about levels of competence that the average person is incapable of reaching.
.
By any chance, have you played any tabletop miniature game extensively other than GW ones?
That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Bar none.
GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO REWARD PLAYER SKILL. If you want an even 50-50% chance, why play the game at all? Why not just toss a coin to see who won, and then try to come up with a reason why you won afterwards (because narrative gaming)?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: Dude, how much skill do you think these games have? These games are exercises in logistics, not in strategy or tactics. Success in these games is due more to one's ability to minmax than one's ability to reason, plan, and react. And that's fine. But let's not pretend we are talking about levels of competence that the average person is incapable of reaching.
.
By any chance, have you played any tabletop miniature game extensively other than GW ones?
I honestly doubt he has. He said he was new to table top games on his first post. He did say he dabled in warmachine a decade ago when he first arrived:
Thank you. I am relatively new to miniature gaming. I played Warmachine briefly when it first started, over a decade ago, but AoS brought me back
Which probably explains why he thinks AOS is some amazing game that has revolutionized the gaming world or something.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard all week. Bar none.
A string walks into a bar with a few friends and orders a beer. The bartender says, "I'm sorry, but we don't serve strings here."
The string goes back to his table. He ties himself in a loop and messes up the top of his hair. He walks back up to the bar and orders a beer.
The bartender squints at him and says, "Hey, aren't you a string?"
The string says, "Nope, I'm a frayed knot."
Now it is the second stupidest thing, bar included.
GAMES ARE SUPPOSED TO REWARD PLAYER SKILL.
They do reward it. They just don't rely on it.
By any chance, have you played any tabletop miniature game extensively other than GW ones?
I have spoken forbidden, heretical words and now must defend my credibility.
It is true that my experience with tabletop miniature games is limited to Warmachine and Age of Sigmar (well, and Star Wars + DnD Miniature Battles, if those count - some HeroClix as well), but my experience with games as a whole is enormous. Board games, CCGs, and especially video games, of which I own thousands. In fact, you'll find my name credited in a couple of them. Miniature games represent an exciting new frontier for me, though more for the hobby aspect. There are numerous board games like Monsterpocalypse, Car Wars, Dust Tactics, BattleLore 2E, and Imperial Assault that are competitive miniature games in all but name and table space.
My experience is extensive, but my borderline autistic obsession with gaming is irrelevant. I may have posted a heretical idea, but think about it for a while. Roll it around on your tongue and see if you don't like the taste. It may be that you've always thought of your games in one particular manner and never thought to question it. It could be that you aren't wrong, or perhaps you aren't right, or maybe it is somewhere in between. I'm not saying you have to agree with me (or even expect it), but I ask that you at least consider it before dismissing it, or me, outright.
Now it is the second stupidest thing, bar included.
Still the stupidest thing, sorry.
My experience is extensive, but my borderline autistic obsession with gaming is irrelevant. I may have posted a heretical idea, but think about it for a while. Roll it around on your tongue and see if you don't like the taste. It may be that you've always thought of your games in one particular manner and never thought to question it. It could be that you aren't wrong, or perhaps you aren't right, or maybe it is somewhere in between. I'm not saying you have to agree with me (or even expect it), but I ask that you at least consider it before dismissing it, or me, outright.
I consider things before dismissing them. Even stupid things. I've considered it, and found the idea stupid.
As games remove player skill they tend to get more frustraiting experience for better players, there is a massive skill in mitigating the effects of dice in these games. And good games will incorporate this into there design.
We see it a lot in computer gaming, a game designed around the easy mode as you play harder dificultys gets more frustraiting rather than that much more difficult.
Often useing cheep tactics like more HP to offer a sense of difficulty, rather than more interesting and thoughtful gameplay.
(Comstoks wife in bioshock infinite being a massive sponge of bullets, but doesn't really add that much)
There isn't much about age of sigmar I think is that new or special, it's just GW being GW and doing it backwards.
If I play a 1500pt game of 40k with Dark Angels, by taking specific units I get to take 500pts of *free* tanks.
But it's a balanced game because it's 1500 points a side, yes?
Points introduce a constraint for people to push against. That's why serious tournament players play the same list over and over with minimal tweaks, to see what the 'optimal' build is. Apart from a small subsection of players who insisted on taking units judged to be inefficient purely because they like them, that's what happens. In *any* system with points or similar.
AoS cuts all that out. The judgement of what is balanced is down to the players.
Pick-up games are just as fraught with points as they are without. The difference is that in AoS you don't have some arbitrary system to claim whether it's fair or not.
Whether you think that's good or bad is a matter of opinion, it's not an objective indictment of the system.
If your answer to this is "ah, but we don't allow formations in our local group" or "yes, but comp system X allows BoC to take an extra 10%" or similar, then you don't have an argument. If you're already modding existing comp systems, there's nothing to prevent you doing the same with AoS as you've already crossed the threshold of "RAW doesn't provide a fun game for us".
@RoperPG - Yup. In a perfect world where you want to set up a fair fight between two armies in a given situation, each army would be charged for its effectiveness in that specific game, rather than in a vacuum.
At the end of the day, does a player want clever listbuilding to be rewarded by greater efficiency, or does a player want to start every game with a fair fight? Quite often, especially as you get to the lists with the highest win ratios, those two things can be mutually exclusive.
RoperPG wrote: If you're already modding existing comp systems, there's nothing to prevent you doing the same with AoS as you've already crossed the threshold of "RAW doesn't provide a fun game for us".
The main difference between AoS and "conventionnal tabletop miniature games" is the choice.
Since there is no balance system in the core rules, like you said, everything must be handled by the players themselves.
The main advantage of a point system is that it's a convention that already exists. So you don't need to create one from scraps to suit you and your opponent. That's more time spent directly to play rather than arguing (and finding compromises) with your fellow players before that.
You can always talk with your opponents to agree on some "house rules" with any game, even those with very strict rules. The choice come from yours.
Just that, in AoS, you have to do it. No choice, you must agree with your opponent about something that will be interesting to play. The "play whatever model you want" rule isn't working on the long term.
It's a good thing there are passionate players out there who work on different "convention systems" so that players don't have to lose too many time to find a common ground to agree.
And if you're saying is not such a big deal...there is a reason why so many conflicts keep happening around the world and they all generally have the same roots; people don't agree at the base because of different points of view. No reason a game like AoS should make exception - unless you're ready to lose players, those who don't agree with you.
Sarouan wrote: The "play whatever model you want" rule isn't working on the long term. ... - unless you're ready to lose players, those who don't agree with you.
First, you've made an empirical statement with no evidence. If anything, it's not working for some in the short term.
Second, why should anyone care about people who disagree with the sort of game they want to play not wanting to play? If anything, that's exactly what I want. But that's just me being English - having to tell someone you would rather bathe in bleach than suffer 2 hours in their company having 'fun' is frightfully awkward.
Over time, your second point will completely prove your first point wrong.
Apple fox wrote: As games remove player skill they tend to get more frustraiting experience for better players, there is a massive skill in mitigating the effects of dice in these games. And good games will incorporate this into there design.
It can mitigate skill without removing player choice. As in, you can still have a dozen different ways to do something, but that none of them are guaranteed to succeed. Some will have a better chance of succeeding, but the operative word there is 'chance'.
I was playing Warmachine and my opponent loaded up his warcaster with attack buffs, teleported next to mine, and had seven or eight attacks which should've had a very high chance of ending the game. But he didn't kill my warcaster because of a sequence of terrible rolls that either missed outright (even critical misses) or did only one or two damage each time - all because he was rolling a bunch of 1s and 2s.
In a truly skill based game, the game would not necessarily be balanced, but it would have deterministic actions. If I do this, that will always happen. Because of this, you can plan a dozen moves in advance because you can absolutely predict what will happen. In a game with a lot of dice rolling, you can make plans, but because there is a chance they can fail, you can not plan too far ahead. For instance, how much damage you do to an enemy will determine whether you need to attack him with two units or three. You must keep the third unit on standby in case it is needed and can not dedicate it towards other tasks, as you would if you knew the outcome ahead of time.
Don't get me wrong, there is skill in playing the odds and planning contingencies. You can always lose, and in large buckets of dice like AoS, the variation of success can be quite broad - from missing completely, to getting a few hits, some hits, a lot of hits, to rolling all 6s and completely decimating the enemy. And this, ultimately, gimps player skill a bit because, while you can have a broad plan of attack, you can not guarantee its degree of success. The game becomes more reactive, which gives less strategic minded players a chance to succeed, either through lucky dice rolls or through focusing only on the immediate game versus planning for the long term.
As I suggested before, go ahead and try a deterministic game. Instead of using dice, use static values for success. Or use a set of non-random cards representing roll values (such that when you use a critical success card, you do not have it for future attacks). Try and you'll see that bad players gimp themselves early on in the game and can never recover. You'll also find that bad players will not enjoy the game as much and will probably stop playing it well before they get good enough.
We see it a lot in computer gaming, a game designed around the easy mode as you play harder dificultys gets more frustraiting rather than that much more difficult.
Often useing cheep tactics like more HP to offer a sense of difficulty, rather than more interesting and thoughtful gameplay.
(Comstoks wife in bioshock infinite being a massive sponge of bullets, but doesn't really add that much)
That's actually a question of resources. You build a game around the most common experience, with few resources left over for balancing other difficulties (hell, most video games aren't even balanced in normal). It is quick and easy to add modifiers to stats like HP or increase enemy spawns, but it is much, much more time consuming to add new unique challenges and experiences (like Goldeneye did). If anything, these cheaply made hard modes expect player skill to overcome the imbalances produced by unchecked stat buffs.
It has nothing to do with player skill. Few video games do - a game which only a few, highly dedicated players can enjoy and succeed at won't sell well. Check out how popular Fire Emblem was before Awakening removed permadeath and added grinding.
There isn't much about age of sigmar I think is that new or special, it's just GW being GW and doing it backwards.
It's not that AoS's choices are unique, but more that they are daring. Twerking is a club is one thing. Twerking at your exgirlfriend's wedding is something different. The context matters, and AoS has made choices that are, in the current climate of expectations for this tiny, inbred hobby, somewhat shocking.
Don't get me wrong, there is skill in playing the odds and planning contingencies. You can always lose, and in large buckets of dice like AoS, the variation of success can be quite broad - from missing completely, to getting a few hits, some hits, a lot of hits, to rolling all 6s and completely decimating the enemy. And this, ultimately, gimps player skill a bit because, while you can have a broad plan of attack, you can not guarantee its degree of success.
Just to complicate matters, this random element is something the designers take into account so that a player who is skilful enough to take the possibility (indeed, probability) of failure into account is rewarded - padding redundancy into your tactics as opposed to staking everything in a potentially suicidal move. The latter can win you a game, the former will win you more than one.
Not saying you a re wrong by any means. It might be better to think of this random factor (and, indeed, the notions of balance that have been raised in this thread) as a sliding scale that a designer selects before he starts writing - it is all part of what you are aiming for.
All that said, the possibility of failure despite perfect planning is one of the elements that keeps people coming back to these games, however heart-rending it can be!
Just to complicate matters, this random element is something the designers take into account so that a player who is skilful enough to take the possibility (indeed, probability) of failure into account is rewarded - padding redundancy into your tactics as opposed to staking everything in a potentially suicidal move. The latter can win you a game, the former will win you more than one.
Yes, but it won't reward you as much as being successful. Randomness overwhelmingly favors less skilled players, as well as giving them interesting choices to make that don't require encyclopedic knowledge of every unit. If I do this, I have a decent chance of doing damage, but if I do this other thing, I will absolutely do damage, but less of it.
So skilled players get to feel like that are making important choices, unskilled players feel like they are making important choices, and the randomness prevents either of them from getting too far ahead or too far behind in the grand strategy. It's like the blue shell (or rubber banding AI) in Mario Kart 64. Players who feel they are skilled hate it because they think it punishes their superior playing, but it keeps mediocre players in the game, and creates tension filled games of action instead of one player being so far ahead that he just stares off into space while his opponent takes ten minutes to finally cross the finish line.
I think skilled players will forgive moments of bad luck if the game then presents them with interesting ways to make it up. In my Warmachine example, that sucked for my opponent because I then instantly won the game. But if it had been his Stormclad jack, he would've been upset at the bad rolls, but immediately moved on to planning how he was going to make up for the loss with his remaining units. So using randomness to mitigate player skill works because it usually gives them new situations in which to use that skill, as opposed to a completely deterministic game in which they've won two turns in (staring at the scenery while their opponent slowly makes his way to the finish line).
Not saying you a re wrong by any means. It might be better to think of this random factor (and, indeed, the notions of balance that have been raised in this thread) as a sliding scale that a designer selects before he starts writing - it is all part of what you are aiming for.
I think you give too much credit to game designers. I've known a few and if we're being honest, if a game has dice in it, it's because they are copying another game that has dice in it. I did work for one designer who knew his gak, and that was an amazing experience, but at least as far as video game designers go, he was a rarity.
All that said, the possibility of failure despite perfect planning is one of the elements that keeps people coming back to these games, however heart-rending it can be!
It's also the thing which keeps bad players coming back - having an unlikely plan succeed or having their opponent's sure thing fail. It gives them hope of success in an environment where the odds are stacked against them, keeping them engaged in the game and invested in its outcome throughout.
Randomness doesn't overwhelmingly reward less skillful players. Snakes and Ladders is totally random. If randomness overwhelming rewarded less skillful players, my cat would constantly win against me when we play. In fact the win/loss ratio is about 50/50.
If randomness favoured less skillfull play, (A) it would not be random and (B) clever players would be better at playing more unskillfully than less skillful players.
RoperPG wrote: If I play a 1500pt game of 40k with Dark Angels, by taking specific units I get to take 500pts of *free* tanks.
But it's a balanced game because it's 1500 points a side, yes?
Again, get outside of GW and you'll see points are used very effectively.
Kilkrazy wrote: Randomness doesn't overwhelmingly reward less skillful players.
Not reward, favors. As in a skilled player has everything to lose and nothing to gain from it, while an unskilled player has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It doesn't mean that playing badly will somehow make you a winner.
If randomness favoured less skillfull play, (A) it would not be random and (B) clever players would be better at playing more unskillfully than less skillful players.
Again, randomness favors less skillful PLAYERS, not play. In that it keeps them in the game and engaged longer. It mitigates, but does not completely remove, player skill, allowing a much broad range of opponents that can play together and have fun.
Kilkrazy wrote: Randomness doesn't overwhelmingly reward less skillful players.
Not reward, favors. As in a skilled player has everything to lose and nothing to gain from it, while an unskilled player has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It doesn't mean that playing badly will somehow make you a winner.
If randomness favoured less skillfull play, (A) it would not be random and (B) clever players would be better at playing more unskillfully than less skillful players.
Again, randomness favors less skillful PLAYERS, not play. In that it keeps them in the game and engaged longer. It mitigates, but does not completely remove, player skill, allowing a much broad range of opponents that can play together and have fun.
So, you're advocating that games should,
a) Not reward people that play for a long time.
b) No way to actually get better at the game.
C) No skill and thus no challenge.
That sounds like a kids board game. There are already plenty of those. The reason I dumped 40k as soon as I tried other games, was because they rewarded well thought out strategies and thinking. The game you describe would be like chutes and ladders and would get old very quick.
First, you've made an empirical statement with no evidence. If anything, it's not working for some in the short term.
It doesn't work because what I think is a fairly balanced/interesting army to play is not necessarily the same than your view on the subject.
Evidence come from real life, everywhere in all fields, not just games. People just don't agree on the same things all the time. Hell, even this forum shows plenty of people who don't have the same views, even if they like the game. Why AoS would suddenly be different? Because Point System was the Root of All Evils? Please.
Second, why should anyone care about people who disagree with the sort of game they want to play not wanting to play?
Because they're players, like you. That's the kind of defense I see a lot for AoS - usually saying that those who don't agree are just "competitive bastards" who only dream to cheat and crush any fun...and I don't think it's a good move for the future of the game.
After all, you never play alone. If you exclude some players just because "you don't agree with them", then these players are lost. You may say "good riddance", but you risk to throw away fellows who actually would be interested on the long term but just don't have the same view as yours on some aspects of the game.
By the way, I never thought clever the move to say "hey, it's good we don't have to play with those players. Just let's play between us alone". It usually ends with a very restrictive gaming circle becoming smaller and smaller with time until it dies, because of lack of players.
If anything, that's exactly what I want. But that's just me being English - having to tell someone you would rather bathe in bleach than suffer 2 hours in their company having 'fun' is frightfully awkward.
.
You know, someone who doesn't agree with you isn't necessarily a horrible fellow who eats cats for breakfast and just want to stomp on your models so that he wins.
You really don't need to shut down what the other player wants to field, just know your own limit.
I've said before, if you are setting up a game and during deployment you never think to yourself "this is going to be easy" then you are fine in regards balance. And that holds true still when you realise your opponent may not be as skilled as you after a game or two. It balances itself fine in that regard.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: You really don't need to shut down what the other player wants to field, just know your own limit.
I've said before, if you are setting up a game and during deployment you never think to yourself "this is going to be easy" then you are fine in regards balance. And that holds true still when you realise your opponent may not be as skilled as you after a game or two. It balances itself fine in that regard.
And if I see what my opponent is putting down and don't think 'this is going to be easy', but then as soon as we begin the first turn it becomes blatantly clear isn't nearly as skilled at the game as I and one of us ends up not having a fun game because either I have to go easy on him, which gets boring, or he gets crushed accidentally by me?
Or what if I don't think 'this will be easy' but he does and he likes it that way? Let me guess, the answer to that is to not play him. 'Cos that is such a wonderful attitude for a community to have.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: You really don't need to shut down what the other player wants to field, just know your own limit.
I've said before, if you are setting up a game and during deployment you never think to yourself "this is going to be easy" then you are fine in regards balance. And that holds true still when you realise your opponent may not be as skilled as you after a game or two. It balances itself fine in that regard.
And if I see what my opponent is putting down and don't think 'this is going to be easy', but then as soon as we begin the first turn it becomes blatantly clear isn't nearly as skilled at the game as I and one of us ends up not having a fun game because either I have to go easy on him, which gets boring, or he gets crushed accidentally by me?
Or what if I don't think 'this will be easy' but he does and he likes it that way? Let me guess, the answer to that is to not play him. 'Cos that is such a wonderful attitude for a community to have.
Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.
Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?
I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.
Here is my thought on the points thing, arguing against points is like arguing against weight classes in boxing. Weight classes aren't there to make sure every fight is even (that's the job of the rankings), weight classes are there to ensure the general capability of the fighters are similar. By controlling certain factors (such as weight, or points) you enable other factors (skill, army comp) to be larger determinants in the outcome.
It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be to enable better games. I like a lot of the ideas in AoS, but until they actually make matchmaking less haggling and more math I'm just not interested.
Talys wrote: Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.
Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?
I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.
Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.
Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.
Are there any games where this is the case?
Star Wars CCG and Star Trek CCG made its story characters the most rare and powerful cards, so if you created a fluff deck built around named characters, you'd probably have a fairly strong deck without taking synergies or minmaxing into account. But I can't think of any other counter examples. Maybe Age of Sigmar, but I say that without any idea what a super competitive netlist would even look like in that game (which is awesome).
Talys wrote: Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.
Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?
I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.
Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.
True, but is some cases it just is that way. Sometimes it is me, sometimes it is the other guy.
It Does come down to Play-Style in the end. I have had people quit my local gaming group because we do not take the game 'Serious Enough' for them. Heck I have had people refuse to play me because my Space Wolves were Primer Gray not Space Wolf Grey.
I don't Play D&D with most of my old group [20+ years of playing the same campaign] because they changed to a primary 'Lets Just Kill Monsters' mode while I want to do more Role Play than I used to.
