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

c0wb0ys7y13 wrote:
These rules are ok. They fall into the same trap as any non-point based balance attempt. You must play to the meta.

Ex: You may NEVER run Skaven slaves or clan rats in this mode, Stormvermin are just simply better in every way. They are better stats in all areas, but are still worth the same martial prowess.

Additionally, it still allows yourself to buy your way to victory. Regardless of any of the win conditions, someone running an army comprising entirely of greater demons or cannons will simply win against someone running state infantry or goblins.

If someone can tell me how an army of 30 plague claw catapults doesn't win the game on the first turn every time against someone running core goblin infantry under this rule set I'll concede the point and eat my shoe.

Yeah, this system is easily breakable in theory (though I have yet to play one of these extreme games). If you keep the idea of deployment poker from the main rules then the goblin player should see he is getting horribly out deployed and bring out his big guns. 30 plagueclaws would be 180 wounds, giving the goblin player loads of room to drop multiple mangler squigs, trolls, giants, doom divers and araknarok spiders and still aim for 140 wounds that would unlock triple scoring underdog VPs for them.

 Bottle wrote:

c0wb0ys7y13 wrote:
These rules are ok. They fall into the same trap as any non-point based balance attempt. You must play to the meta.

Ex: You may NEVER run Skaven slaves or clan rats in this mode, Stormvermin are just simply better in every way. They are better stats in all areas, but are still worth the same martial prowess.

Additionally, it still allows yourself to buy your way to victory. Regardless of any of the win conditions, someone running an army comprising entirely of greater demons or cannons will simply win against someone running state infantry or goblins.

If someone can tell me how an army of 30 plague claw catapults doesn't win the game on the first turn every time against someone running core goblin infantry under this rule set I'll concede the point and eat my shoe.

Yeah, this system is easily breakable in theory (though I have yet to play one of these extreme games). If you keep the idea of deployment poker from the main rules then the goblin player should see he is getting horribly out deployed and bring out his big guns. 30 plagueclaws would be 180 wounds, giving the goblin player loads of room to drop multiple mangler squigs, trolls, giants, doom divers and araknarok spiders and still aim for 140 wounds that would unlock triple scoring underdog VPs for them.

And forces him to buy all those things or even just field them when they don't fit the fluff of his army and he doesn't want them.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

c0wb0ys7y13 wrote:
These rules are ok. They fall into the same trap as any non-point based balance attempt. You must play to the meta.

Ex: You may NEVER run Skaven slaves or clan rats in this mode, Stormvermin are just simply better in every way. They are better stats in all areas, but are still worth the same martial prowess.

Additionally, it still allows yourself to buy your way to victory. Regardless of any of the win conditions, someone running an army comprising entirely of greater demons or cannons will simply win against someone running state infantry or goblins.

If someone can tell me how an army of 30 plague claw catapults doesn't win the game on the first turn every time against someone running core goblin infantry under this rule set I'll concede the point and eat my shoe.

Yeah, this system is easily breakable in theory (though I have yet to play one of these extreme games). If you keep the idea of deployment poker from the main rules then the goblin player should see he is getting horribly out deployed and bring out his big guns. 30 plagueclaws would be 180 wounds, giving the goblin player loads of room to drop multiple mangler squigs, trolls, giants, doom divers and araknarok spiders and still aim for 140 wounds that would unlock triple scoring underdog VPs for them.

And forces him to buy all those things or even just field them when they don't fit the fluff of his army and he doesn't want them.

Sure. One way to alleviate this is to add a total wound cap that all armies must fall under (say 50 wounds). It's a bit more sophisticated than a straight wound cap though because there is incentive to go 10 wounds or less than your opponent to unlock the benefits.

My plan is to build 4 armies under these rules, and one of them is Night Goblins. I think with a limited wound cap placed on top I can get all 4 armies roughly equal and keep them themed.