I have also ran into people who stopped playing Chess with me because I take an average of 20-30 Seconds to make my move rather than take 'Time to Make My Moves'.
There is no way to get around it other than accept that some people don't find the game fun the same way as you.
It has taking me almost 10 years to find like minded people, but I now have a smaller gaming group, but we are having more fun than I have had in 20+ years.
Sqorgar wrote: Maybe Age of Sigmar, but I say that without any idea what a super competitive netlist would even look like in that game (which is awesome).
You must not have much imagination then.
Nagash spam
Bloodthirster spam
Warmachine and engineer spam
Summon spam
Or any other spam of powerful troops.
I'm a fan of AoS, but most of your arguments in this thread Sqorgar are just bizarre to be honest.
Sqorgar wrote: Maybe Age of Sigmar, but I say that without any idea what a super competitive netlist would even look like in that game (which is awesome).
You must not have much imagination then.
Nagash spam
Bloodthirster spam
Warmachine and engineer spam
Summon spam
Or any other spam of powerful troops.
I'm a fan of AoS, but most of your arguments in this thread Sqorgar are just bizarre to be honest.
How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.
Talys wrote: Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.
Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?
I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.
Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.
There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:
1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".
In any game where there are force multipliers, preparation means maximizing the benefits of those force multipliers. It's not possible to make a game where preparing an effective battleforce is both important AND unimportant.
Talys wrote: Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.
Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?
I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.
Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.
There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:
1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".
In any game where there are force multipliers, preparation means maximizing the benefits of those force multipliers. It's not possible to make a game where preparing an effective battleforce is both important AND unimportant.
There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:
1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".
Actually, AoS does all three of these things:
1. Most special abilities are insular. That is, they are passive abilities (get to reroll missed hits) or they are abilities that depend on how you create the unit (1 in 10 models carries a space mace, 20+ models gets an extra attack, hornblower increases charge range). Comparatively, there are fewer abilities which affect other units (largely command abilities or spells) or only work when near other specific units (Dwarf Engineers)
2. Because synergies are downplayed, they are actually explicitly detailed in battalion warscrolls. Instead of "unit A buffs unit B", you have a case of "take unit A and unit B, gain this ability". Battalion warscrolls don't overlap, so the special abilities shared between two units don't also apply to a second set of the same units, making it less likely for repeated synergies to break the game.
3. Synergies are broad. In most cases, when a unit buffs another unit, it buffs all units equally. The buff can cover some weakness in some units (like increasing save rolls on weak units), but in general, any unit can benefit from the buffs. Where units are related, it is usually based on keywords rather than individual models (this affects CHAOS models or within 18" of a HERO figure). In JRPG terms, it's the difference between healing 30 HP and healing 30% HP. One becomes less effective as you grow stronger, while the other remains useful for the entire game.
However, I don't feel like this negatively impacts the game. AoS, it is much more about the individual units abilities than how units work together, and I think that opens up list making. The units are still unique and there's enough of a relationship between them to reward paying attention when you select your army, but not so much that you end up punished for not doing what the game designers intended.
@Sqorgar - I actually didn't write it quite correctly. I meant, there were only three ways in a point-based game that wargames with special abilities and spells and force multipliers don't turn into games about lists (I didn't write that; but I meant it ).
I genuinely don't think arriving at fairness (armies at parity at turn 1) is an issue in AoS for the vast majority of players who enjoy the game in its current state.
@MWH - I actually can't get anyone to play Infinity with me. Nobody is even tempted in our group, partly because we don't really have suitable scenery and such built, and cardboard scenery (like what comes in operation icestorm) isn't that interesting. But also because the scale of the game (number of units and table size) is too small. We're a group that's debating going to 6x8 and 8x12 tables, up 4x6 amd 8x8.
How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.
1.) By spamming 100 of them. Nothing to say a named character is limited to one choice.
2.) Spells can only be unbound from 18". Good luck on turn 1 when your are 24" apart.
Talys wrote: @Sqorgar - I actually didn't write it quite correctly. I meant, there were only three ways in a point-based game that wargames with special abilities and spells and force multipliers don't turn into games about lists (I didn't write that; but I meant it ).
I genuinely don't think arriving at fairness (armies at parity at turn 1) is an issue in AoS for the vast majority of players who enjoy the game in its current state.
@MWH - I actually can't get anyone to play Infinity with me. Nobody is even tempted in our group, partly because we don't really have suitable scenery and such built, and cardboard scenery (like what comes in operation icestorm) isn't that interesting. But also because the scale of the game (number of units and table size) is too small. We're a group that's debating going to 6x8 and 8x12 tables, up 4x6 amd 8x8.
they do sell other scenery ya know. Quite cheap too.
Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.
Are there any games where this is the case?
*Ahem*
Warmachine
Infinity
X wing
Dystopian Wars
Kings of War
Hell Warhammer Fantasy came close when it was alive.
Those are only the ones I have played personally, but I can't think of any examples of games off the top of my head where if you jump to their forum, say you are new and looking at X army you will be told X is bad, play Y instead.
There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:
1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".
In any game where there are force multipliers, preparation means maximizing the benefits of those force multipliers. It's not possible to make a game where preparing an effective battleforce is both important AND unimportant.
You say that and yet I'd still put my money on someone who hasn't tried to maxamise his list synergies and whatnot but knows how to play the units he has brought vs a guy who copied his list from a grand tourney winners list but doesn't know how to play it in a game of warmachine.
How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.
1.) By spamming 100 of them. Nothing to say a named character is limited to one choice.
2.) Spells can only be unbound from 18". Good luck on turn 1 when your are 24" apart.
Well, never thought that would be an issue, because someone with 3+ fateweavers wouldnt have to worry about setting down models when they show me what they are planning to put down.
What if I go first? What if I fly past your army on a griffon or dragon so you can't summon anything near me? Now your summon spam army is completely stopped from getting significant reinforcements.
Like I said, not really something I would be afraid of...
Their is a lot going on in this thread, allot of i"ts fun!" And "it is unplayable!" I for one don't even plan on giving AoS the time of day, (well except this post). My reasons have nothing to do with cost or sigmarians or old gamer syndrome. It has everything to do with the fact that they killed my world. Warhammer fantasy, for me, had one of the most captivating fantasy settings I've ever come across. More so then middle earth, forgotten realms, dragon lance, or even the 40 millinium...and they killed it and replaced it with some lazy catchall setting, something that reminds me of a bad anime. So enjoy AoS, if you want. But I won't bother.
How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.
1.) By spamming 100 of them. Nothing to say a named character is limited to one choice.
2.) Spells can only be unbound from 18". Good luck on turn 1 when your are 24" apart.
Well, never thought that would be an issue, because someone with 3+ fateweavers wouldnt have to worry about setting down models when they show me what they are planning to put down.
What if I go first? What if I fly past your army on a griffon or dragon so you can't summon anything near me? Now your summon spam army is completely stopped from getting significant reinforcements.
Like I said, not really something I would be afraid of...
You're getting confused. My original comment was to highlight how easy it is to think of strong "net lists". If you can think up hard counters to them like flying a gak ton of dragons into my deployment zone in turn one, then great, you're also just showing how easy it is too.
It doesn't take a gak-ton, just one will block most of you area to summon in. If i t happens to be a mage, they can even try to counter spell the power. The point I was making was that the proposed over powered lists weren't actually a problem for people with any decent sized collection to draw from.
Would they roll someone who owns say, a battalion box and a single hero? Yes, but who wants to ruin someone's game by ensuring the destruction of their opponent before any dice are rolled?
5on2, I understand your frustration. I played mageknight for years, loved the world setting, they got the story point to what would amount to the ends times of wfb. Then they killed the game. No more story, no more booster packs or new models, the game simply died.
Age of sigmar is allowing me to use my models for a campaign again. If you want to continue playing in the old world, please do! There is nothing stopping you from doing so. Unless you were primarily focused on recreating the battles of the old world, you don't need more examples of battles in the setting.
I won't try to tell you what to do, but the setting isn't the game, it's just where THEIR story is taking place now
This is getting pointless, but a single model isn't going to block much from being summoned, and won't even last long. If my army was say 10 Nagashes they could kill whatever monster it is and still have spells to summon a fleet of terrorgeists. And if my army was 10 Nagashes your army would have to be 9 models to get the first turn anyway...
It would be stupid to play like that. Point is making a list that can destroy a regular army is a simple thought exercise that takes almost no effort.
5on2, I understand your frustration. I played mageknight for years, loved the world setting, they got the story point to what would amount to the ends times of wfb. Then they killed the game. No more story, no more booster packs or new models, the game simply died.
Age of sigmar is allowing me to use my models for a campaign again. If you want to continue playing in the old world, please do! There is nothing stopping you from doing so. Unless you were primarily focused on recreating the battles of the old world, you don't need more examples of battles in the setting.
I won't try to tell you what to do, but the setting isn't the game, it's just where THEIR story is taking place now
Of course I can keep playing in the old world if I wanted, your not telling me anything I haven't thought of. Im not going to just take my army Ive collected for over 10 years and just dump it in the trash. Me and a few friends have been experimenting with alternative rules for several years already, even did a few 7th ed 40k conversation, worked great. So I suppose My point was the setting made the game, at least for me. AoS is unimagined. I'm glad you have fun with it. Good for you. But for this warhammer player, the only thing gw is managing to do with AoS is boost 40k sales
Bottle wrote: This is getting pointless, but a single model isn't going to block much from being summoned, and won't even last long. If my army was say 10 Nagashes they could kill whatever monster it is and still have spells to summon a fleet of terrorgeists. And if my army was 10 Nagashes your army would have to be 9 models to get the first turn anyway...
It would be stupid to play like that. Point is making a list that can destroy a regular army is a simple thought exercise that takes almost no effort.
Not nine models, nine units. You alternate placing units one by one, and the first person done chooses who goes first. My single model keeps you from summoning anything within 9" of any point on its body. So if my dragon is only 6" long with a 9" wing span that means you can't summon anything in an area 24" deep and 27" wide that also has to be within 18" of the summoner.
And if the simple thought exercise is to say that someone has spent $1050 US on ten models to take advantage of said models ability to summon 120 models a turn (meaning to actually get the most from those units you would have to have over 1000 summonable models at the table with you) that can be hard countered by any fast monster, infiltrators, big units of cavalry, or other summoning lists, then I think you may be mistaken about what the word "simple" entails.
Not sure how one could spam 10 Nagash models in a tournament Bottle. Official GW Tournaments have list restrictions which are:
1 monster, 1-3 hero keywords, only 1 copy of a named character, a maximum allowance of warscrolls (usually 7-8), and not more than 2 of the same unit.
Most FLGS take some sort of these restrictions as well. All in all every tourney I've been to has been extremely balanced, not one person 'crushed' another.
I played a game of AoS today. Found it pretty good.
Having said that, we were both like minded players who were in it for fun.
I used a Ghal Maraz scenario (the storm one), playing in Chamon.
Was great fun, and though the scenario/realm rules really added to the fun. You do really have to pay attention to the scenario rules though - my opponent lost 2nd turn because he didn't protect his general and I sniped him with my Reaper Bolt Throwers. We played on anyway for fun
My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.
SideSwipe wrote: I played a game of AoS today. Found it pretty good.
Having said that, we were both like minded players who were in it for fun.
I used a Ghal Maraz scenario (the storm one), playing in Chamon.
Was great fun, and though the scenario/realm rules really added to the fun. You do really have to pay attention to the scenario rules though - my opponent lost 2nd turn because he didn't protect his general and I sniped him with my Reaper Bolt Throwers. We played on anyway for fun
My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.
Ooooh I hope you'll post about said mega battle. From my experience I can't imagine it'd take longer than a large point game of 40k as long as the players are familiar with their warscrolls, but I'm interested to hear if that's true or not.
SideSwipe wrote: I played a game of AoS today. Found it pretty good.
Having said that, we were both like minded players who were in it for fun.
I used a Ghal Maraz scenario (the storm one), playing in Chamon.
Was great fun, and though the scenario/realm rules really added to the fun. You do really have to pay attention to the scenario rules though - my opponent lost 2nd turn because he didn't protect his general and I sniped him with my Reaper Bolt Throwers. We played on anyway for fun
My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.
Ooooh I hope you'll post about said mega battle. From my experience I can't imagine it'd take longer than a large point game of 40k as long as the players are familiar with their warscrolls, but I'm interested to hear if that's true or not.
I don't even know if I'll take part - I can't imagine how long a combat phase where there are more than 3 or 4 combats going on would last.
5on2 wrote: Their is a lot going on in this thread, allot of i"ts fun!" And "it is unplayable!" I for one don't even plan on giving AoS the time of day, (well except this post). My reasons have nothing to do with cost or sigmarians or old gamer syndrome. It has everything to do with the fact that they killed my world. Warhammer fantasy, for me, had one of the most captivating fantasy settings I've ever come across. More so then middle earth, forgotten realms, dragon lance, or even the 40 millinium...and they killed it and replaced it with some lazy catchall setting, something that reminds me of a bad anime. So enjoy AoS, if you want. But I won't bother.
Hear, hear!
Well spoken words, "lazy", "Catch all"
SideSwipe wrote: My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.
My friend and I played a "put everything on the table" game of his High Elves (194 models) versus my Tomb Kings (150 models). It was pretty tedious and I was cruising the web while he was taking his turn. Moving every single figure takes a long time. We only made it to turn 3 before I threw in the towel.
Our second game was more lively but I unfortunately surprised him with the overpowered Rippers and Kroxigor. He wasn't ready for either and tried to take big blocks like he did in 8th. It didn't go well.
SideSwipe wrote: My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.
My friend and I played a "put everything on the table" game of his High Elves (194 models) versus my Tomb Kings (150 models). It was pretty tedious and I was cruising the web while he was taking his turn. Moving every single figure takes a long time. We only made it to turn 3 before I threw in the towel.
Our second game was more lively but I unfortunately surprised him with the overpowered Rippers and Kroxigor. He wasn't ready for either and tried to take big blocks like he did in 8th. It didn't go well.
If you are playing a game that size, why didn't you use your movement trays? You can even use huge ones to allow your models some wiggle room. Glad to hear your next game was more interesting though!
"AoS might not be designed for children, but it is a ruleset that allows for the minimum amount of effort to be made while still being able to call it a "ruleset". It exists purely to push around the models GW expects you to buy, which is the extent to which they care about your interaction with the HHHobby."
you could say the same about Charles Grant's Charge rules
but it doesn't get around the exciting chapter about rescuing the prisoners
what is overlooked in all this debate is that a rule sets that are descried as 'adult 'are usually highly proscriptive and very narrow in what they allow a player to take and how those units are used
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Here is my thought on the points thing, arguing against points is like arguing against weight classes in boxing. Weight classes aren't there to make sure every fight is even (that's the job of the rankings), weight classes are there to ensure the general capability of the fighters are similar. By controlling certain factors (such as weight, or points) you enable other factors (skill, army comp) to be larger determinants in the outcome. "
Yes except that the most interesting wargame I ever played was determined by a flock of sheep - that were in the middle of the battle field - and unbenowst to the players whoever disturbed it would be attacked by a gang of peasants
true we started with equal points values - but as soon as this random event kicked in the game became far more tactical than any rank 'em up and charge battle
marielle wrote: what is overlooked in all this debate is that a rule sets that are descried as 'adult 'are usually highly proscriptive and very narrow in what they allow a player to take and how those units are used
How so?
Please explain that to me.
That reads to me as if you think 40k is an example of an 'adult' game where to play it 'seriously' you need to play tau/eldar/whatever the latest cheese is, and you need to bring riptides/again whatever the latest is.
Meanwhile what I consider to be an 'adult' game would be lets say Infinity (warmachine examples are overdone I think). If you go to the Infinity sub here on Dakka and ask which armies are 'good' you'll probably give the guys there a laugh since the game is well balanced. You can make bad lists by say taking no anti-TAG weapons, which obviously puts you at a disadvantage if you go up against a TAG, but there are no units in the game that are visibly undercosted or overcosted. The game does not force you to take anything and does not punish you if you don't take anything.
To continue using Infinity as an example, it uses a d20 system with a wide variety of stats and modifiers as it expects it's players to be comfortable with that. This means the difference in the to hit numbers is FAR more varied than the 3+/4+/5+ of AoS.
X wing is not a game I'd immediately call adult, and i enjoy that game very much. But it isn't terribly complicated and is fairly quick and easy to learn. Armada on the other hand I would consider a much more adult game. Why? Because it plays slower and requires you to think several turns in advance.
Nothing about that should have any relevance to what a player is able to bring, it is a matter of simple vs in depth.
SideSwipe wrote: My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.
My friend and I played a "put everything on the table" game of his High Elves (194 models) versus my Tomb Kings (150 models). It was pretty tedious and I was cruising the web while he was taking his turn. Moving every single figure takes a long time. We only made it to turn 3 before I threw in the towel.
Our second game was more lively but I unfortunately surprised him with the overpowered Rippers and Kroxigor. He wasn't ready for either and tried to take big blocks like he did in 8th. It didn't go well.
If you are playing a game that size, why didn't you use your movement trays? You can even use huge ones to allow your models some wiggle room. Glad to hear your next game was more interesting though!
My buddy did. Although only 1 of his blocks got into combat. I didn't but I don't take long to move stuff -- lots of 40K orcs and WFB Skinks over the years. He had 50 seaguard, 25 White Lions, 40 Swordmasters, and 20 Phoenix Guard ranked up on trays. The problem was that he had like 6 eagles, 2 dragons, 2 phoenixes, a bunch of cavalry (not on bases because he fielded them much larger than normal), Sisters, tons of characters, and bolt throwers.
Most of the problem was the sheer scope for his first game. I told him it was a bad idea but he really wanted to do it. Too many things to remember all at once.
@jonolikespie - What I consider an 'adult' game is one where the players are generally (a) more mature and (b) have been tabletop wargamers for a long time already.
I can't speak for other people, but in our group and in several others like ours that I know of, there are various levels of competitiveness, but generally speaking, we are all less competitive than we were when we first started wargaming. We are generally more interested in interested scenarios than just duking it out using my points / my list versus yours, and we go to quite a bit of effort to make an evening great. Since we all have families and commitments, we don't get to game that much, so the time we set aside has to count. The social aspects of gaming (playing with friends) is quite important, and a key motivator for wargaming.
I started 40k when I was around 15 (1988 or so), and what I was looking for in a game was very different then. Winning was infinitely more important, for starters; another was that painting models was more a requirement for playing the game rather than a hobby. I still had decently painted models and took pride in them, but proportionately, I probably spent 8 hours playing for every 1 hour modelling, whereas now, it's inverted (about 8 hours of hobby for every 1 hour of play). Now, it's *all* about the models.
Another thing that used to be different was that I used to argue rules to death. Now, I could really care less, and just give people the rule whatever way they want it, as long as they're consistent with it -- even if it's *clearly* not what's in the rulebook, I'm happy to play (whatever game) with incorrect rules if it makes my opponent happy.
I have yet to find a person who wants to play the game and buys a ~500$ army and does not want it to win. I have seen people who bought armies to paint and resell, or that do commisions do it. But for them it is more like a part time job. In w40k it is even more so, because the armies cost even more in AoS, on avarge of course.
"Yes except that the most interesting wargame I ever played was determined by a flock of sheep - that were in the middle of the battle field - and unbenowst to the players whoever disturbed it would be attacked by a gang of peasants "
So you claim that random uncontrolable effects make the game more fun, do I understand it right ?
Makumba wrote: I have yet to find a person who wants to play the game and buys a ~500$ army and does not want it to win.
Now you have. It's not that I don't want to win, it's that winning isn't even in the top 10 things I like about the hobby. In fact, I could play 100 games and lose 100 games and still consider my investment of time and money well spent.
So you claim that random uncontrolable effects make the game more fun, do I understand it right ?
Wouldn't you say that dice rolls are random, uncontrollable effects? No shortage of those going around. Somebody must like it.
Sqorgar wrote: Wouldn't you say that dice rolls are random, uncontrollable effects? No shortage of those going around. Somebody must like it.
Absolutely not. Random yes, but far from uncontrollable. If I look at 2 models and see one hits on a 4+, the other a 3+ and I choose to take the model that hits on a 3+ because of this I am tilting the odds in my favor. As am I when i decide a model that makes two 4+ attacks is better than a model that makes one 4+ attack. By engaging an enemy model I want dead with 3 models of my own I am upping the chance to kill that model significantly even though the rice are still random. At it's most basic level almost any tactics in a wargame are simply trying to tilt the odds on the dice in your favor, and there are lots of interesting ways to do that. Things outside of your control, like GWs love of 'roll a d6 to see what happens' mechanics, are purely random and take all agency out of the players hands. There is nothing wrong with enjoying games like that, but neither is there anything wrong in thinking that makes a game shallow and boring.
Wouldn't you say that dice rolls are random, uncontrollable effects? No shortage of those going around. Somebody must like it.
There is a great difference between chosing if you want more cheaper shots or fewer hiting or wounding more offten, and total random effect no one knew about that suddenly pops up. Wining because someone was better is base of good games, wining because someone rolled a "rain" effect and one of the armies suddenly couldn't use their guns is stupid. In my opinion at least.
There is a great difference between chosing if you want more cheaper shots or fewer hiting or wounding more offten, and total random effect no one knew about that suddenly pops up. Wining because someone was better is base of good games, wining because someone rolled a "rain" effect and one of the armies suddenly couldn't use their guns is stupid. In my opinion at least.
First, you can plan around the probability of dice, but you can not control them. Even if there is a 1% chance of rolling all 1s, it can and will still happen.
Second, I like unpredictable games. If I rely on my guns too heavily and they are taken away from me by chance, how is that any difference than rolling a critical miss on a sure thing? I'll grant you that the effect lasts longer, but wouldn't you agree that the better player would have an army and tactics that would be most useful in a wide variety of situations? Wouldn't the better player be better at adapting to changing battlefield conditions? Seems like a rain effect would impact both players equally, so it isn't unfair. Just unpredictable. Are you saying unpredictable is unfair, or just unfun?
In fairness, that thing with the sheep DOES sound kinda fun, the same way that the battle report at the end of the 8th edition hardback sounded fun. Anyone else remember it, with the giant Chaos tree-monster coming to life, and all the players having secret objectives (including against their own team)? That looked like a blast to play, very inspirational...and it also required a GM.
If that's the kind of gameplay Age of Sigmar wants to push, really getting back to the scenario-based RPG roots, they really ought to mention it. As it stands, everything's kinda...halfway between solid concepts.
There is a great difference between chosing if you want more cheaper shots or fewer hiting or wounding more offten, and total random effect no one knew about that suddenly pops up. Wining because someone was better is base of good games, wining because someone rolled a "rain" effect and one of the armies suddenly couldn't use their guns is stupid. In my opinion at least.
First, you can plan around the probability of dice, but you can not control them. Even if there is a 1% chance of rolling all 1s, it can and will still happen.
...
This is where the risk-taking element of combat command enters the equation.
As a general you are supposed to do your best to weight each scenario in your favour. But it is unlikely you can always set up a sure-win situation, so you need to take calculated risks.
Ideally you take risks that pay off at a higher rate than the probability of failing, meaning if you take a 50/50 bet, the reward for success should be more than 50/50. This is where you need to have an idea of the probabilities of outcomes based on the relative strength of units and so on.
Sometimes though you just have to roll the dice and hope for the best.
Makumba wrote: I have yet to find a person who wants to play the game and buys a ~500$ army and does not want it to win.
*raises hand*
Take a look at my Blood Angels gallery: This will end up being thousands of dollars of models for one army, at least 85% of which are not winning units, and as a whole, one of the worst codex of the game. More significantly it will be thousands of hours of modeling by the time I'm done. There are tons of awful units, like attack bikes, land raiders and stormravens. At the end of the day, what's most important to me is to field an awesome looking army that is thematically accurate (or at least likely).
To put it in perspective, the last army Oki finished was Dark Eldar that's a horrible performer, one of my lowest win ratios ever (unless I ally Eldar).
Of course I will try my best each game to win, but I really don't care about the outcome, and I'm just as happy with a good game that ends in a loss as a good game that ends in a win.
For AoS, I've bought a set of all the Sigmarite models for myself... probably doesn't come up to $500, but it's still not cheap; I'll play the game infrequently... but I could give a hoot whether it's a win, lose or draw in Sigmar.
So you claim that random uncontrolable effects make the game more fun, do I understand it right ?
Sometimes...
'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.
Those random elements can really add to the tension and immersion in a game. Like a really clever movie or book, it's about not knowing what happens next. It's the 'gotcha!' moment, where it wasn't the butler, but the chauffeur, and the hints were there all along. It show your skill to be able to react to elements out of your control as best as you can and still try and come out on top.
Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players. Both had armies and mission objectives. Both had intelligence of what they were facing and both had 'aces' up their sleeves in terms of mission specific abilities and special rules. However, neither knew the full story. Neither knew everything. Neither side has knowledge thst was 'complete'. Just like real life. And neither side had entirely accurate intelligence. And that fog of war helped to create a very tense and engaging game where both players were hooked and involved/engsged in the game until the very last throw of the dice.
'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.
Fog of War is actually the #2 reason I prefer PC games to tabletop for wargaming (the #1 reason being matchmaking).
'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.
Those random elements can really add to the tension and immersion in a game. Like a really clever movie or book, it's about not knowing what happens next. It's the 'gotcha!' moment, where it wasn't the butler, but the chauffeur, and the hints were there all along. It show your skill to be able to react to elements out of your control as best as you can and still try and come out on top.
Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players. Both had armies and mission objectives. Both had intelligence of what they were facing and both had 'aces' up their sleeves in terms of mission specific abilities and special rules. However, neither knew the full story. Neither knew everything. Neither side has knowledge thst was 'complete'. Just like real life. And neither side had entirely accurate intelligence. And that fog of war helped to create a very tense and engaging game where both players were hooked and involved/engsged in the game until the very last throw of the dice.
Fog of War is good, rolling a d6 to determine something like the number of attacks your guys has or *shudder* your warlords abilities like in 40k is terrible.
Fog of War is good, rolling a d6 to determine something like the number of attacks your guys has or *shudder* your warlords abilities like in 40k is terrible.
I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.
Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.
Deadnight wrote: I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.
Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.
Well, the issue of warlord traits and spells boils down to them being unequal to each other. So some abilities are awesomely powerful and others are junk. If all the warlord traits were equally useful, that would be a different thing.
In our games, if your warlord (or any NAMED hero) survives, he may keep his trait and spells or reroll (on the next game). That takes the randomness out a little
Deadnight wrote: I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.
Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.
Well, the issue of warlord traits and spells boils down to them being unequal to each other. So some abilities are awesomely powerful and others are junk. If all the warlord traits were equally useful, that would be a different thing.
In our games, if your warlord (or any NAMED hero) survives, he may keep his trait and spells or reroll (on the next game). That takes the randomness out a little
I'd make the argument that his randomly assigned warlord traits simply breaks my immersion in a game. It takes away choice and utterly craps all over all sense of narrative and story. No thanks.
Deadnight wrote: I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.
Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.
Well, the issue of warlord traits and spells boils down to them being unequal to each other. So some abilities are awesomely powerful and others are junk. If all the warlord traits were equally useful, that would be a different thing.
In our games, if your warlord (or any NAMED hero) survives, he may keep his trait and spells or reroll (on the next game). That takes the randomness out a little
Making them random doesn't really solve that issue. It just means one player could get the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons in his command squad that doesn't have heavy weapons, while his opponent can call down an orbital strike. All dependant on two dice rolls, and maybe they don't even match the fluff for the respective generals. Like a lot of things GW does, it's a cool idea that gets a flawed execution.
Spells are are little better, I think, since you've always got the option of swapping one out, you got more than one of you cared enough to do more than take a scroll caddy, and they seem less intrinsic to the character (he ran out of bat guano, so he can't cast THIS today...very different than a carefully modeled drop troops commander suddenly wishing she'd brought along a lascannon because gosh, she's so good at ordering heavy weapons around). I'd say that ideally, they'd both be something you choose. Warlord Traits seem like a neat, relatively easy to balance freebie - just tone down the more powerful ones - but I could get behind paying points for spells.
'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.
It is impossible to get fog of war, when you know have to show your list to your opponent before the game.
Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players.
A Game Master. Like a Dungeon Master in D&D. A neutral 3rd party who controls the story, the non player characters and the adversaries in a roleplaying game.
In an RPG, which is a cooperative game, several players will face off against enemies that are controlled by the GM, who is not competing against the players but rather acting as the environment around them and putting challenges there for them to overcome. They are arbitrators and ultimately have the final say on rules issues as well as times like when you can't tell if something is just in or just out of range.
I've never personally seen one used in a tabletop wargame but presumably the function is similar, except that instead of acting on behalf of the adversaries they are simply the arbitrator and controlling the narrative.
Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players.
What is a gm?
Game Master. Some games recommend it - the old editions of warhammer/40k do so, infact and the point system was provided as one way of circumventing the absence of one. His role is to prepare the battlefield, come up with a scenario, fill in both players with their part of the known details, arbitrate rules, intervene during a game by means of random or hidden events, overriding rules or dice results etc. His responsibilities are many, but the payoff is huge.
jonolikespie wrote: Out of curiosity have any tabletop wargames used them since like 2nd ed 40k?
Aside from my very limited knowledge of historical games - none that I know of. Atleast none of the most popular ones that I know. Someone more knowledgeable may fill in this gap with some info.
Makumba wrote:[
It is impossible to get fog of war, when you know have to show your list to your opponent before the game.
Incorrect.
Point 1: do you 'have' to show your list to your opponent? Not necessarily. In infinity for example, your will have 'open entries' on your list that your opponent can read, and 'hidden' elements, like camo troops, and who your lieutenant is, which your opponent won't know. Don't assume that how you play your wargames defines the only way of doing it. In other games, you won't necessarily know the exact make up of your opponents army.
Point 2: you're assuming 'the lists' define the entirely of the game. Who's to say that this has to be the case? On the most basic level, fog of war can be defined as 'hidden objectives' and 'hidden lists'. You don't know everything your opponent has, and you don't necessarily know what his plans are. Similarly, he doesn't know what yours are. So you end up playing games within games.
In a lot of the games that I have been involved in, there has been a 'background script' for want of a better word for the mission, where regardless of what the participants are doing, at certain points in the game, things happen thst are outside of their control. Bad weather rolls in that obscures visibility (or in a napolenics setting, this would foul powder and ruin your ranged game). in another, their armour gets a call from hq to immediately pull back and redeploy (leave the board essentially) leaving them to complete the mission with just infantry. In another, there are neutral elements that can turn hostile on the players depending on what they do. In other examples, one player knows something that the other player doesn't. He might have extra 'ambush units' to bolter his forces that his opponent doesn't know about. Or they might be given false or incorrect information as part of the mission brief (say being told the enemy has loads of tanks, when in reality, their armour might be extremely limited). In others, you might use something like the camo markers in infinity. Rather than putting down actual models, you might put down a dozen tokens that represent 'pings' on a radar - it might be an enemy model, it might be a squirrel. Not all the 'pings' will be enemy units. Some might be distractions. Some might be the equipment getting it wrong. It's great for an attacker/defender scenario where it adds an extra layer of tension and immersion. Like I said, it's like a clever book or a movie where you don't know what's going to happen next. And essentially, it makes the game more interesting. rIn others, you might be fighting in a space hulk, space station or fortification that is under bombardment. Every turn, things are going wrong - the lights go out, random explosions tear through certain sections of the board, there could be hull breaches, deck collapses, spreading fires - all elements you cannot control or plan for. You can just react.
It helps to recreate games that can be somewhat true to real life. Look at operation market garden from ww2. Aerial recon indicated that the location for the British drop troops was devoid of any significant German presence. Orders were given to go ahead with the parachute drop, over the next few days of extremely bad weather which grounded allied air power, the Germans moved in a whole bunch of tanks into the area. When the British landed, thry were in for a bit of a shock when they faced up against a bunch of panzers. Perfect example of the intelligence given not exactly matching conditions on the ground.
Makumba wrote:
What is a gm?
Games master. Third party umpire, or 'referee'. They run the game, essentially. Often, these guys create or write a scenario (designing the board layout, crafting the mission objectives, deciding on appropriate forces to make the game interesting, writing the 'script') for the game for their mates to play, and are involved in controlling various third party elements of that game that are out of the hands of the players, as well as arbiting any disputes or queries that come up. Lastly, gm's make the final call. If things are going badly, or the players are not going for the bait, the gm can rewrite the script and shake things up a bit as and if required. It's a hugely important role to play, and you need to know the game and be able to write fair and interesting scenarios (it's not about simply enabling one player to crush another, it's about writing interesting games thst let everyone participate), thst said, it is extremely rewarding to be in the drivers seat like this. Gm's are very frequently at the heart of a lot of rpgs too.
jonolikespie wrote:Out of curiosity have any tabletop wargames used them since like 2nd ed 40k?
A lot of historicals tend to make use of a gm. To be fair, a lot of gamers, regardless of what ttg they play use a gm to umpire their games. I don't think it's necessarily something specific to a rules set.
You don't need rules to GM a game. We've used them in a lot of our games. I did for a Bolt Action game. Very useful if you want to surprise players with events like ambushes, betrayals or secret weapons. You can also "cheat" and give one side more reinforcements to stop a game from becoming one sided.
Sorry, man. Fog of war on tabletop is so lame compared to a PC. A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight. If you possess/build certain technologies, you may see on a radar, for instance, some representation of your enemy (like dots or relative sized dots) without all of the information, or perhaps, some technology, like a satellite, will offer you a complete view of your enemy.
Among other things, it creates a need for scouts -- units to keep an eye on things -- and a reason to kill those units.
The depth and surprise FoW adds to a strategy game is immeasurable and irreplaceable on the tabletop.
Fog of war is easy. Numbered tokens correlating to specific units. Each turn you simply say that "this unit in my list is doing this" for the hero phase. The enemy gets to determine what a unit is once the enemy is within 18" unless you target them with a power or they themselves use an attack.
Talys wrote: Sorry, man. Fog of war on tabletop is so lame compared to a PC. A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight. If you possess/build certain technologies, you may see on a radar, for instance, some representation of your enemy (like dots or relative sized dots) without all of the information, or perhaps, some technology, like a satellite, will offer you a complete view of your enemy.
Among other things, it creates a need for scouts -- units to keep an eye on things -- and a reason to kill those units.
The depth and surprise FoW adds to a strategy game is immeasurable and irreplaceable on the tabletop.
Thats not true, if you want fog of war you merely need to take a scale drawing or photo of the map you set up (probably a few maps per person). Play on the fake map until scouts see bits of your force. When this happens, since the map is scaled, you can simply put the models where they moved. Once a unit has been spotted it would be very hard for them to become hidden again unless they withdraw enough.
This is an easy and fun way to do it.
There are plenty of other methods of restricting the gods eye view of the battle through Having GMs, like sitting so your eyes are at table height and having to pass orders to the GM (this means you cannot see easily and a lot of orders rely on guess work and initiative).
We have also played games where the commanders do not even see the table, relying on runners with drawn maps to give you accurate information for your orders and then someone to enact your orders. That was a lot of fun.
Fog of war is easily attainable in various ways, it just wont be like the fog of war in age of empires, you have to make the mechanics yourself to represent fog of war unless the game already has it.
Thats not true, if you want fog of war you merely need to take a scale drawing or photo of the map you set up (probably a few maps per person). Play on the fake map until scouts see bits of your force. When this happens, since the map is scaled, you can simply put the models where they moved. Once a unit has been spotted it would be very hard for them to become hidden again unless they withdraw enough.
This is an easy and fun way to do it.
There are plenty of other methods of restricting the gods eye view of the battle through Having GMs, like sitting so your eyes are at table height and having to pass orders to the GM (this means you cannot see easily and a lot of orders rely on guess work and initiative).
We have also played games where the commanders do not even see the table, relying on runners with drawn maps to give you accurate information for your orders and then someone to enact your orders. That was a lot of fun.
Fog of war is easily attainable in various ways, it just wont be like the fog of war in age of empires, you have to make the mechanics yourself to represent fog of war unless the game already has it.
If you find that fun, sure For me, that sounds like WAY more work than it's worth - compared to PC, where it's just part of the game, and no extra work is required. Among other things, having a GM is difficult in most cases (most people want to play, not referee), and it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop
On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways. All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it.
Thats not true, if you want fog of war you merely need to take a scale drawing or photo of the map you set up (probably a few maps per person). Play on the fake map until scouts see bits of your force. When this happens, since the map is scaled, you can simply put the models where they moved. Once a unit has been spotted it would be very hard for them to become hidden again unless they withdraw enough.
This is an easy and fun way to do it.
There are plenty of other methods of restricting the gods eye view of the battle through Having GMs, like sitting so your eyes are at table height and having to pass orders to the GM (this means you cannot see easily and a lot of orders rely on guess work and initiative).
We have also played games where the commanders do not even see the table, relying on runners with drawn maps to give you accurate information for your orders and then someone to enact your orders. That was a lot of fun.
Fog of war is easily attainable in various ways, it just wont be like the fog of war in age of empires, you have to make the mechanics yourself to represent fog of war unless the game already has it.
If you find that fun, sure For me, that sounds like WAY more work than it's worth - compared to PC, where it's just part of the game, and no extra work is required. Among other things, having a GM is difficult in most cases (most people want to play, not referee), and it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop
On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways. All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it.
But that is entirely opinion you see, it's still very possible to do this in table top form.
Heaps of games use the token idea too posted earlier too.
I find on the PC it does not work well since I cannot change the rules easily to account for things like locating artillery based on the sound or the time it takes for shells to land etc. Or if a sniper fires too many times from the same spot he should more easily be located etc. It's more mechanical and less fluid or something I don't know. Pc is just more limiting.
Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures.
Swastakowey wrote:it's still very possible to do this in table top form.
No one said it wasn't possible, Talys point is that its easier to achieve in a virtual space due to the ability to visually withhold information from all players in the actual game space mediated by the program itself, which is an objectively easier implementation.
Swastakowey wrote:Heaps of games use the token idea too posted earlier too.
Sure, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it still gives away more information via the ability to see token location and movement. On the other hand video games with fog of war give no unintended information away. Moreover you completely ignored a very fair point that if you are using and intermediary refereeing separate maps and using tokens on the main board, then you aren't really getting to see your miniatures on the board as the battle unfolds which is a very big draw for certain players. Which again, video games allow you to do while still preserving fog of war.
Swastakowey wrote: I find on the PC it does not work well since I cannot change the rules easily to account for things like locating artillery based on the sound or the time it takes for shells to land etc. Or if a sniper fires too many times from the same spot he should more easily be located etc. It's more mechanical and less fluid or something I don't know. Pc is just more limiting.
That statement is a red herring so big it could win you a Guinness record. Are you honestly arguing that on the whole, it is common for people to utilize out of sight artillery and ask their opponent to locate it via fall timing and sound? Beyond that how, as a tabletop mechanic, is that even accurately representable beyond a GM telling the opponent the shot sounds east and took X number of seconds to impact, which is then immediately obvious based on which fog of war tokens haven't moved.
What's even funnier is that video games are able to do both of these things objectively better than a tabletop game because all of those details can be calculated in milliseconds through the physics engine and then rendered as actual visible graphics. In fact, I actually just applied both of your scenarios in Metal Gear Solid 5 earlier today. And if you want another game, more related to tabletop games, then Starcraft 2 has both of these features.