I would love to see evidence of the mythical "30 Bloodthirsters guy" (or equivalent using other broken lists) actually existing irl. Currently I'm putting him on the same level as Bigfoot or the Chupacabra

Just cos stuff is too expensive (in real money) to be abused doesn't mean having the option to abuse it is ok. That's literally pay2win.

And how many bloodthirsters are too many for you?

3? They have 3 different variants, so someone may well want three just to get one of each and want to field them together. How about the character on top, that makes four. Why stop at four though, 8 would be super fluffy. Better yet 8 body guards for the character, like the old 40k apoc formation around Angron.

Is 9 bloodthirsters an army you'd still happily play against?

I don't even know anyone who has one Bloodthirster, so it's still all very theoretical to me. The option doesn't bother me if no one uses it or would use it.

But would it bother you if they played a character thirster and 8 regular bloodthirsters?

No, it would actually be pretty cool. I'd probably try to come up with a fitting scenario on the spot. I'll be sure to report if I ever play such a person!

 jonolikespie wrote:


Or you try to play a league (lets not even touch tourney's) and you are paired with that guy. Let me guess, the answer is for the group to ostracize him and force him out of the league?

Ultimately that is what this answer comes down to, isn't it. If you think this person who is playing the game as the rules are written and not breaking them you are advocating forcing them to leave to have fun the way you say is ok via social pressure.

This is not acceptable behavior in any other scenario, why is it here?

*Edit*
Not to mention the fact that if that person doesn't change you're community is now less one person and weaker for it.

Of course you could argue it is good to get rid of That Guy as your community will be better for it but that is not preferable to simply having rules that stop people from doing anything like that in the first place.

Kicking out a TFG who cheats is fine, kicking out a guy who simply plays within the rules but has fun in a way you don't like makes you That Guy.

No it doesn't.

Almost anything we do has rules and social conventions. People who ignore social conventions will often find themselves no longer welcome. There's no law that says you cannot pick your nose, but if you spend your time picking your nose around people they are probably going to shun you, and you will be left with only others who like picking their nose to socialise with.

Laws and rules are fine up to a point, but rules also get in the way. Why do we need a hard rule that stops 30 or 3 bloodthirsters. The rules simply do not need to cover that, what is acceptable for a game will differ between groups or over time. Any hobby that involves interacting with others involves understanding what the conventions and consensus about certain behaviour is within that group, that means talking about your desire to field bloodthirsters and realise that when everyone says 'get lost' then that is tough but also end of story. Arguing the rules allow it does not mean anything, if the group has defined certain levels of what is acceptable then you can't force them to play with you when you ignore it.

Is the group better or worse. I'd say a lot better, if you keep that guy then others who are starting out will probably get stomped on by such a person who thinks it is fun to play blatantly unfair games. There will be less tension in the group etc. The other guy is also better out the group looking for those who like that sort of meta game, there is no point him hanging around as he will never get to play with what he wants.

puree wrote:

Spoiler:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Or you try to play a league (lets not even touch tourney's) and you are paired with that guy. Let me guess, the answer is for the group to ostracize him and force him out of the league?

Ultimately that is what this answer comes down to, isn't it. If you think this person who is playing the game as the rules are written and not breaking them you are advocating forcing them to leave to have fun the way you say is ok via social pressure.

This is not acceptable behavior in any other scenario, why is it here?

*Edit*
Not to mention the fact that if that person doesn't change you're community is now less one person and weaker for it.

Of course you could argue it is good to get rid of That Guy as your community will be better for it but that is not preferable to simply having rules that stop people from doing anything like that in the first place.

Kicking out a TFG who cheats is fine, kicking out a guy who simply plays within the rules but has fun in a way you don't like makes you That Guy.

No it doesn't.

Almost anything we do has rules and social conventions. People who ignore social conventions will often find themselves no longer welcome. There's no law that says you cannot pick your nose, but if you spend your time picking your nose around people they are probably going to shun you, and you will be left with only others who like picking their nose to socialise with.