Swastakowey wrote:Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures.
Can't resist taking a cheap shot at the end can you. Does the fact that some people enjoy the miniature side of the hobby more bother you that much? You might think the most important part of a game is it's rule set "but that is entirely opinion you see."
Swastakowey wrote:it's still very possible to do this in table top form.
No one said it wasn't possible, Talys point is that its easier to achieve in a virtual space due to the ability to visually withhold information from all players in the actual game space mediated by the program itself, which is an objectively easier implementation.
Swastakowey wrote:Heaps of games use the token idea too posted earlier too.
Sure, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it still gives away more information via the ability to see token location and movement. On the other hand video games with fog of war give no unintended information away. Moreover you completely ignored a very fair point that if you are using and intermediary refereeing separate maps and using tokens on the main board, then you aren't really getting to see your miniatures on the board as the battle unfolds which is a very big draw for certain players. Which again, video games allow you to do while still preserving fog of war.
Swastakowey wrote: I find on the PC it does not work well since I cannot change the rules easily to account for things like locating artillery based on the sound or the time it takes for shells to land etc. Or if a sniper fires too many times from the same spot he should more easily be located etc. It's more mechanical and less fluid or something I don't know. Pc is just more limiting.
That statement is a red herring so big it could win you a Guinness record. Are you honestly arguing that on the whole, it is common for people to utilize out of sight artillery and ask their opponent to locate it via fall timing and sound? Beyond that how, as a tabletop mechanic, is that even accurately representable beyond a GM telling the opponent the shot sounds east and took X number of seconds to impact, which is then immediately obvious based on which fog of war tokens haven't moved.
What's even funnier is that video games are able to do both of these things objectively better than a tabletop game because all of those details can be calculated in milliseconds through the physics engine and then rendered as actual visible graphics. In fact, I actually just applied both of your scenarios in Metal Gear Solid 5 earlier today. And if you want another game, more related to tabletop games, then Starcraft 2 has both of these features.
Swastakowey wrote:Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures.
Can't resist taking a cheap shot at the end can you. Does the fact that some people enjoy the miniature side of the hobby more bother you that much? You might think the most important part of a game is it's rule set "but that is entirely opinion you see."
Are you ok mate? Someone jack into your flask this morning? (now thats a cheap shot) No cheap shots on my end dude, I actually don't mind Talys, why would I cheap shot him?
Anyway...
He said it's not the same, when you can, with some effort make it the same. It just depends if you want to put in effort or not.
With tokens most games have mechanics to get your minis on the board, even if they start off tokens.
When enemy artillery fires in most games they should reveal themselves as your side usually had a team of men specialized to find this out, they are usually attached to your own artillery command. This why counter batteries exist and decoy batteries exist. You don't need to know the calculations involved to add this mechanic in the game, merely a dice roll or an abstraction to represent this on the table. Also you assume the game is using tokens, a lot of the more decent games put artillery off board for better representation of how they work. It all depends on how you want to do it and at what scale.
Tokens are arguably pretty good, because it means you have an idea of where the enemy are, but exact details are not obvious until more pieces of the puzzle are shown, so you can use scouts etc to clarify and broaden your view of the battlefield.
Never played the games you mentioned, the last game I played with fog of war was Age of Empires 1/2 and Command and Conquer generals (I think). There are plenty of things I would like to change with those games in terms of Fog of War but without the modding know how I could not. However in any wargame, it's incredibly simple to change (this goes for any rule etc) the set to make it what you want if the base of the game is good. In this manner, PC is more limiting.
No cheap shot, but if you play wargames because the rules are fun and like minis (or even if you just like the wargames I guess) then fog of war can and does add a lot of extra fun in a game. If you mainly like models id argue it just delays when your models reveal themselves and nothing more, even then, when you play a game and your models die turn 1 there isn't much difference than then=m being revealed in turn 2 for example.
In short, I merely stated my opinion against his, which is wargames are great for fog of war and other details, it just takes a bit more effort and imagination. The PC may do the work for you, but most people couldn't reliably code their own rules into a game (people like me) to make a game suit my tastes hence why im not a fan of PC in this way.
I used to "gm" citytech for my bothers. Id set up identical cities where they couldn't see. It was really fun. Ive always liked urban combat and many of my Warmachine and Infinity games are in urban settings.
Swastakowey wrote: No cheap shots on my end dude, I actually don't mind Talys, why would I cheap shot him?
I never said it was a cheap shot against Talys, did I?
Text removed. No need for lines like this. reds8n
"Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures."
The way this is written states fog of war is both an easy and commonly used mechanic in tabletop games. That sentence is fine on its own, but adding the second sentence implies a contrast between two groups, one appreciates both the rules and models while the other appreciates only the models. The use of "especially" suggests that the first statement is primarily true for the first group, while the statement is less true for the second. Considering the first sentence pertains to the ease of implementing fog of war, it suggests that this second group find the task difficult, which is a judgement about said groups abilities. Considering the majority of your grievances with Age of Sigmar are related to the design of its system, that would place you in the first category and your detractors in the second, which is very easy to interpret as a slight.
Swastakowey wrote: He said it's not the same, when you can, with some effort make it the same. It just depends if you want to put in effort or not.
It is objectively not the same though. Sure you can make a low effort implementation in a video game which is mimic-able by a tabletop rule set, but video games are well beyond that now. Moreover your arguments, specifically in reference to Talys' posts don't actual refute or even address his main points.
"A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight.... it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop... On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways.... All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it."
There's is no way to completely eliminate information from the tabletop easily, visually, all while still preserving accountability. Tokens give away information, and remove the fun of watching your miniatures move around the map. Beyond that the requirement of doing everything by proxy makes judging actual elements of the game difficult because the GM looks at two one-sided force abstraction and has to make judgement calls about elements such as cover or sight without the certainty afforded by actually just measuring the miniatures on the table.
Swastakowey wrote:With tokens most games have mechanics to get your minis on the board, even if they start off tokens.
Which is not the same thing as actually getting to watch your models move around the board and set up firing lines, ambushes, etc.
Swastakowey wrote:When enemy artillery fires in most games they should reveal themselves as your side usually had a team of men specialized to find this out, they are usually attached to your own artillery command. This why counter batteries exist and decoy batteries exist.
Again, a red herring. Not only are you making baseless assumptions about force compositions including its own artillery, much less decoys, analysts, and counter batteries, but this is all completely irrelevant to the question of effectiveness in implementing fog of war between the two mediums.
Swastakowey wrote:You don't need to know the calculations involved to add this mechanic in the game, merely a dice roll or an abstraction to represent this on the table.
Are you seriously going to make the assumption that a force is dragging along an artillery specialists, to then suggest simply rolling a die to determine if he's able to do his job right is actually hilarious.
Swastakowey wrote:Also you assume the game is using tokens, a lot of the more decent games put artillery off board for better representation of how they work. It all depends on how you want to do it and at what scale.
Sure, I've done that before for games, because personally I don't like large artillery on board. Thing is, at that point all the rest of your arguments are moot. Why does it matter if you can time the shelling and locate the sound in order to find an item that isn't on the board. It becomes completely irrelevent.
Swastakowey wrote:Tokens are arguably pretty good, because it means you have an idea of where the enemy are, but exact details are not obvious until more pieces of the puzzle are shown, so you can use scouts etc to clarify and broaden your view of the battlefield.
Which isn't really fog of war in the same capacity as say Warcraft or Starcraft.
Swastakowey wrote:Never played the games you mentioned, the last game I played with fog of war was Age of Empires 1/2 and Command and Conquer generals (I think). There are plenty of things I would like to change with those games in terms of Fog of War but without the modding know how I could not. However in any wargame, it's incredibly simple to change (this goes for any rule etc) the set to make it what you want if the base of the game is good. In this manner, PC is more limiting.
Again, completely outside the question of what does fog of war better. Also, I love how you suggest changing the system to add fog of war, which is a very significant addition, and yet you were one of the people who kept saying that the various community balancing methods for AoS were invalid because they weren't part of the core game.
Swastakowey wrote:No cheap shot, but if you play wargames because the rules are fun and like minis (or even if you just like the wargames I guess) then fog of war can and does add a lot of extra fun in a game. If you mainly like models id argue it just delays when your models reveal themselves and nothing more, even then, when you play a game and your models die turn 1 there isn't much difference than then=m being revealed in turn 2 for example.
Because myself and other people may in fact enjoy watching their minis sit behind cover, climb walls, and walk through the terrain we build before they meet their horrible fate. Just because you don't doesn't make it of trivial importance.
Swastakowey wrote:In short, I merely stated my opinion against his, which is wargames are great for fog of war and other details, it just takes a bit more effort and imagination. The PC may do the work for you, but most people couldn't reliably code their own rules into a game (people like me) to make a game suit my tastes hence why im not a fan of PC in this way.
Modding rules into the game is outside the scope of the conversation which was about the best implementation of fog of war.
Swastakowey wrote:Anyway, in short, calm down buddy.
Funny how when you speak critically of something it's just voicing your opinion, but when someone else criticizes you its suddenly rage.
Swastakowey wrote: No cheap shots on my end dude, I actually don't mind Talys, why would I cheap shot him?
I never said it was a cheap shot against Talys, did I?
"Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures."
The way this is written states fog of war is both an easy and commonly used mechanic in tabletop games. That sentence is fine on its own, but adding the second sentence implies a contrast between two groups, one appreciates both the rules and models while the other appreciates only the models. The use of "especially" suggests that the first statement is primarily true for the first group, while the statement is less true for the second. Considering the first sentence pertains to the ease of implementing fog of war, it suggests that this second group find the task difficult, which is a judgement about said groups abilities. Considering the majority of your grievances with Age of Sigmar are related to the design of its system, that would place you in the first category and your detractors in the second, which is very easy to interpret as a slight.
Swastakowey wrote: He said it's not the same, when you can, with some effort make it the same. It just depends if you want to put in effort or not.
It is objectively not the same though. Sure you can make a low effort implementation in a video game which is mimic-able by a tabletop rule set, but video games are well beyond that now. Moreover your arguments, specifically in reference to Talys' posts don't actual refute or even address his main points.
"A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight.... it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop... On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways.... All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it."
There's is no way to completely eliminate information from the tabletop easily, visually, all while still preserving accountability. Tokens give away information, and remove the fun of watching your miniatures move around the map. Beyond that the requirement of doing everything by proxy makes judging actual elements of the game difficult because the GM looks at two one-sided force abstraction and has to make judgement calls about elements such as cover or sight without the certainty afforded by actually just measuring the miniatures on the table.
Swastakowey wrote:With tokens most games have mechanics to get your minis on the board, even if they start off tokens.
Which is not the same thing as actually getting to watch your models move around the board and set up firing lines, ambushes, etc.
Swastakowey wrote:When enemy artillery fires in most games they should reveal themselves as your side usually had a team of men specialized to find this out, they are usually attached to your own artillery command. This why counter batteries exist and decoy batteries exist.
Again, a red herring. Not only are you making baseless assumptions about force compositions including its own artillery, much less decoys, analysts, and counter batteries, but this is all completely irrelevant to the question of effectiveness in implementing fog of war between the two mediums.
Swastakowey wrote:You don't need to know the calculations involved to add this mechanic in the game, merely a dice roll or an abstraction to represent this on the table.
Are you seriously going to make the assumption that a force is dragging along an artillery specialists, to then suggest simply rolling a die to determine if he's able to do his job right is actually hilarious.
Swastakowey wrote:Also you assume the game is using tokens, a lot of the more decent games put artillery off board for better representation of how they work. It all depends on how you want to do it and at what scale.
Sure, I've done that before for games, because personally I don't like large artillery on board. Thing is, at that point all the rest of your arguments are moot. Why does it matter if you can time the shelling and locate the sound in order to find an item that isn't on the board. It becomes completely irrelevent.
Swastakowey wrote:Tokens are arguably pretty good, because it means you have an idea of where the enemy are, but exact details are not obvious until more pieces of the puzzle are shown, so you can use scouts etc to clarify and broaden your view of the battlefield.
Which isn't really fog of war in the same capacity as say Warcraft or Starcraft.
Swastakowey wrote:Never played the games you mentioned, the last game I played with fog of war was Age of Empires 1/2 and Command and Conquer generals (I think). There are plenty of things I would like to change with those games in terms of Fog of War but without the modding know how I could not. However in any wargame, it's incredibly simple to change (this goes for any rule etc) the set to make it what you want if the base of the game is good. In this manner, PC is more limiting.
Again, completely outside the question of what does fog of war better. Also, I love how you suggest changing the system to add fog of war, which is a very significant addition, and yet you were one of the people who kept saying that the various community balancing methods for AoS were invalid because they weren't part of the core game.
Swastakowey wrote:No cheap shot, but if you play wargames because the rules are fun and like minis (or even if you just like the wargames I guess) then fog of war can and does add a lot of extra fun in a game. If you mainly like models id argue it just delays when your models reveal themselves and nothing more, even then, when you play a game and your models die turn 1 there isn't much difference than then=m being revealed in turn 2 for example.
Because myself and other people may in fact enjoy watching their minis sit behind cover, climb walls, and walk through the terrain we build before they meet their horrible fate. Just because you don't doesn't make it of trivial importance.
Swastakowey wrote:In short, I merely stated my opinion against his, which is wargames are great for fog of war and other details, it just takes a bit more effort and imagination. The PC may do the work for you, but most people couldn't reliably code their own rules into a game (people like me) to make a game suit my tastes hence why im not a fan of PC in this way.
Modding rules into the game is outside the scope of the conversation which was about the best implementation of fog of war.
Swastakowey wrote:Anyway, in short, calm down buddy.
Funny how when you speak critically of something it's just voicing your opinion, but when someone else criticizes you its suddenly rage.
Ok im gonna keep this short...
I did not slight anyone, if you think i did, I don't care. As I said, I did no "cheap shots" (except towards you).
Yes there is a way to remove information from the table top... and that is by having maps and charts for each player. Easy, done it before and it works well. In my opinion it's far better than on PC too because we can change it up any second. It is very easy to have no info on the table.
Again there is easy ways to remove information from the table top. Charts and maps. Its as simple as printing out a few A4 maps and having players keep track of their models on their maps and revealing them when it needs to be revealed. just like in the video games. You dont need to have tokens, tokens you sacrifice a little info for less keeping track. Tokens is just one of many ways to do it.
Artillery cannot function without impressive logistics, command structure and observation teams. If the enemy has artillery it is not baseless to assume they have observers looking out for enemy battery fire. Its like artillery 101. Im merely pointing out that details like this can change on the fly how you use Fog of War and if the game doesn't meet that requirement (if you have them) then you can change it up quickly (unlike on a PC). If you think a dice roll to see if someone can do their job on the table is hilarious then you have missed the point of dice rolling in wargames. Just because it's someones job does not mean they will always be successful at it. In terms of artillery this could mean the enemy countermeasures worked or the guys radio was fuzzy and the details did not go through. None of the above changes if artillery is on the board or not.
Again, tokens are one way of doing it. Tokens are just the simple way of getting fog of war likeness in a more realistic manner (in some ways, depends on scale) than empty map.
I don't suggest it, I stopped playing the game because (not just fog of war) it did not meet my requirements for fun. At the very least I can redeem a game as bad as AOS with house ruling (does not make the game good though, makes my rules good), in a PC game I cannot do this.
Cool you enjoy it, I never said it sucked or nobody did. But even in your example that means you don't enjoy it when models die before they get to move (common in GW games).
Anyway dude, Talys said he likes Fog of War in video games for X reasons. I state you can do the same on a table top if you do X then said why I prefer it on the table top (because he prefers it on PC). He merely said "if you find that fun then sure". The main reason he doesn't like it on the table top is because he always wants to see models on the board, which is fine but ultimately defeats the purpose of Fog of War (as it requires hiding the game tokens).
That was all the original conversation was about. I suspect you merely saw my name and thought "that guy is bashing something" and then went into full anger post mode about me being snide or something.
If you think fog of war isn't as cool on the table top then that's fine, but it is easy to replicate on the table top. If you don't like putting in a bit of effort for that then that's fine, I never said the PC was not easier since it does all the work which is obvious, but PC gaming is easier in general. If you disagree tell me how fog of war cannot be done on the table (which you haven't done so far).
Fog Of War is achieved in tabletop games by various hidden movement rules and by C&C and Morale rules that prevent the player having his units always act as he precisely wishes them to.
Hidden movement can be most easily achieved by having umpires run a master table to move units out of sight of the players. It is much easier to do in a computer game, of course.
Kilkrazy wrote: Hidden movement can be most easily achieved by having umpires run a master table to move units out of sight of the players. It is much easier to do in a computer game, of course.
Yes, my point, which Jack Flask highlighted, was simply that (a) it's not easy at all to achieve even in the most rudimentary way on the tabletop, whereas on the PC, Fog of War is a natural part of the interface, and (b) it kind of means you're not looking at miniatures. And if you're not looking at miniatures, why play a miniature wargame? I mean, that's like watching the Kentucky Derby with just colored dots on a screen representing positions on the track instead of looking at you know, horses and jockeys.
I don't think it's that difficult to present fog of war in miniatures games. There are various ways it can be achieved.
C&C and Morale rules that generate the fog of war that prevents the easy control of your army.
Unknown identities and abilities of units until they are contacted.
Written orders for simultaneous movement.
For simple and easy to use fog of war rules for the tabletop take a peek at sharp practice from two fat ladies.
Essentially once the forces are chosen you take a number of cards for the tabletop, a card can represent 1 unit, many units or a feint, nothing but a bluff.
When combined with their activation deck you gain fog of war at the cost of keeping your own force secret until you want to commit. Whilst represented by a card units activate last and can only complete basic actions, once revealed they move and shoot normally.
@KK & Gharak - Yeah, but still, it's contradictory with the idea of playing with miniatures. I mean, you can't simultaneously display miniatures and make them invisible.
Without a GM and some second map/table, which just sounds like WAY more work than the vast majority of players would be willing to engage in, you're limited to an abstraction of Fog of War -- there are elements of surprise, without actual suppression of sensory information.
There's nothing wrong with this, but abstraction is not equivalent to simulation. In some games, abstraction actually makes a lot of sense and is really cool. For example, in Space Hulk, genestealers that are out of line of sight are represented by blips, and the Space Marine player doesn't know how many genestealers they'll encounter until the they achieve LoS (token is flipped). In this case it's both fluffy, thematically representative, and a good game mechanic.
In a true Fog of War, units see nothing beyond their line of sight (sometimes not even the terrain, at least not until they explore it). Then when a scouting party or sentry encounters something, hears something, or dies, they radio it in, you see it an alert on your radar, hop over, and deal with the threat (perhaps dispatch units), while the rest of the game continues. At least during the beginning of the game (prior to technology/magic that allows it), you have no idea what forces your enemy has, how they've deployed, or how they're mobilizing. It affords you the ability to leave gaping holes to your defense for an assault, on the gamble that your opponent doesn't go there. It incentivizes building defensive fortifications, sentries, and reconnaissance.
If you used an abstraction method on a PC game to provide Fog of War, instead of visual radii of units, nobody would buy the game.
The whole thing about true invisibility with a GM on the tabletop... without two players actually playing on different surfaces and a GM that pops units onto a third that both that can see, you can't make things invisible. Which, again, this sounds crazy to me... it means setting up the same terrain 3 times, having a GM, and having 2 tokens plus one model for each model... and 3 large tables in 3 rooms, or at least partitioned. Plus you'll not see your opponent half the time. I mean, it's just totally contrary to my idea of a tabletop game.
It's the first time I've heard of someone doing that, and it just sounds really hard on anything other than a low model count game on a small surface with not much terrain, but hey, if you're set up for it... cool!
It would probably be simpler to do on a larger, strategic scale, as part of a campaign. I think I remember seeing something like that in the General's Compendium, where everyone got a map, the GM had a master map, and he adjusted what everyone saw...or I could be remembering it from something else. Maybe that island campaign GW used to have on their website?
Gah. Wish I'd thought to save the rules for that one all those years ago.
Fog of War seems more appropriate on that scale, to be honest. Most of these battles are at pretty short range. You're going to be able to tell where people are, whether they're on horses, if they've got pikes, that sort of thing.
I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.
The "scandalous" document in question is an yearly report for 2014. I'll find it in a minute. P.S. Ah, yes here it is http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Games-Workshop-Group-14-combined-FINAL-cover-version.pdf. Got it wrong the first time.
And the paragraph that lit the whole interned on fire itself:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche."
Thanks for that. I think I understand their reasoning here. A niche market is, by definition, small and specialized. Market research in such a small arena is of limited value, especially if your competitors (like both of them) don't share sales information, or if their sales are so insignificant compared to your own that you wouldn't care. If they do something that is successful, is it because it was a better choice or because it was a better choice for their specific audience? You can't really draw trends from such a small data set. I mean, you can make assumptions, but the market is small enough that they don't need to pay other people to make assumptions for you.
I also understand why it could be seen as frustrating for fans, because it seems like "we don't care what our fans think", especially with how uncommunicative GW can be about the decisions it makes. They won't even announce new products that it has been preparing for months/years more than a week in advance. It makes the players feel isolated from the direction of the game, like followers instead of companions. But, alas, that's how GW wants to play things. I kind of get that too, as if there's one unifying behavior that applies to all GW fans, it's that they think that they know how better to run the company than GW does, and man, I'll bet that gets old real quick.
Says he isn't an apologist. Says he wants to see document for himself. Sees it and agrees with GW's reasoning. How's el armor blanco?
Look, I'm trying to enjoy Age of Sigmar. I WANT to keep playing the newest edition, as well as older ones I love. But it's not a wonderful system. And to have someone tell you a mistake GW openly admits to (not that they consider it a mistake, just an action they admit to doing), you hand wave it away.
I think the new CEO is making moves away from that. Remember the online survey the Webstore had? Or the difference in tone in the last financial report? They're still not perfect, but steps in the right direction are appreciated.
On Fog of War, GW have had a version of it in Space Hulk and Zone Mortalis with the "blip" system. Works well on the tabletop when LoS is restricted to narrow corridors :-)
Talys wrote: @KK & Gharak - Yeah, but still, it's contradictory with the idea of playing with miniatures. I mean, you can't simultaneously display miniatures and make them invisible.
No, not really. We're playing table top wargames. We use miniatures but there is no inviolable rule suggesting they must be used all the time and 'put on display'. For a lot of people, including myself it's not about that. They 'use' miniatures as part of their ttg 's, 'displaying' them means something else. Both are fine, but playing ttgs and displaying models are not necessarily the same thing. Don't project. You're quite guilty of projecting your views on what you like as some inviolable mantra that defines wargamers as a whole- in this case, playing with miniatures and displaying them being the same thing. Fine fir you, but there are other ways of viewing this and approaching this.
Football is played with a ball, but you don't have it all the time, do you?
You still are playing with miniatures at the end of the day. They've simpky not appeared yet. Just like reserves. Or deep strikers. Or does everything have to stay on the table all the time for talys to consider it 'fun'?
As I see it, fog of war is far easier in computer games. No question. It's more 'natural'. Then again, having a gm, or coming to a consensus about with your mates as to a cool game mechanics you'd like to try out isn't exactly hard. And by the way, you don't need a gm. Infinity has hidden units in the army lists, and camo troops are deployed via camo markers rather than placing the model on the tabel. The Ariadna spetsznaz even has ambush camouflage where he generates two camo tokens representing how skilled he is at distracting you and fudging his precise location.
Personally I see it as being similar to movies and the theatre. The theatre will never show the same story in the same way as the movie, due to space restrictions and lack of cgi etc but often times is just as good and sometimes even more imaginative in how thry convey it. In some ways, they capture something brilliant that movies can never do either. Just look at the lion king, great movie. Brilliant show.
Talys wrote: @KK & Gharak - Yeah, but still, it's contradictory with the idea of playing with miniatures. I mean, you can't simultaneously display miniatures and make them invisible.
Frog of War is only partly covered by not being able to see things at all and blundering straight into them (though there are plenty of stories from WWII of troops turning a corner and coming face to face with a Battalion of the enemy). I admit that's one type of Fog of War that isn't handled well by tabletop miniature games, although it's incredible how often a camouflaged unit in a wood is forgotten until the end of the game.
A good one I've heard of is setting up every German tank in a WWII game as a Tiger and only reveal the actual tank on a spotting roll, to represent Allied troops' well-documented tendency to take fright and identify EVERYTHING as a Tiger.
Hidden Deployment is a form of Fog of War. Or Defender deploys half > attacker deploys all > defender deploys remaining.
Infiltrate is a form of Fog of War.
Unknown enemy stats is a form of Fog of War.
Friendly Fire is a form of Fog of War.
Revealing "blind counters" to be either units or dummies when they are finally spotted is a decent form of Fog of War - troops can hear shooting and "spot" movement , correctly or otherwise, without knowing what they fight (it's amazing both how far away you can hear the enemy and how close you can't hear a thing under different circumstances). As an example, the Argentinian defenders on Mount Tumbledown could hear the British Royal Marines giving orders to "Fix bayonets" in the darkness long before they could make out troop movements.
Playing in the darkness and only allowing limited use of torches from your troops' positions is gimmicky but fun. Fog of War.
All simulation is abstraction, strictly speaking. 40k is poor at handling other aspects of the simulation such as battlefield friction - Morale and pinning are only counted in certain situations, and troops receive and follow orders (mostly) perfectly.
Kilkrazy wrote: Who ever said that tabletop games must always have visible miniatures that exactly portray the units they represent?
Wargames aren't a religion.
No, of course not. Proxies are just fine in my playbook, though yes, I play miniature wargames in large part for the miniatures.
In my opinion, and ONLY in the context of my opinion, if you take away all the miniatures and terrain and physical things which make tabletop wargames unique, a PC is just a better medium, because it acts like a free GM that can do math really quickly and reveal information instantly and consistently. Plus, if you imagine a literal fog of war -- where you can only see 6" beyond your regular units and 12" beyond scout units, or where each unit can see about 1-2% of the map, like a computer game... this is simply not realistic in *most* people's tabletop gaming situations.
Yes, you can finagle it by jumping through some hoops. I'm certainly not denying that. It's just not the norm, it's not very natural, and I don't think most people play this way; whereas, on the PC, practically every wargame is played with a "true" Fog of War. To me, an analogy would be like trying to bring a car racing game onto the tabletop. Sure you could do it, but an Xbox is just a more natural interface.
I mean, look, I'm not advocating for PC games. I spend way more time these days on hobby and TTGs than RTS and TBSPC games; I'm just saying that they can handle this particular mechanic a lot better better, and it's a really good mechanism that opens up strategic possibilities like leaving exposed flanks. And if you like to play your TTGs with tokens instead of miniatures, have fun; I'm not judging. It's not the norm in my area for any wargaming group I've come across, but hey, that's just what I've seen.
In my opinion, and ONLY in the context of my opinion, if you take away all the miniatures and terrain and physical things which make tabletop wargames unique, a PC is just a better medium, because it acts like a free GM that can do math really quickly and reveal information instantly and consistently.
In my opinion, and ONLY in the context of my opinion, if you take away all the miniatures and terrain and physical things which make tabletop wargames unique, a PC is just a better medium, because it acts like a free GM that can do math really quickly and reveal information instantly and consistently.
Wait, you pay your GMs? Can I submit a resume?
You say this in jest, but I bet there are RPG groups that would pay actual money to have a good GM, LOL... like, a small monthly fee to a game that's hosted by someone, who has a good campaign. It is *painful* finding people to GM these parts. Everyone wants to be a participant, not a referee. It's probably the reason my group doesn't play RPGs anymore.
Deadnight wrote:Don't project. You're quite guilty of projecting your views on what you like as some inviolable mantra that defines wargamers as a whole- in this case, playing with miniatures and displaying them being the same thing. Fine fir you, but there are other ways of viewing this and approaching this.
Football is played with a ball, but you don't have it all the time, do you?
I don't see what the point is of posting on a forum, if not to post one's own views. I have never, ever tried to define other wargamers or lump them as a homogenous group. If you look on any thread, I post a zillion times, something to the tune of, "hey, I don't get it, but if it works for you, awesome."
Everything I post is from my perspective, and where I believe my perspective is wildly different from the norm, I usually say so at some point in the thread, but don't repeat it *every post* for 15 pages.
In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it. It is not a mechanic represented in most games out of the box, and all I've done is expressed that tabletop implementations are more awkward compared to PC counterparts. Not that they're impossible or silly or bad. To the contrary, I even posted an example of a good Fog of War implementation, Space Hulk, which represents genestealers as blips (of unknown number) until they're in Line of Sight, at which point the token is flipped. Even so, there is no map exploration as you might have in a PC equivalent.
Now, I do believe that the majority of people who play most of the games that we talk about on Dakka -- the most popular ones on the market, such as 40k, WMH, Malifaux, Infinity, X-Wing, Necromundia, Kings of War, and various historicals -- play them with miniatures rather than tokens, paper triangles, or some other representative marker. I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying this is the way I have observed that most people play them; most certainly this is the case if you go into local gaming stores. Furthermore, in nearly every organized competitive event of a miniature wargame I've ever seen, having the correct miniature or some recognizable conversion thereof is important.
As to football -- that is so bizarre a statement. I guess I must misunderstand what you're saying, because whether you mean either European or North American football... during the entire game (ie when the game clock is in effect)... *someone* must have possession of the ball or the ball must be on the field. Game play (the clock) immediately stops otherwise.
I don't see what the point is of posting on a forum, if not to post one's own views. I have never, ever tried to define other wargamers or lump them as a homogenous group. If you look on any thread, I post a zillion times, something to the tune of, "hey, I don't get it, but if it works for you, awesome."
It's how you do it though talys . It's the implications that 'well I don't get it' that leads to the frustration. You portray your views as some universal truth that by implication invalidates, dismisses or otherwise ignores the value of othe viewpoint. 'Got mine, don't care'.
There is nothing wrong with posting your views, the problem lies in how you do it: you portray them as a universal truth, rather than 'well it's my opinion that...' You do it frequently. In the past, for example where you talk about wmh players who play with zero terrain - when questioned you inevitably state how your opinions stem from your own personal meta; but your statement is written as an incontrovertible and universal truth. in other words you tar everything with a generic statement based on anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotal evidence is not wrong, how you project it can be infuriating. Here you are arguing 'what is the point of playing with miniatures if not to display them'? You imply 'displaying them' is the point, and leave no room for any other interpretation or viewpoint.
Everything I post is from my perspective, and where I believe my perspective is wildly different from the norm, I usually say so at some point in the thread, but don't repeat it *every post* for 15 pages.
I like you talys and would love to trade beers with you, but With respect, despite your claim of doing what you do, it often it does not come across that way when other people read it.
In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it.
Here. Perfect example. Defining your personal viewpoint as a universal truth. Why do pc games have a minoploly on defining what 'true' fog of war is? Hmm? Pc games are often just as abstract and unrealistic. My Starcraft marines see twenty feet even with completely unrestricted Los to the end of the map. Fog of war is far more than grey on a map. Fog of war literally means not knowing everything that is going on. It's about uncertainty. What you define as 'true' is merely one interpretation from a specific medium. Talk to your average army general and ask him about the 'true' fog of war that they deal with, how computer games relate to it, and he'll probably give you an answer full of expletives about your computer games and where they can go.
And I don't care how people in the computer game world see things. I really don't. I don't care about computer games. Full stop. This is a completely different medium. Like theatre and cinema. Or books and movies. You can't compare the two and you can't hold ones standards and ways of doing things as the 'true' way, especially in regards to the other. That's an extremely narrow minded and intellectually dishonest approach.
Now, I do believe that the majority of people who play most of the games that we talk about on Dakka -- the most popular ones on the market, such as 40k, WMH, Malifaux, Infinity, X-Wing, Necromundia, Kings of War, and various historicals -- play them with miniatures rather than tokens, paper triangles, or some other representative marker. I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying this is the way I have observed that most people play them; most certainly this is the case if you go into local gaming stores. Furthermore, in nearly every organized competitive event of a miniature wargame I've ever seen, having the correct miniature or some recognizable conversion thereof is important.
You don't get it, do you. It's not about using tokens 'rather than' miniatures. Jesus Christ, is this just about being deliberately obtuse? Because that's how it's coming across. You use tokens, where it's appropriate. Not instead of. In addition to. Big difference. If you don't know where the model is, you represent it with various counters that could be the model. It's about bringing a bit of fear, tension and uncertainty into the game. Those tokens are Like 'blips' on a radar screen. It could be that nasty spetsznaz, or it could be a squirrel. And yes, despite how you have observed them, this is how they are actually used by the majority of players in some games. Camo tokens in infinity. Perfect example. When it is revealed, or when the real slim shady is spotted, the token is replaced with the miniature. Uncertainty replaced with certainty. And let's go beyond organised play and competitive events, which often are unsuited to the 'home brew' and 'interesting ideas to spice up a game' thst this is perfectly suited to and instead go to you and your mates, or me and mine, in our own homes with some beers, pizzas and a bbq.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.
And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.
You might be insulted. Doesn't mean it's not true.
And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.
You play the game without using any tactics, then complain the game has no tactics. Bravo.
Which I painted, so I should know, it said this is a citadel expert's kit and is not recommended for children. I play with works of art. Calling them toys is like saying a paintbrush and paints are toys. Can they be toys? Yes. When the professional standard artist is using them, are they toys? No.
You play the game without using any tactics, then complain the game has no tactics. Bravo.
There were no tactics to be played. AoS is about telling a narrative. Not winning.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.
And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.
Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.
And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.
Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.
Don't be calling a "toy" anything you're not prepared to hand to a child. If you're prepared to hand a mediocre painted sigmarine to a child, that's a toy. If you're not prepared to let a child handle a model you've spent hundreds of hours on, that is not a toy.
Don't be calling a "toy" anything you're not prepared to hand to a child. If you're prepared to hand a mediocre painted sigmarine to a child, that's a toy. If you're not prepared to let a child handle a model you've spent hundreds of hours on, that is not a toy.
So if someone is prepared to let a child handle a model with hundreds of hours spent on it, does it become a toy again?
Don't be calling a "toy" anything you're not prepared to hand to a child. If you're prepared to hand a mediocre painted sigmarine to a child, that's a toy. If you're not prepared to let a child handle a model you've spent hundreds of hours on, that is not a toy.
So if someone is prepared to let a child handle a model with hundreds of hours spent on it, does it become a toy again?
Technically yes. Same as if the Mona Lisa was given to child to doodle on. But that's beside the point. Anything can tecnically be a child's plaything. Were engaging common sense here. There's a clear difference between a toy and a work of art. GW is a model company first and a rules company second. So despite their claims to the contrary, they are primarily selling art media. Art media can vary from toy to masterpiece. But one is not the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kenshinzo 7 wrote: A toy is an item that can be used for play. Do you play with your models TBM?
Occasionally. There's a difference between using something that isn't a toy, as a toy vs something defined primarily as a toy soldier with all the implications surrounding it. .
And that implication and context is the OP reducing media of potentially high level artistic expression to "toy soldiers" in order to highlight the "trivial" and "childish" nature of the hobby.
That's insulting. Toy here is being used in the context of play media for kids and why shouldn't adults embrace a childish game because "toy soldiers". There is nothing inherently childish about high level miniatures art and craft. So the idea that the childish game should be embraced cos we're all doing childish crap anyway, isn't true and is an insulting thing to say.
Technically yes. Same as if the Mona Lisa was given to child to doodle on. But that's beside the point. Anything can tecnically be a child's plaything. Were engaging common sense here. There's a clear difference between a toy and a work of art. GW is a model company first and a rules company second. So despite their claims to the contrary, they are primarily selling art media. Art media can vary from toy to masterpiece. But one is not the other.
Not looking to cause further offence, but I do this stuff for a living and I think this might be taking it a tad too far...
(really got no pretensions about what I do for a job!).
Yeah right toy. Dwarf High King Thorakik Droll'Kakath has bested over three score armies of Greenskins singlehandedly, destroyed the Bulb'Amoss'Ta Ogre Kingdom and smited an Elven incursion so mightily he sent the pointy ears fleeing back within a day. Droll'Kakath has been thrice scorned, and thrice risen again, to do great deeds such as holding his armoured fortress during the entirety of the End Times, the only Dwarf in all the beautiful lands to keep the Chaos horde at bay.
And you call him a toy. Droll'Kakath is more real to me than my brother.
A Lamborghini and cars like it are often called toys. $500K+ toys. But regarded as toys by many. As are yachts, helicopters, jet skis, water jet boots....
Are they things you'd hand off to a child to play with? Not very likely. Does that make them not toys? No, they are still toys, just not toys developed, priced, or intended for children to play with.
Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are. Does that mean I let my 2 year old play with them? No, of course not. They're multi-part models that I spend hours assembling and painting, and despite being very careful, especially for a 2 year old...he's still 2. Things will break, things will go in his mouth.
He's got his own set of toy soldiers that he can play with. They look very much like mine, but either aren't painted, or are pre-painted with what I hope are kid-safe paints. When he gets older, like my 10 year old, he'll be able to play games with my toy soldiers, and maybe get his own.
kingbobb wrote: A Lamborghini and cars like it are often called toys. $500K+ toys. But regarded as toys by many. As are yachts, helicopters, jet skis, water jet boots....
Are they things you'd hand off to a child to play with? Not very likely. Does that make them not toys? No, they are still toys, just not toys developed, priced, or intended for children to play with.
Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are. Does that mean I let my 2 year old play with them? No, of course not. They're multi-part models that I spend hours assembling and painting, and despite being very careful, especially for a 2 year old...he's still 2. Things will break, things will go in his mouth.
He's got his own set of toy soldiers that he can play with. They look very much like mine, but either aren't painted, or are pre-painted with what I hope are kid-safe paints. When he gets older, like my 10 year old, he'll be able to play games with my toy soldiers, and maybe get his own.
Calling people's art "toys" makes you look like a disrespectful little troll. Toys imply immaturity, and cars etc are only called toys when one is trying to say this person is immature. If you want to call your art a toy, that's on you, but calling other people's art that when they find it offensive shows you have no manners whatsoever. I consider them works of art and game pieces. Mine are not toys. Period.
In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it.
Here. Perfect example. Defining your personal viewpoint as a universal truth. Why do pc games have a minoploly on defining what 'true' fog of war is? Hmm? Pc games are often just as abstract and unrealistic. My Starcraft marines see twenty feet even with completely unrestricted Los to the end of the map. Fog of war is far more than grey on a map. Fog of war literally means not knowing everything that is going on. It's about uncertainty. What you define as 'true' is merely one interpretation from a specific medium. Talk to your average army general and ask him about the 'true' fog of war that they deal with, how computer games relate to it, and he'll probably give you an answer full of expletives about your computer games and where they can go.
And I don't care how people in the computer game world see things. I really don't. I don't care about computer games. Full stop. This is a completely different medium. Like theatre and cinema. Or books and movies. You can't compare the two and you can't hold ones standards and ways of doing things as the 'true' way, especially in regards to the other. That's an extremely narrow minded and intellectually dishonest approach.