Laws and rules are fine up to a point, but rules also get in the way. Why do we need a hard rule that stops 30 or 3 bloodthirsters. The rules simply do not need to cover that, what is acceptable for a game will differ between groups or over time. Any hobby that involves interacting with others involves understanding what the conventions and consensus about certain behaviour is within that group, that means talking about your desire to field bloodthirsters and realise that when everyone says 'get lost' then that is tough but also end of story. Arguing the rules allow it does not mean anything, if the group has defined certain levels of what is acceptable then you can't force them to play with you when you ignore it.

Is the group better or worse. I'd say a lot better, if you keep that guy then others who are starting out will probably get stomped on by such a person who thinks it is fun to play blatantly unfair games. There will be less tension in the group etc. The other guy is also better out the group looking for those who like that sort of meta game, there is no point him hanging around as he will never get to play with what he wants.

How many people are in your AoS group? Would the loss of one of those people hurt your community? I find it hard to believe many groups at this point in AoS's life that are large enough not to care about the loss of a player.

Why is it better to segregate the community and drive out people who don't play the way you like rather than have a well made game that allows people to enjoy themselves in different, non exclusive, ways?

TFG will find a way to make any game unfun, no matter how balanced it is. I would absolutely exclude him.

But why do you get to decide he is being That Guy when he is playing within the rules of the game?

Exclude a cheater, sure, or a guy who throws a tantrum if he looses, or is an ass about winning and picks on noobs, but some poor guy wanting to play a list you think is OP is now That Guy because you say so.

It is entirely the job of, and even the point of, the rules of the damn game to provide the framework of the game, including what models are allowed and what are not.

 Mymearan wrote:
TFG will find a way to make any game unfun, no matter how balanced it is. I would absolutely exclude him.

This is extremely true, folks like that will always find a way to break things in their favor. For most groups they are super toxic and will in time be pushed out regardless of how small the community is as people will just get fed up with talking to a brick wall.

That said I personally differentiate competitive players from TFGs, for example there is a player in my flgs that has a reputation for bringing utterly devastating list, but it he's a genuinely great fellow who will help you grow as a player in discussions after the game. TFGs from my experience are much less accommodating the most you might get out of the is a derisive "Learn to play better" or gloating about how brilliant of a armchair general they are.

My experience with AoS had been nothing less than sterling at this point, not a single "mah catapult armee" player in sight, granted I am just one man at a flgs. People will abuse the lack of rules if you let them, I can only hope we as a community have the will to actively discourage taking advantage of the "goodwill" system AoS uses.

 jonolikespie wrote:
But why do you get to decide he is being That Guy when he is playing within the rules of the game?

Exclude a cheater, sure, or a guy who throws a tantrum if he looses, or is an ass about winning and picks on noobs, but some poor guy wanting to play a list you think is OP is now That Guy because you say so.

It is entirely the job of, and even the point of, the rules of the damn game to provide the framework of the game, including what models are allowed and what are not.

If he's a douche bag, he's TFG, if he's not, we'll be able to come to an agreement, because that means both of us are reasonable people. Not that hard. This is already how I do in literally every game I play, because in all of them there is stuff that can be massively abused. AoS is no different to me. I already said I'd play the Bloodthirster list, because if the guy is cool he'll want me to have fun and not be curbstomped, and we'll figure something out.

 jonolikespie wrote:
But why do you get to decide he is being That Guy when he is playing within the rules of the game?

Exclude a cheater, sure, or a guy who throws a tantrum if he looses, or is an ass about winning and picks on noobs, but some poor guy wanting to play a list you think is OP is now That Guy because you say so.

It is entirely the job of, and even the point of, the rules of the damn game to provide the framework of the game, including what models are allowed and what are not.

Dry your eyes, Jono.

AoS is going nowhere, regardless of how may blood vessels you burst arguing the in and outs online.

 jonolikespie wrote:
But would it bother you if they played a character thirster and 8 regular bloodthirsters?

Sounds great!

I would suggest some sort of line breaker scenario where I need to get a dude off the enemy table edge.