I've simply stated that computer games simulate reality better than tabletop games, because they have the ability to more conveniently obscure more information (such as terrain). I didn't say that one is superior, or the other inferior; merely that one is more of a simulation, and the other more a more distant abstraction. If you ask most people what a fog of war means, they'll relate it to StarCraft or Warcraft. It doesn't matter if you don't care what other people think; there IS a lot of crossover in terms of people who have played both TTGs and RTS/TBS games. I would venture to guess that most people on Dakka have played a computer game with Fog of War at some point in their life.
I've also said that FoW is the norm in TBS/RTS games, whereas it is NOT the norm in TTGs. I don't think this is my opinion; I think this is factual, because practically every strategy game on the computer has FoW, while a lot of TTG games don't. Why? I think because it's more awkward and more abstract in most games. That part is my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
I don't know why you don't like comparing computerized and tabletop implementations of FoW. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that some mediums better represent certain types of play than others. If you aren't interested in the subject at all... well, my friend, I was not soliciting a response from you.... just expressing my opinion
You don't get it, do you. It's not about using tokens 'rather than' miniatures. Jesus Christ, is this just about being deliberately obtuse? Because that's how it's coming across. You use tokens, where it's appropriate. Not instead of. In addition to. Big difference.
I do get it. But look at the list of games that I filled out, which represent the vast majority of wargames played at FLGS and gaming clubs. Most of them don't have ANY rules in the book that implement any form of Fog of War, defining that in the loosest form possible, uncertainty based on line of sight or unit proximity.
I certainly agree that some games may have ways of obscuring some information to create uncertainty, and these abstractions fit the bill for Fog of War; as I've repeated over and over again, in my opinion, it's not that FoW doesn't exist in TTGs; I just think that they're more awkward than PC implementations. It's my opinion only, just as it's only my preference to play TTG wargames with more miniatures and fewer representative tokens.
You can disagree with me, but you don't have to club me over the head as being obtuse about it I mean, I enjoy both TTGs and PC games; I just happen to like dynamic FoW on the PC, and I like unobscured miniatures on the tabletop, and this is what I observe in nearly 100% of the games I see when I watch other peoples' tabletop and multiplayer PC wargames.
To take it back to Age of Sigmar... (this is a thread about AoS, right?) -- There is NO Fog of War in Age of Sigmar, in any form
Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are.
I think it's just all in how it's said and the connotations which may vary culturally. To some people, "toy" denotes something without substance or importance; to others, "toy" denotes something which brings happiness and evokes a certain type of joyful reaction.
"That crappy Ryobi is just a toy," implies that the Makita that costs twice as much isn't. "Ferraris and Lamborghinis... Toys for boys!" implies luxury goods for wealthy men.
In this particular instance, I don't believe that a "true" Fog of War is common at all in tabletop wargames, miniatures or not -- that is, in the sense that most people in the computer gaming world understand it.
Here. Perfect example. Defining your personal viewpoint as a universal truth. Why do pc games have a minoploly on defining what 'true' fog of war is? Hmm? Pc games are often just as abstract and unrealistic. My Starcraft marines see twenty feet even with completely unrestricted Los to the end of the map. Fog of war is far more than grey on a map. Fog of war literally means not knowing everything that is going on. It's about uncertainty. What you define as 'true' is merely one interpretation from a specific medium. Talk to your average army general and ask him about the 'true' fog of war that they deal with, how computer games relate to it, and he'll probably give you an answer full of expletives about your computer games and where they can go.
And I don't care how people in the computer game world see things. I really don't. I don't care about computer games. Full stop. This is a completely different medium. Like theatre and cinema. Or books and movies. You can't compare the two and you can't hold ones standards and ways of doing things as the 'true' way, especially in regards to the other. That's an extremely narrow minded and intellectually dishonest approach.
I've simply stated that computer games simulate reality better than tabletop games, because they have the ability to more conveniently obscure more information (such as terrain). I didn't say that one is superior, or the other inferior; merely that one is more of a simulation, and the other more a more distant abstraction. If you ask most people what a fog of war means, they'll relate it to StarCraft or Warcraft. It doesn't matter if you don't care what other people think; there IS a lot of crossover in terms of people who have played both TTGs and RTS/TBS games. I would venture to guess that most people on Dakka have played a computer game with Fog of War at some point in their life.
I've also said that FoW is the norm in TBS/RTS games, whereas it is NOT the norm in TTGs. I don't think this is my opinion; I think this is factual, because practically every strategy game on the computer has FoW, while a lot of TTG games don't. Why? I think because it's more awkward and more abstract in most games. That part is my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
I don't know why you don't like comparing computerized and tabletop implementations of FoW. There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with feeling that some mediums better represent certain types of play than others. If you aren't interested in the subject at all... well, my friend, I was not soliciting a response from you.... just expressing my opinion
You don't get it, do you. It's not about using tokens 'rather than' miniatures. Jesus Christ, is this just about being deliberately obtuse? Because that's how it's coming across. You use tokens, where it's appropriate. Not instead of. In addition to. Big difference.
I do get it. But look at the list of games that I filled out, which represent the vast majority of wargames played at FLGS and gaming clubs. Most of them don't have ANY rules in the book that implement any form of Fog of War, defining that in the loosest form possible, uncertainty based on line of sight or unit proximity.
I certainly agree that some games may have ways of obscuring some information to create uncertainty, and these abstractions fit the bill for Fog of War; as I've repeated over and over again, in my opinion, it's not that FoW doesn't exist in TTGs; I just think that they're more awkward than PC implementations. It's my opinion only, just as it's only my preference to play TTG wargames with more miniatures and fewer representative tokens.
You can disagree with me, but you don't have to club me over the head as being obtuse about it I mean, I enjoy both TTGs and PC games; I just happen to like dynamic FoW on the PC, and I like unobscured miniatures on the tabletop, and this is what I observe in nearly 100% of the games I see when I watch other peoples' tabletop and multiplayer PC wargames.
To take it back to Age of Sigmar... (this is a thread about AoS, right?) -- There is NO Fog of War in Age of Sigmar, in any form
Getting all bent out of shape over what your toy soldiers are called only makes you look like an elitist snob. They're toy soldiers. It's what they are.
I think it's just all in how it's said and the connotations which may vary culturally. To some people, "toy" denotes something without substance or importance; to others, "toy" denotes something which brings happiness and evokes a certain type of joyful reaction.
"That crappy Ryobi is just a toy," implies that the Makita that costs twice as much isn't. "Ferraris and Lamborghinis... Toys for boys!" implies luxury goods for wealthy men.
I agree with your point about the lack of realistic FOG in tabletop wargaming. In some ways it's like playing Battleship but being able to see your opponents board. A better example would probably be chess, it's a "wargame" in the sense that it has strategy and tactics but it's also an abstraction. AoS, or any other TTG, suffers a lack of realism due to the fact that while you still have to play your opponent you have a perfect view of the battlefield, you know the location of every unit on both sides and every move each unit makes. That kind of omniscience is extremely rare in reality and never happened in eras of lower technology. It removes the element of surprise and fear of the unknown, mistakes like Pickett's Charge because you'd never underestimate your opponents strength because you can see all of the units deployed against you. Computers can hide things from you and limit the intelligence and communication available to you in ways that can't be done on the tabletop. All of your orders will always be followed to the letter and be executed precisely when you want them done. It's a trade off, you lose some realism for the benefit of using real models and playing people in person. The definition of Fog of War is pretty much that a commanding general is limited to what he can see with his own eyes and the information that is reported in by subordinates or technology. It's the distance of the commander from the front lines that decreases knowledge and reaction time. There's no way to physically recreate that on the tabletop outside of only placing units on the table when they are visible to opposing units LOS and removing them when they're not and keeping hidden units, like ones behind tree lines, off the table until they attack or are found by opposing forces. That's an extremely tedious way to play but it's more realistic. Most people enjoy the ease of playing with the chess like abstraction of omniscience so most games don't waste time with difficult and tedious FOG mechanics. The plethora of successful enjoyable TTGs shows that lack of FOG mechanics isn't a big deal or hindrance.
On the topic of "toys" if they're used to play a game then they're toys (which doesn't mean they can't be nice or expensive, just that they are implements used to play a game for fun/amusement) and if they're used to create art in your spare time then they're a hobby (which also doesn't mean they aren't nice or expensive). There's nothing wrong with having toys, toys are fun, fun is awesome.
Ugh, not the "there is no strategy" argument again. You don't like the game, fine. But there is strategy, it is deeper than you think, and next time you are playing the game put something in the middle to maneuver around.
Well so far the only strategy I've seen people talk about is putting terrain in the middle so it isn't a pile in and the existence of a retreat rule.
Please feel free to add or elaborate on that but as it stands that sounds entirely shallow compared to say, ordering your activation so you can buff unit X before activating it to push unit Y out of the way so unit Z can charge through the gap you have created. Or looking at your opponent's models on the board and knowing they are under points so you need to figure out if that means they have an invisible sniper somewhere, a shotgun about to air drop into your back lines, or if one of their line troops is in fact a hologram hiding an elite soldier. Or hell, even just looking at your speed and maneuverability and trying to guess which way your opponent will turn so you can do the same and keep them in your firing arc while staying out of his.
jonolikespie wrote: Well so far the only strategy I've seen people talk about is putting terrain in the middle so it isn't a pile in and the existence of a retreat rule.
Please feel free to add or elaborate on that but as it stands that sounds entirely shallow compared to say, ordering your activation so you can buff unit X before activating it to push unit Y out of the way so unit Z can charge through the gap you have created. Or looking at your opponent's models on the board and knowing they are under points so you need to figure out if that means they have an invisible sniper somewhere, a shotgun about to air drop into your back lines, or if one of their line troops is in fact a hologram hiding an elite soldier. Or hell, even just looking at your speed and maneuverability and trying to guess which way your opponent will turn so you can do the same and keep them in your firing arc while staying out of his.
It's funny, because when I talk to my chess buddies, they all laugh at wargames (PC or tabletop) as being incredibly simplistic and unstrategic -- games that boil down to "learn what game pieces do and what tricks you can make them do... go!". To them, an intellectual challenge is seeing permutations and possibilities far in advance, fooling your opponent by predicting their actions, and reducing their options with each of your own. Incidentally, I am a pretty terrible chess player (at least, when playing against anyone who cares about their Elo/FIDE rating).
But whatever. Every game is different and has its draw, it's fun factors and people who enjoy them for various reasons. Find your fun and just enjoy it, I say.
Personally, although I think there are plenty of possibilities for combat tactics in AoS, I don't really care, as I just use it to play occasional games with neat models with people who likewise are pretty casual AoS players with no desire to get serious about it -- like me, they just buy occasional models, paint them, and want to play them without much forethought into army composition (beyond, gee, that would sure look cool). It's not even about the fluff, for us; the game's just a diversion. It basically comes down to... "Winged Sigmarites... Knight on big cat.... Gimme dice!"
Still, we're actually *playing* it here and there, buying some models, reading some books... and none of us have ever had a desire to play WHFB or KoW.
Sure.. but that doesn't answer my question. Yes chess is significantly more deep tactically than any wargame I've yet played but the point was that no one has actually been able to adequately explain what about AoS involves tactical depth to me, just exclaim that there are tactics.
jonolikespie wrote: Sure.. but that doesn't answer my question. Yes chess is significantly more deep tactically than any wargame I've yet played but the point was that no one has actually been able to adequately explain what about AoS involves tactical depth to me, just exclaim that there are tactics.
Like I said, this isn't what I'm looking for in AoS, so I've literally spent zero time thinking about what units best support what other units, how to best deploy them, and use their abilities and spells, how to deny my opponents best use of the field, or use of their abilities, and so on. I don't even read the warscrolls of the models I don't own -- I buy the model first, paint it with the configuration most pleasing to my eye second, and read the rules for it a few minutes before playing the game. So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me
Not that I don't care about strategy in war games at all; just that for *this* game, which we use as a time filler (we wrap up 40k early, for example), that's not really on my mind.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.
And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.
Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.
That's not entirely fair. There certainly is a serious side to wargaming if you want to look into it.
One of the origins of wargames is Kriegsspiel which was invented in Napoleonic times as a training aid for the Prussian General Staff. Many modern military colleges use various types of wargames in training and education.
If someone thinks the games they play are more intellectual than yours, they may actually be correct. To be fair, AoS is at the low end of the scale for complexity of simulation. That is the whole point of it being simple.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
It's an damn insult to all the years, skill and money I put in to call them that.
And don't be telling me I'm wrong about AoS having no tactics. I tried (borrowed) stormcast. There were no tactics. It was just run to the middle and engage in 30 rounds of repetitive combat. Tedious.
Hate to see you insulted, but that's what it is. PLAYING WITH TOY SOLDIERS"S Why does that offend you? Do you think you are more special than the rest of us who play with toy soldier's. Are you more intellectual?. I hate to tell you this, but to people outside the hobby that's exactly what it is.
That's not entirely fair. There certainly is a serious side to wargaming if you want to look into it.
One of the origins of wargames is Kriegsspiel which was invented in Napoleonic times as a training aid for the Prussian General Staff. Many modern military colleges use various types of wargames in training and education.
If someone thinks the games they play are more intellectual than yours, they may actually be correct. To be fair, AoS is at the low end of the scale for complexity of simulation. That is the whole point of it being simple.
Who ever said life is fair? Serious? well sure there is seriousness to it, but that doesn't change what it is. Oh and I know the origins of Wargaming by the way and there is a difference between military simulation and H.G. Wells playing Little wars in the floor with is buddies. Please don't try and come at me with your I'm more intellectual than you attitude.
Talys wrote: So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me
That was what I was hoping for...
You should probably read posts by people who have been running tournaments/leagues and playing/seeing multiple games, because I have seen a lot of discussions of tactics and strategy from them. Or visit the tactics forum? Obviously it's a new game so the depth of gameplay is nowhere near explored yet, and like any other game it can't be judged after one or two games.
Talys wrote: So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me
That was what I was hoping for...
You should probably read posts by people who have been running tournaments/leagues and playing/seeing multiple games, because I have seen a lot of discussions of tactics and strategy from them. Or visit the tactics forum? Obviously it's a new game so the depth of gameplay is nowhere near explored yet, and like any other game it can't be judged after one or two games.
Funnily enough you only just now reminded me there was a tactics forum, so I did go and look around there. I noticed the stickies where far more in depth tactical discussions than any others, with diagrams and whatnot too. Really first rate stuff. And all for Fantasy, not AoS.
AoS does not have rules for formations, morale, command and control, or logistics, so any tactic that depends on these aspects of warfare cannot be expressed in the game.
There no doubt are new tactics in AoS based on combining the various special rules to get different buffs.
It depends on your definition of 'tactics', I guess.
Is taking a wizard specifically to cast mystic shield on a defensive unit tactical?
Is using terrain to advance under cover a tactic?
Is preventing an enemy unit engaging their 'preferred target' tactical?
I may be pitching at kindergarten level, but to me tactics in a wargame is utilising a combination of factors (armies, rules, deployment, terrain, etc.) to lever probability in your favour and progress toward an objective.
The 'tactics' in AoS are different to WFB which is different to WMH etc.
I've seen plenty of 'but there's no point getting a flank charge in AoS' type posts, but that's a difference in rules. There's plenty of games that have no concept of flank/rear in the rules.
AoS does not have rules for formations, morale, command and control, or logistics, so any tactic that depends on these aspects of warfare cannot be expressed in the game.
That's a bit disingenuous because a game doesn't need explicit rules for tactics to be useful. It should also be pointed out that AoS is a skirmish game, and skirmish games tend to be a bit light on the "warfare" bits in general.
There are unit cohesion and pile in rules which benefit from specific formations. There is battle shock and bravery, which can be modified by generals and other models, representing the effects of morale. You have a zone of control around every figure, which can greatly affect how the battlefield plays out and can limit summoning or funnel retreating units. Not sure what you mean by logistics - there aren't many skirmish games with supply lines or resource management. AoS has most of these things, even without having explicit rules for them.
So are feigned flight, flanking, ambushes, decapitation attacks, depleting the defender's ammo, and other tactics that depend on sections of rules that AoS does not include.
So too there are other rulesets that do not include all of these factors.
Talys wrote: So your question is better answered by someone who actually cares about a thoughtful, strategic game in AoS -- not me
That was what I was hoping for...
You should probably read posts by people who have been running tournaments/leagues and playing/seeing multiple games, because I have seen a lot of discussions of tactics and strategy from them. Or visit the tactics forum? Obviously it's a new game so the depth of gameplay is nowhere near explored yet, and like any other game it can't be judged after one or two games.
Funnily enough you only just now reminded me there was a tactics forum, so I did go and look around there.
I noticed the stickies where far more in depth tactical discussions than any others, with diagrams and whatnot too. Really first rate stuff. And all for Fantasy, not AoS.
I dunno. You'd think you'd have people talking about new tactics, combinations, the best way to deal with certain armies, fun scenarios, lots of back and forth chatter as they come to grips with the new system...
Unless, of course, it was concurrent with a large drop in the player base.
jonolikespie wrote: Sure.. but that doesn't answer my question. Yes chess is significantly more deep tactically than any wargame I've yet played but the point was that no one has actually been able to adequately explain what about AoS involves tactical depth to me, just exclaim that there are tactics.
The game is very strict about distances models are allowed to be within in regards to enemy models. Most of your tactical depth will come from efficient manipulation of those distances togive you an advantage. For example, if you are a summoning army, you will want to keep your summoners more than 18" away from the enemy because that is not only the limit of unbinding, but your models have to be more than 9" away from enemy models to be placed. But because of the maximum range of summoning you don't want to hug the board edge because that will also limit placement options. So now you need units on the field to keep chariots, flying creatures, and cavalry from sweeping forward to deny you access to the rest of your army. And you need redundancy in summoners to keep them from being g crushed in one shot by artillery.
You can form up actual protective rings to keep enemy units from your archers and artillery by placing a band of infantrymen at 6" away all the way around creating a no-go zone that forces them to either bring their own ranged units or collide head on with your spearwall.
Most heavy hitters that are infantry sized models aren't fast moving, so simply putting out a pile of peeons to stop their advance while they are immune to battleshock (command benefit everyone has access to) will see their assault stunted and their bodies full of arrows before they can do any serious damage.
Then you also have the basics of alternating activation in the combat phase that lets you attempt to mitigate the enemy's offensive ability while drawing his army into bad situations. For example, say they have two big ogre iron guts units and you have 30 zombies. Charge both of them, hit first, then they go. After one squad attacks, pull all of your models away from their other unit until they have maybe one model withing 3" of the zombies. Now they have to pile in, but only the one model within 1" gets to attack. You've wasted their other 2+ models ability to do damage, but they are still within 3" next turn so they can not move or charge afterward. That means those zombies just shut down the offensive capabilities of two of the hardest hitting infantry in the game by denying their ability to go fight something else. And with zombies if they are within. 1" of another unit of zombies in the command phase the units merge. Summon more zombies behind them (outside of 9", so that's a maybe) and the ogres have nothing to show for their entire turn.
Except those concepts have different tactical depth based on unit abilities and synergies.
Those things you just listed are the ONLY tactical options in chess (the threat area of different pieces forcing your opponent to re evaluate their moves, hiding bishops and knights behind a screen of a couple pawns to allow them to threaten without easy retaliation, and sending pawns up to protect one another making the enemy not want to start taking pieces for fear of losing better pieces in return, etc) nobody says that game is basic or obvious.
What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.
@Lythrandire Biehrellian - The issue is one that we see all the time in comparing war games -- confusing lots of different possible complex combat tactics with a strategically deep, intellectually challenging game.
You really don't need a lot of rule types to make a game strategically deep and intellectually challenging. Chess, like we've said here, but even simpler games like Go are strategically deep and require great cognitive skills to master. Blackjack is on the face a very simple game with rules that couldn't be easier; yet strategically highly complex. It is not easy to win at BJ (defined as regularly finishing with more money than you started), but it is most assuredly possible. Poker, too. Let's be honest: there are more books written about chess, blackjack, or poker than there will ever be about any wargame, and people spend a lifetime mastering their skills and tactics in these games with very simple rules.
I personally like AoS as a game because, like Blackjack, the rules are simple, allowing me as a person who hardly plays it at all to remember how to play it, and to not miss anything really important the next time I come back to it (a point of the original poster) -- while, I think, allowing for a much deeper game if I and my friends want such a thing. I think that "run all your troops to the middle and duke it out" is not only a fallacy, but a way to lose the game, even if the terrain is pretty empty in the middle.
Let's also be fair: I think that MOST wargames can be relatively thoughtful games; in this respect, AoS is nothing special. But I don't think it gives up much, while being easier to learn and remember, which is a big advantage to occasional players who are not interested in KoW/WHFB levels of rules complexity.
I think it has pretty complex combat tactics if you take the time to read through the warscrolls -- I haven't, because I specifically have no interest in going the rout of army optimization; I'm finding my fun playing armies that "look fluffy" -- in other words, the models look like they belong in the same army, and I can justify it in my thought process, with no regard to the game's setting. Yes, sacrilege to many, but I don't really care Wood elves and high elves (from Isle of Blood) and Sigmarites all feel like good guys, so go ye forth; tomb kings and orcs and Chaos kinda seem evil-ish based on my preconceived notions, so RAWR. Paint nice models, get into the mood, and play some games, is what I'm looking for in AoS at the moment.
But you never know: 10 years from now, maybe I'll want something totally different, and get absorbed into the game fluff, or into a more competitive game, and I feel that AoS will give me that avenue should I so choose -- though I'll freely admit that this is just my intuition, not something based on careful investigation, mostly because this is a "never say never" thing, rather than, "it'll probably happen". I'm pretty sure 10 years from now, I'll still be playing 40k as my main game
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.
Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.
Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.
jonolikespie wrote: Well so far the only strategy I've seen people talk about is putting terrain in the middle so it isn't a pile in and the existence of a retreat rule.
Please feel free to add or elaborate on that but as it stands that sounds entirely shallow compared to say, ordering your activation so you can buff unit X before activating it to push unit Y out of the way so unit Z can charge through the gap you have created. Or looking at your opponent's models on the board and knowing they are under points so you need to figure out if that means they have an invisible sniper somewhere, a shotgun about to air drop into your back lines, or if one of their line troops is in fact a hologram hiding an elite soldier. Or hell, even just looking at your speed and maneuverability and trying to guess which way your opponent will turn so you can do the same and keep them in your firing arc while staying out of his.
It's funny, because when I talk to my chess buddies, they all laugh at wargames (PC or tabletop) as being incredibly simplistic and unstrategic -- games that boil down to "learn what game pieces do and what tricks you can make them do... go!". To them, an intellectual challenge is seeing permutations and possibilities far in advance, fooling your opponent by predicting their actions, and reducing their options with each of your own. Incidentally, I am a pretty terrible chess player (at least, when playing against anyone who cares about their Elo/FIDE rating).
That's a good point and exactly the reason why you shouldn't dumb down wargames to the level of AoS, already not mind bending affairs and removing meaningful mechanics you are aproaching mindless fast. "Learn what game pieces do and what tricks you can make them do... go" that's AoS in a nutshell but not every wargame/ boardgame is like that. Detailed wargames bring real world tactics ie Advanced Squad Leader. PC games well if you compare to Starcraft then sure but I'd love to see your friends play the simplistic and unstrategic Combat Mission Shock Force, Europa Universalis or Harpoon and just "go" lol. Boardgames, FFG with a simple trick of issuing orders hidden to opponents managed to add tons of depth to their games.
If you compare to AoS or 40k then yes it's a huge gap to chess. But there's a huge gap between AoS and Star Wars Armada as well for example.
AoS is a low realism skirmish game that simplifies combat by ignoring various factors that make things work in the real world. I don't mean the lack of magic in the real world, I mean the lack of continuous time and psychological considerations in AoS.
Essentially AoS is a game of complicated geometrical placement of pawns. Actually so is Star Wars Armada and most naval games; these are not about individual infantry and cavalry, of course.
I don't think any of this matters if you enjoy the games.
Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
I've seen this in games already, but as a measure to forcibly change position of the enemy unit rather than getting any bonus to combat res or similar.
(But I can't help but feel one response that will come to this is "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FLANKS IN AOS!!! HAHAHAHAHA!")
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.
With Inspiring Presence, common access to Mystic Shield and other similar abilities in armies, just about any unit can be made into an anvil when necessary.
Locking opponents in combat is a little more difficult to pull off but due to the 3" control area you can still do it.
(So arguably it's more 'tactical' to do this in AoS because it requires better planning & co-ordination to do it successfully. )
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Except those concepts have different tactical depth based on unit abilities and synergies.
Those things you just listed are the ONLY tactical options in chess (the threat area of different pieces forcing your opponent to re evaluate their moves, hiding bishops and knights behind a screen of a couple pawns to allow them to threaten without easy retaliation, and sending pawns up to protect one another making the enemy not want to start taking pieces for fear of losing better pieces in return, etc) nobody says that game is basic or obvious.
What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.
Oh so just that the tactic exist doesn't mean it's the same? Nice to see you outside of thinking binary. And yes it depends on unit abilities and synergies, just like in all the other games. The point is the tactics you described as you described them all come by default with units having different stats also if you didnt have those, you would have nothing. And there's not much else in AoS.
Chess yeah you've just ignored the entirely different nature of it, the interacions between pieces, the predictability the possibilities the forthought required etc. Back to binary?
Advanced tactics? I'll just leave you with a few features of game Hoplon written down by mr. BeAfraid and your imagination.
BeAfraid wrote:
• Morale for units and army (instead of globally for only the armor), and how it affects combat performance.
• Charges and Counter-Charges (and the possibility of an infantry unit fleeing or breaking before a charging unit of cavalry, Knights, or Elephants).
• The Ability to halt charges by concentrated missile fire.
• The re-introduction of missile/ranged combat for ALL troops armed with missile weapons (this does not slow the game down at all, as many have claimed it would).
• Degradation of unit cohesion/quality through combat or morale results (Ordered/Disordered and Steady/Disrupted/Shaken).
• Variations in the quality of a general affecting his ability to lead troops, and the effects of his death upon the troops' morale.
• Troops being dual-armed, or capable of just Melee, or just Missile Combat or the troops having a primary role, but capable of operating as both melee (shock) troops and Missile Troops as being Shock/Missile or Missile/Shock.
• Variations in some weapons (Heavy Weapons, Lance armed Cavalry, and differences in Missile weapons - Javelin/Pilum, Sling, Bow, Crossbow, Longbow, or simply improvised missile weapons).
• Variations in Troop Training beyond just Drilled/Undrilled, or Regular/Irregular, such as Professional soldiers (whether Regular/Drilled or Irregular/Undrilled, and of any morale level), or troops who have received inadequate training or preparation - Untrained Atroops, who might be of any Morale class, simply lacking much training in the specific formation and weapons they are using (such as taking Hoplites, and giving them a Gladius and Pila and then expecting them to fight as Legionnaires without any training in that type of combat).
• Variations in Armor, from completely naked, to wearing full plate (troops being "normal" with no distinction in armor, or Vulnerable and having inadequate protection or being shieldless, Heavy and having a substantial shield and more than just cloth or leather armor, and Extra Heavy Armor, such as complete Plate or chainmail coverage and a shield).
• And then special behavior, or qualities of troops, such as mounted Light Horse being able to fight using a Skythian Missile Fire formation, or troops being able to use Rvps (Shock or Missile), the Equipment/Weapons of the troop, or the Behavior of the troop.
Now whfb was not that. Whfb was not even in the middle between that and AoS. Still AoS marks the end of the scale, it's hard to get more shallow than that.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Advanced tactics? I'll just leave you with a few features of game Hoplon written down by mr. BeAfraid and your imagination.
But exactly what is on that list?
What you've listed there is rules. Different weapon stats. Different armour stats. Psychology rules. All that's been shown there is that Hoplon is a more detailed/complex game, which means that there's more to take into account when planning your actions.
Nobody is saying AoS is a complicated game because it patently isn't.
But as has already been discussed to death, complexity/detail and depth of game are not necessarily proportional.
Comparing tactics between individual games doesn't really work because tactics are a extrapolated from interpreting the rules of the game.
The value of "specific action X" depends on what it means in the context of the game you're playing there and then.
The concept of a rear-charge in KoW vs. AoS vs. WMH is different because of how the rules model that situation, but there is a positive value in doing it in all systems.
In WMH you have to choose whether to shoot or fight unless you have a special skill. In AoS you can do both if you can.
In KoW the unit remains the same shape throughout the game. In AoS & WMH there is an element of decision making in which models to remove as it's possible to gain an advantage by taking damage on certain models..
Moving out of combat in WMH has dangerous penalties, so people try to avoid it. In AoS you can retreat at will, so it takes some co-ordination to 'lock' a unit in combat. KoW you're there until one side is dead or runs away, there's no choice.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Advanced tactics? I'll just leave you with a few features of game Hoplon written down by mr. BeAfraid and your imagination.
But exactly what is on that list?
What you've listed there is rules. Different weapon stats. Different armour stats. Psychology rules. All that's been shown there is that Hoplon is a more detailed/complex game, which means that there's more to take into account when planning your actions.
Nobody is saying AoS is a complicated game because it patently isn't.
But as has already been discussed to death, complexity/detail and depth of game are not necessarily proportional.
Comparing tactics between individual games doesn't really work because tactics are a extrapolated from interpreting the rules of the game.
The value of "specific action X" depends on what it means in the context of the game you're playing there and then.
The concept of a rear-charge in KoW vs. AoS vs. WMH is different because of how the rules model that situation, but there is a positive value in doing it in all systems.
In WMH you have to choose whether to shoot or fight unless you have a special skill. In AoS you can do both if you can.
In KoW the unit remains the same shape throughout the game. In AoS & WMH there is an element of decision making in which models to remove as it's possible to gain an advantage by taking damage on certain models..
Moving out of combat in WMH has dangerous penalties, so people try to avoid it. In AoS you can retreat at will, so it takes some co-ordination to 'lock' a unit in combat. KoW you're there until one side is dead or runs away, there's no choice.
Yes complexity/detail and depth are not always proportional but they often are up to a point and if you don't have detailed rules, you need meaningful abstract mechanisms to make up for it. In this case detailed psychology surely adds to tactical depth, equipment rules maybe not (as deciding what charges what is ussualy obvious) but they add hugely to strategic depth so there you go.
If you have to choose whether to shoot or fight then it's mostly more depth than if you can do both.
Shapes of units is a good point though against AoS. All it does is creating simple pile in shenaningans that don't even make sense immersion wise not to mention if I was doing crap like that in whfb, casuals would accuse me of bending the rules for advantage etc.
Retreating at will is not providing depth and is an immersion killer for anyone who ever was in fight. If you get locked in combat it forces more thoughtful play before clash. Just like shooting in and out of combat, it takes weight out of battle situations.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.
Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.
Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.
So, do those things. Charged my wife's harpies with my white lions expecting (and getting) an easy kill. Didn't see the trap because her daemonettes have a huge threat range and had been buffed to allow them to pile in and attack twice in one combat phase and they had a hero daemon of sleenesh near my unit (what I thought was my next target) forcing me to reroll any 6+ I rolled to hit. With those two buffs that 10 man (?) Strong unit of daemons completely destroyed my 10 man unit of white lions in a single combat phase. My unit would normally have been able to grind her unit down, and probably won the combat. But her smart positioning of not only her attacking unit but support characters made it into a one sided affair I didn't see until it was too late.
As to the entrapment of a unit, that is harder to do in age of sigmar. But you do deny them any ability to do damage in shooting or melee if they choose to run out of a combat they don't want to be in. Their ability to do so is the reason flanking with multiple units is actually important in age of sigmar. In order to retreat you have to get more than three inches away from all enemy models. Flyers and cavalry are good at getting behind the enemy and forcing them to stand and fight.
Yes complexity/detail and depth are not always proportional but they often are up to a point and if you don't have detailed rules, you need meaningful abstract mechanisms to make up for it. In this case detailed psychology surely adds to tactical depth, equipment rules maybe not (as deciding what charges what is ussualy obvious) but they add hugely to strategic depth so there you go.
Other than WFB, I've never played a game where psychology was such a big deal. I mean, 40K and WMH have mechanics for it in theory, but it just doesn't seem to come up very often. WFB it was that big a deal I know people who planned armies around using it.
As a replacement for panic from WFB, I actually prefer battleshock - the harder you maul a unit in a short space of time, the bigger the potential consequence.
If you have to choose whether to shoot or fight then it's mostly more depth than if you can do both.
In one sense, yes. But if you can do both, do you attack the same unit? Different units? There's still decisions to be made. 40K (& WMH with Assault/Virtuoso, for example) you don't normally get the choice - you shoot what you attack. So gives with one, takes with the other.
Shapes of units is a good point though against AoS. All it does is creating simple pile in shenaningans that don't even make sense immersion wise not to mention if I was doing crap like that in whfb, casuals would accuse me of bending the rules for advantage etc.
Retreating at will is not providing depth and is an immersion killer for anyone who ever was in fight. If you get locked in combat it forces more thoughtful play before clash. Just like shooting in and out of combat, it takes weight out of battle situations.
Indeed in 40k too many things ignore psychology rules and the game suffers for imo though It makes sense with the fluff. And 40k is a shallow game and only a notch above AoS in that regard.
As for choosing whether to shoot or fight vs doing both, I agree that it's not binary good/ bad and as always depends on the context. But it's just different at best and the context is that everything in AoS has that free roam around the battlefield feel to it, shoot into combat no friendly fire, shoot out of combat, disengage without penalty, move freely every direction etc. No real advantages over alternatives, negative impact on immersion and generaly come across not as necessary streamlining but simplicity for the sake of simplicity with nothing to make up for it.
I'd also like to go back to your statement from the earlier post that comparing tactics between games doesn't really work because you extrapolate from rules and that the value of an action depends on the context of the game and situation on the table. The question then is how decesive how often will let's say "flanking" in AoS be in comparision to flanking in KoW. I agree to an extent and say that it's not easy to compare tactics from game to game (though not impossible) and that's why some method is just looking at gameplay to see how obvious it is, what are your chances for that smart, suprising manouver that will change the outcome of the game, how far ahead you can plan etc. AoS doesn't excell in those and when people get a hang of warscrolls and rules, there will be little room to outplay an opponent.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.
Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.
Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.
So, do those things. Charged my wife's harpies with my white lions expecting (and getting) an easy kill. Didn't see the trap because her daemonettes have a huge threat range and had been buffed to allow them to pile in and attack twice in one combat phase and they had a hero daemon of sleenesh near my unit (what I thought was my next target) forcing me to reroll any 6+ I rolled to hit. With those two buffs that 10 man (?) Strong unit of daemons completely destroyed my 10 man unit of white lions in a single combat phase. My unit would normally have been able to grind her unit down, and probably won the combat. But her smart positioning of not only her attacking unit but support characters made it into a one sided affair I didn't see until it was too late.
Except it's nothing like what he described. You didn't "expose the flank" because the flank here is irrelevant, you just got into threat range and the daemonettes could as well attack the front slightly from the side or sth.
The problem with Psychology in 40K (morale factors as historical players would call it) is that the effects are very limited, but devastating when they happen, and only practically apply to one or two armies such as Tau who don't have a high Leadership already and also don't have easy ways of boosting it if it was low. Though I think there is now a Leadership boosting character for Tau, which may mean that Leadership is irrelevant 90% of the time in 40K.
That said you can make a very good game without morale factors. The very successful De Bellis Antiquitatis absorbed the effect of morale into the troop type versus troop type combat results, which simplified the game considerably compared to the previous WRG Ancients Rules.
DBA of course was specifically written to be a simpler, smaller, quicker playing game, so compromises had to be made. It did lose some of the effects of morale that were present in WRG Ancients, but it was worth it to make the game a lot simpler to learn and faster to play.
I prefer AoS's battleshock to 8th's moral. There was nothing weirder in 8th than a single model overrunning an entire horde unit killing everyone. (I once had an Outrider overrun a horde unit of night Gobbos).
Battleshock is unable to replicate things like a mass rout, but for quick streamlined play it does the job well.
If you think of the horde not being killed but simply dissolving into panicked individuals who make no further contribution to the battle, it makes more sense.
Indeed in 40k too many things ignore psychology rules and the game suffers for imo though It makes sense with the fluff. And 40k is a shallow game and only a notch above AoS in that regard.
As for choosing whether to shoot or fight vs doing both, I agree that it's not binary good/ bad and as always depends on the context. But it's just different at best and the context is that everything in AoS has that free roam around the battlefield feel to it, shoot into combat no friendly fire, shoot out of combat, disengage without penalty, move freely every direction etc. No real advantages over alternatives, negative impact on immersion and generaly come across not as necessary streamlining but simplicity for the sake of simplicity with nothing to make up for it.
I'd also like to go back to your statement from the earlier post that comparing tactics between games doesn't really work because you extrapolate from rules and that the value of an action depends on the context of the game and situation on the table. The question then is how decesive how often will let's say "flanking" in AoS be in comparision to flanking in KoW. I agree to an extent and say that it's not easy to compare tactics from game to game (though not impossible) and that's why some method is just looking at gameplay to see how obvious it is, what are your chances for that smart, suprising manouver that will change the outcome of the game, how far ahead you can plan etc. AoS doesn't excell in those and when people get a hang of warscrolls and rules, the room to outplay an opponent will be small imo.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: What more advanced tactics have you seen? Those are the basis of every wargame decision I've ever witnessed. Some may award more statistical bonuses than age of sigmar, but let's not pretend the tactic itself is anything other than what you listed here.
Um.. baiting your opponent into a charge with chaff so that they expose their flank to one of your units?
Having a solid anvil unit that you know your opponent can't destroy lock them in combat for a turn or two as you bring your hammer around to destroy the engaged and unable to escape unit.
Placing a tar pit in front of your enemy's better infantry and protecting your ranged with melee is the absolute bare minimum I'd expect from a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I get the point of simple not meaning shallow, KoW rules are simply too. But then comparing the depth of the two AoS does not come out looking good.
So, do those things. Charged my wife's harpies with my white lions expecting (and getting) an easy kill. Didn't see the trap because her daemonettes have a huge threat range and had been buffed to allow them to pile in and attack twice in one combat phase and they had a hero daemon of sleenesh near my unit (what I thought was my next target) forcing me to reroll any 6+ I rolled to hit. With those two buffs that 10 man (?) Strong unit of daemons completely destroyed my 10 man unit of white lions in a single combat phase. My unit would normally have been able to grind her unit down, and probably won the combat. But her smart positioning of not only her attacking unit but support characters made it into a one sided affair I didn't see until it was too late.
Except it's nothing like what he described. You didn't "expose the flank" because the flank here is irrelevant, you just got into threat range and the daemonettes could as well attack the front slightly from the side or sth.
Except that I exposed a flank of my army when the attack was made, making it impossible to stop my wife from destroying the rest of my units afterwards. My unit was hit from an unexpected quarter, isolated from the rest of my forces, and I lost the last two guys to a failed battleshock test.
The mechanics are there to represent those things happening on the table top, why is the mechanic of a "flank" more important than the idea of one? Why can't it just be a story reason why the route just occurred, as opposed to the mechanical one?
You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...
Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.
Swastakowey wrote: You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...
Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.