If it's a league or tournament then we need a overall wound cap to serve as an upper limit.

 jonolikespie wrote:
But why do you get to decide he is being That Guy when he is playing within the rules of the game?

...
...

Because it's like that, and that's the way it is.

This doesn't mean that having no balance mechanism is a good idea, or that a balance mechanism is a bad idea.

Azyr 10 point games are the best I've played. No hero spam. No war machine span. Horde units are actually useful.

I think it's nice to see they are trying to add some kind of points to the game. This could be the start of what will eventually become more balanced army building rules. Maybe they're just calling it a School League since that sounds better than Please Test These New Rules For Us

I still like my idea better .. Pick the amount of scrolls you want to play, and the amount of models in 1 scroll = whatever comes in a standard box (not big bundle deal boxes). So 1 scroll/unit of sigmarnes with shields & hammers = 5 guys. 1 scroll/unit of skinks with blowpipes = 24. Works for me, not perfect in every way but then neither is AoS

 monders wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
But why do you get to decide he is being That Guy when he is playing within the rules of the game?

Exclude a cheater, sure, or a guy who throws a tantrum if he looses, or is an ass about winning and picks on noobs, but some poor guy wanting to play a list you think is OP is now That Guy because you say so.

It is entirely the job of, and even the point of, the rules of the damn game to provide the framework of the game, including what models are allowed and what are not.

Dry your eyes, Jono.

AoS is going nowhere, regardless of how may blood vessels you burst arguing the in and outs online.

It's interesting that the real balancing factor of AoS is just not to play a person. Every time I read a battle report there's usually a section where they talk about if they brought too much, or did their opponent bring too much, and what they thought WAS fair and what COULD BE fair. and if they could re-do the game, how they would do their (or their opponents) army different.

It seems like its a breeding ground for fear of being labeled TFG and being blackballed from playing, like some weird version of McCarthyism.

As for AoS going nowhere I guess we will just have to see, and I don't even think the next few quarterly reports will even shed light on it. I personally would be surprised if the current incarnation was still getting support come next winter. I think they will either double-down try a new edition, or quietly let it die with no new updates for months on end (like the hobbit.)

Either way, GW simply will not support a Line of miniatures that do not sell.

Got to love an AoS thread descending into a moral battle over the actions of a hypothetical child with infinite resources.

The key to AoS is to try to not break it. It is a very different way of thinking, especially for a generation who expect a level and fair playing field (and more importantly, expect somebody else to have made that field for them).

It is very, very British.

I kind of like this rule system - very flexible.

Dogs of War
1 Mercenary General [5]
12 Ricco's Republican Guard [5+11]
12 Braganza's Besiegers [5+11]
1 Asarnil the Dragonlord [14]
3 Giants of Albion [5+12+12]
1 Paymaster [5]
= 30 models, 85 wounds total

Start with the small dudes, saving the big dudes for the end, depending on how/what the opponent deploys.

Flipmode wrote:
Got to love an AoS thread descending into a moral battle over the actions of a hypothetical child with infinite resources.

The key to AoS is to try to not break it. It is a very different way of thinking, especially for a generation who expect a level and fair playing field (and more importantly, expect somebody else to have made that field for them).

It is very, very British.

Having only read the rules (just bought it second hand from a friend) I think this description nails it.

School League is not a particularly nice situation, at least not once you get into the finals. I've played a lot of the 40K school league and by god I have came across more cheating and cheese lists in those few days then the rest of my Warhammer experience.

But I know the guy who made these rules, he used to be the manager of my GW, and he is a great guy who did everything he could to make AoS a game that could be quantified for school league to continue, and i think all things considered he did a great job. Sure stronger models are worth more then weaker models, but in the games there are also objectives that have to be taken, and they can only be taken by models with more then 5 wounds, so it is possible to tarpit big things to allow you to take objectives. I'll take part and report back on how it goes. I wonder if I'll see those 27 bloodthristers?