As much as I want it to be the other way around I too have yet to see a battle more complicated than shoot the assaulty stuff/assault the shooty stuff, try to gang up with multiple units, shoot hard units with mortal damage pew pew etc. The game is very much akin to 40k and much of the stuff that is valid for 40k is valid for AoS aswell. I know, I know there is much to be done with model positioning in AoS, especially in the assault phase, but things like the inverted T formation, triple tomato formation etc. just make me want to gaze upon something else - something that doesn't make my eyes bleed. I'd love to see an actual battle report where every decision was weighed along with several else, where maneuvering was interesting with some clear patterns to see unfolding etc., but as far as reports go for the moment - I've yet to see one. I like the game, but I still stand by my initial opinion - it is a light game intended for quick entry into the hobby (GW's or another). I'd be very happy to see a report which shows the game in a better light that I've seen it for now.
Swastakowey wrote: You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...
Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.
As much as I want it to be the other way around I too have yet to see a battle more complicated than shoot the assaulty stuff/assault the shooty stuff, try to gang up with multiple units, shoot hard units with mortal damage pew pew etc. The game is very much akin to 40k and much the stuff that is valid for 40k is valid for AoS aswell. I know, I know there is much to be done with model positioning in AoS, especially in the assault phase, but things like the inverted T formation, triple tomato formation etc. just make me want to gaze upon something else - something that doesn't make my eyes bleed. I'd love to see an actual battle report where every decision was weighed along with several else, where maneuvering was interesting with some clear patterns to see unfolding etc., but as far as reports go for the moment - I've yet to see one. I like the game, but I still stand by my initial opinion - it is a light game intended for quick entry into the hobby (GW's or another).
I agree. To be clear I was not trying to be snarky or anything, it's just I hear a lot from a few people here about how these things happen in their games which is very contrary to all the games I have seen (and I have seen many since I have pushed painting hard these last few weeks) and unfortunately I find it hard to believe these stories are actually true.
Nothing wrong with a light game (to an extent) but again, I feel like some AOS players here are being very contrarian in their views for whatever reason. It would be nice to see a battle report showing these tactics and situations being stated. It's all well and good some of the things happening in theory or on paper... but it's more telling how these theories and ideas come out in actual game play (which is a huge part of playtesting a game too) because it seems that they do not often come into play in my experience.
I don't think AoS is some tactician's dream. Far from it. (I love it for other reasons, and tactics is not one of my strongpoints admittedly). But I do see some of the nuances for formations, as follows.
If everyone deploys in "blobs" (no ranked formations) then yes, flanking a unit makes no difference except maybe keeping the enemy champion away from your men.
But - if your opponent is deploying in blobs then they are not maxamising the amount of models they could be getting into combat in head-to-head battles.
If they do try and maxamise their frontage for head-to-head fights (for example a 7x3), then charging that flank means you limit the amount of models that can pile in back against you.
Secondly, you (a) cannot pile in out of coherency, and you (b) must pile in towards the closest model (if you choose to pile in), this can mean if you attack a unit from multiple angles they may be unable to pile in because it would spilt the unit in 2 (an illegal move).
That's all the tactical advantages from flanking I see in AoS games. Suitable, but it is there.
I think the tactic part comes from combos, not placing units. A unit alone works in a way, but if someone uses it and 2-3 other units and a special warscroll it can suddenly do more things. Placment of individual units is less important, but placment of unit formations or combo characters is the way to win. At least I think that is howt GW wants people to play the game. Helps them sells stuff too, as someone can't realy play with one or two units most of the time, but requires multiple ones to get buffs from combo warscrolls.
I agree. To be clear I was not trying to be snarky or anything, it's just I hear a lot from a few people here about how these things happen in their games which is very contrary to all the games I have seen (and I have seen many since I have pushed painting hard these last few weeks) and unfortunately I find it hard to believe these stories are actually true.
Nothing wrong with a light game (to an extent) but again, I feel like some AOS players here are being very contrarian in their views for whatever reason. It would be nice to see a battle report showing these tactics and situations being stated. It's all well and good some of the things happening in theory or on paper... but it's more telling how these theories and ideas come out in actual game play (which is a huge part of playtesting a game too) because it seems that they do not often come into play in my experience.
This doesn't demonstrate any great tactical genius, but I think it's pretty representative of Age of Sigmar. It's a 4 player game, contains secret alliances and such (part of the scenario), and as you can see, the guys (and gal) playing it are having a pretty good time It's somewhat similar to the way we play the game.
This doesn't demonstrate any great tactical genius, but I think it's pretty representative of Age of Sigmar. It's a 4 player game, contains secret alliances and such (part of the scenario), and as you can see, the guys (and gal) playing it are having a pretty good time It's somewhat similar to the way we play the game.
This does have a lot of the AoS "flash" around it. Players who are looking for some laid back time with many back and forth, some "oooh, aah, cool" moments with terrain and cinematic clashes of units will find a lot to like in this video. For me, it catches well the spirit of the game.
I still feel I'm learning the ropes with AoS, but I'm starting to see a few 'ooh, nice' moments sneak in.
Unit synergy is a large part of it - and like other games with similar interactions, the more elements involved the easier it gets to prevent / bring down, but the more effective they are once everything's in place.
In our games locally people are starting to get a feel for movement and the 'control zone'. I know I'm certainly trying to bear certain things in mind but things that crop up tend to be more luck than judgement - but I feel they're getting more frequent.
Swastakowey wrote: You should do some battle reports with pictures of these tactfully amazing battles you keep talking about. All I have seen in these games tactics wise is choosing combat order and making sure you charge the right enemy...
Will be interesting to see yours since they are so different to the battles I have been seeing while I paint.
As much as I want it to be the other way around I too have yet to see a battle more complicated than shoot the assaulty stuff/assault the shooty stuff, try to gang up with multiple units, shoot hard units with mortal damage pew pew etc. The game is very much akin to 40k and much of the stuff that is valid for 40k is valid for AoS aswell. I know, I know there is much to be done with model positioning in AoS, especially in the assault phase, but things like the inverted T formation, triple tomato formation etc. just make me want to gaze upon something else - something that doesn't make my eyes bleed. I'd love to see an actual battle report where every decision was weighed along with several else, where maneuvering was interesting with some clear patterns to see unfolding etc., but as far as reports go for the moment - I've yet to see one. I like the game, but I still stand by my initial opinion - it is a light game intended for quick entry into the hobby (GW's or another). I'd be very happy to see a report which shows the game in a better light that I've seen it for now.
The inverted T is a prime example of how "formations" in AoS are just nonsensical rules shenaningans.
Makumba wrote: I think the tactic part comes from combos, not placing units.
Hence one of the reasons the game is criticized as tactically shallow.
A lot of it is combos but the placement of units is very important too, because of the melee weapon ranges and pile-in rules.
These are nothing to do with flanks, though, they are ways to outnumber the enemy at the point of contact, which is much easier to do at the end of a line. IRL (and other wargames) flanking and rear attacks work because they cause morale and C&C problems for the target. That is why columns are vulnerable to flank attacks. I
The inverted T is a prime example of how "formations" in AoS are just nonsensical rules shenaningans.
Maybe. But for the sake of objectivity, could you provide an example of a specific theoretical unit formation in any other skirmish-style wargame that isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans"?
Genuinely curious.
In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.
Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I would assume that's what Plumbumbarum meant by 'nonsensical rules shenaningans', that the game never intended that to happen but people do it for a benefit rather than a system in which the designers intentionally include tactics for players to make use of.
I'd say most games don't have "nonsensical rules shenaningans" for the simple fact that most games expect and encourage their players to use the formations and tactics they deliberately included in the game.
The inverted T is a prime example of how "formations" in AoS are just nonsensical rules shenaningans.
Maybe. But for the sake of objectivity, could you provide an example of a specific theoretical unit formation in any other skirmish-style wargame that isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans"?
Genuinely curious.
Other skirmish games I've seen don't make use of formations, atleast in the sense you're implying. Being skirmish games, with each model having unique abilities most of the time and acting independently of the others, most of the time I see screening, staying in bubble range or putting one model in front of another as to be closer to something else. I don't consider these things as "formations" as in practice they don't tend to move as a single unit and fight as a single unit and as far as model count go, they are on the lower side. They have moved in that position for some bonus needed at that moment or place (from gaming point of view). Ofcourse words like "formation" and "tactics" are stretchable as to accommodate for a given opinion. Saying that yours may differ than mine. They have some definitions in military context, but, generally, I'm not willing to go through them as such debates may devolve into word-pickings. Often one can "logically" imprint a quality on an object, but in practice it may prove fallacy. For this reason an AoS battle report demonstrating such principles would be much more helpful than just discussing them on theory.
In short, I doubt someone will manage to find you such an example as it is not consistent with the rules and game play of skirmish games (Infinity and Malifaux for example)
@Corecommander Infinity, Malifaux - heck, even Guildball are all individual models so 'unit' formations don't apply - but I couldn't think of any skirmish unit games outside GW other than WMH, which is why I was asking.
@Jonolikespie That idea also works in AoS - in fact certain units appear to be designed for it.
But the 'T' formation isn't exactly a new idea - baiting units into an unfavourable position/engaging exactly where you want them to isn't a new concept, and I've seen exactly that logic used in WFB, 40K, LOTR & WMH. What might look silly is the fact that the picture isn't actually to scale (assuming those are 25mm bases, the 3" pile-in means the horizontal line collapse couldn't happen like that before the enemy reacts).
Would imagine HobbyKiller exaggerated the positioning slightly to make the theory clear, and looking at the other pictures that looks to be the case.
I have done the spears behind swords technique. Sword masters of loeth in front, high elf spearmen behind. With a single line of swordsmen, two lines of spearmen, the spears can all reach because their bases are less than an inch accross. My opponent has the choice of hitting the swordmasters, who do more damage individually but are harder to kill, or the spearmen who are gaining bonuses for being twenty strong but still not as crippling as the swordsmen.
With high elf banners giving bonuses for other banner carrying units within 8" it really helps the army to combing units into groups that way.
jonolikespie wrote: In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.
Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.
I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth but I would assume that's what Plumbumbarum meant by 'nonsensical rules shenaningans', that the game never intended that to happen but people do it for a benefit rather than a system in which the designers intentionally include tactics for players to make use of.
I'd say most games don't have "nonsensical rules shenaningans" for the simple fact that most games expect and encourage their players to use the formations and tactics they deliberately included in the game.
Yes, thank you, that's better written than some boorish one liner I'd spit out lol.
RoperPG the point was mainly that the "formations" are very often mentioned by advocates as a source of tactical depth in AoS and a hidden gem of game design by gw when in fact it seems to be a side effect of going round bases because sigmarines and moar awesome poses. Also there's not much else in the rules, other games have more to them but if you prove the only alleged source of depth dry then what's left? Target priority and combos.
And no no examples tbh because games that make sense tend to be either skirmish or unit based not some weird mixup created by marketing department to allow both fast hookup and unlimted buying.
I think 'fornations' are a red herring on their own. Relative position of your minis is one of the more important aspects of the game. Formation of units is part of this, but not all of it.
Effectively, units boil down to a single model when determining charges, piling in, etc.
Getting that *one* model in exactly the right place relative to everything else is the part of the game I am focussing on right now because it is where I've noticed the biggest change in efficacy as I work on it. Whether that is shenanigans or tactics is semantics - the aim of both is levering an advantage out of a ruleset through choices and decision-making. It's just that one implies TFG, the other Kasparov.
When I used to play WFB, target priority never really featured in my planning. I always seemed to do quite well just sniping piecemeal and taking out units when I got the chance.
AoS, I have found that target priority is absolutely crucial. Due to the more numerous inter-unit effects that the game contains, just leaving one guy alive in a keystone unit can lose you the game.
The trick there is figuring out the weakest link that you can eliminate this turn without overstretching or exposing yourself.
Combos are the flip side of that. It's all well and good figuring out a killed combination, but I've seen enough games of WMH to know that the good general isn't the one who figures out the ridiculous synergy, it's the one that knows how to react when unit B gets gibbed and you're left with A and C.
I do get your point, but - and this might just be me - as I said above, whether something qualifies as shenanigans/tactics seems to depend wholly on viewpoint.
Well if you already like the game then all power to you, I'm a fan of thoughtful play wherever possible. It's just not the best vehicle for it which is the entire point.
And yes part of what I wanted to say is that if one played with some equivalent of inverted T in 40k or whfb, casuals would roll eyes over the table and scream tfg but suddenly it's all depth and strategy in AoS. I'm not against playing like that but it just doesn't come across as some super thought out design and doesn't make sense immersion wise either.
Then there's the question, after the unavoidably imbalanced armies clash, initiative is rolled off and crucial attack order comes to play, how much will the efficiancy you described affect the outcome of the game. And if can you ever tell.
I think it would be easier to convince the non-believing crowd that AoS is indeed tactically deep if you can provide actual games where it shows that. Telling so and so is fine and all but personally for someone like me who hasn't played a game I wouldn't be convinced unless it's a battle report. From the battle reports I've seen so far, I'm not impressed.
jonolikespie wrote:In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.
Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I have done the spears behind swords technique. Sword masters of loeth in front, high elf spearmen behind. With a single line of swordsmen, two lines of spearmen, the spears can all reach because their bases are less than an inch accross. My opponent has the choice of hitting the swordmasters, who do more damage individually but are harder to kill, or the spearmen who are gaining bonuses for being twenty strong but still not as crippling as the swordsmen.
With high elf banners giving bonuses for other banner carrying units within 8" it really helps the army to combing units into groups that way.
Can anyone in the "AoS is not tactically deep" crowd respond to this for me? I'm genuinely curious where the bar is at, as to someone trying to catch up a bit on this thread, it seems to have been met.
If you define tactics as having unit formations and placement meaning something, this is one very clear example of AoS having tactical decisions (and by no means the only one, I do similar things with Eternal Guard screens for Dryads). Age of Sigmar is also the first game I have played were you can actually Calvary charge in waves. The ability to retreat with one unit of cavalry while charging (to cover them) with another is phenomenal, and something you could never do in WHFB. Being able to actually employ hit and run tactics seems like it should also refute AoS is not tactically deep hypothesis, no?
Obviously this is the internet and I have little expectation of actually changing anyone's mind, but for people who are reading and not participating I'd like them to be able to make an informed judgement.
jonolikespie wrote: In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.
Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.
I d
You can do exactly this in AoS because spears generally have 2" range.
Then there's the question, after the unavoidably imbalanced armies clash, initiative is rolled off and crucial attack order comes to play, how much will the efficiancy you described affect the outcome of the game. And if can you ever tell.
Back around the time of 6th becoming 7th WFB, one of the turn offs I had from WFB was the level of inevitability. When you have tournament-style list tinkerers playing and refining, you can see the win coming a mile off. You saw the movements, you saw the plan unfolding, and mid-late game the trap closed and the opponent's army just crumpled without much need for dice rolling. That was always where my love of WFB came from.
But then I started playing and watching more and more games where one side was having no fun at all because they knew it was done and dusted.
One of the things that I like about AoS is the random element of turns means you can never be absolutely sure of what's happening from turn to turn. It means that there comes a point where you can't plan too far in advance because it requires the ability to react. It takes pressure off, frankly. I play with a rough game plan in mind, but I'm only planning the next turn, rather than 3 or 4.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: Question then, can someone else hit back at your spears through your shield wall (as in over intervening models)?
Yes and no, depending on weapon range of the attacker, positioning of the spearmen and how you rule LOS.
Smart player will use that formation against a unit armed with 1" weapons and ensure that the shields are in B2B with the spears about 5mm behind them, because then the spearmen are safe.
jonolikespie wrote: Question then, can someone else hit back at your spears through your shield wall (as in over intervening models)?
If they also have spears or weapons with similar range, yes. You can choose to attack any unit within your weapon range, it does not necessarily have to be the closest one (ie the sword and shield guys).
jonolikespie wrote: That right there seems tactically shallow then and not overly realistic, being able to swing through someone...
Why does it make sense to you that YOUR spearmen can reach over your shieldwall with their spears, but THEIR spearmen cannot do the same?
You fixated on one part of the answer and generalized it to suit your needs. If your opponent has short weapons they cannot "swing through" anyone, if they have long weapons they can do the same to you - THAT is incredibly realistic.
You must have really, REALLY, hated AoS' predecessor, Warhammer Fantasy Battles... those 5 man frontages killing models 3-4 ranks back (and thus realistically completely out of the combat still) and the character walls (where you could not kill infantry if the entire front rank consisted of characters) were horribly unrealistic.
jonolikespie wrote: That right there seems tactically shallow then and not overly realistic, being able to swing through someone...
Why does it make sense to you that YOUR spearmen can reach over your shieldwall with their spears, but THEIR spearmen cannot do the same?
You fixated on one part of the answer and generalized it to suit your needs. If your opponent has short weapons they cannot "swing through" anyone, if they have long weapons they can do the same to you - THAT is incredibly realistic.
You must have really, REALLY, hated AoS' predecessor, Warhammer Fantasy Battles... those 5 man frontages killing models 3-4 ranks back (and thus realistically completely out of the combat still) and the character walls (where you could not kill infantry if the entire front rank consisted of characters) were horribly unrealistic.
At least AoS is a step up from that, right?
If you could get your Spears within 2" of the Enemy Spears there is no problem. I have had Real Life experience with a Sword and Board Shield walls with 8' Spears behind them, if you don't have Spears to counter the Spears are safe until the Shield wall is gone.
We won many a war using a 2/3 Sword and Board Shield Wall and a 1/3 Spear Section.
Toss in a few Bows though and the Spears start to be challenged.
Yes Bows can fire into Melee real well and hit what they wanted to.
Tactical "depth" of a game is like a swimming pool that is graduated in steps from the shallow end to the deep end.
At the shallow end the game perhaps contains only rules for movement and melee combat with a few simple types of troops.
As you add new sections of rules to the game, you move towards the deep end of the pool.
At the deepest end the game contains rules that support all the different aspects of warfare that affect tactics, such as movement, formations, command and control, morale, supply, weather, terrain, day and night, weapon and armour types, troop types, etc etc.
From this analogy it obviously would be hard to call AoS "deep" when compared with games that include a lot more sections of rules.
I don't think this is a flaw, it is just the trade-off for a simple ruleset.
Kilkrazy wrote: Tactical "depth" of a game is like a swimming pool that is graduated in steps from the shallow end to the deep end.
At the shallow end the game perhaps contains only rules for movement and melee combat with a few simple types of troops.
As you add new sections of rules to the game, you move towards the deep end of the pool.
At the deepest end the game contains rules that support all the different aspects of warfare that affect tactics, such as movement, formations, command and control, morale, supply, weather, terrain, day and night, weapon and armour types, troop types, etc etc.
From this analogy it obviously would be hard to call AoS "deep" when compared with games that include a lot more sections of rules.
I don't think this is a flaw, it is just the trade-off for a simple ruleset.
It is a fallacy to believe AoS is not tactically deep because of the length of its ruleset. It was either Dwellers Below or Heelanhammer who very recently did a complete review of all of the rules of Age of Sigmar (i.e., all of the unique special rules located on their respective warscrolls) and Sigmar actually has more equivalent pages of rules than the prior WHFBBRB.
I was on board with your analogy at first, but not its conclusion. If you just play by the first 4 pages of rules you have a very shallow pool, but as you begin to add more and more warscrolls and look for interactions within your race, and further, within your faction, AoS has a surprising amount of tactical depth emergent from its synergies and all of the possible unit loadouts. The primary difference between AoS and WHFB (or any other game for that matter) is that the rules are distributed rather than collocated, which I believe was an intentional design decision to keep the barrier to entry low(er).
I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.
AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.
. I can't cite a source, if an official stated it or if it was just a side comment in a 
No cheap shots on my end dude, I actually don't mind Talys, why would I cheap shot him? 
is only partly covered by not being able to see things at all and blundering straight into them (though there are plenty of stories from WWII of troops turning a corner and coming face to face with a Battalion of the enemy). I admit that's one type of Fog of War that isn't handled well by tabletop miniature games, although it's incredible how often a camouflaged unit in a wood is forgotten until the end of the game.
