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.

Hello there!
So GW decided to let us alone in the dark concerning the creation of army.
I hope they will ear us crying and weeping in theyr basement soon or later but for the moment I think we'll have to use a bit of DIY.
But it's not a reason for the players community not being organised and work for a common solution.

So ok, no point ... but what I see and is a great thing is KEYWORDS.

I've quickly made a chart (VERY quickly in fact, just to have an idea for testing) based on a number of figurines as reference of battle size, as GW seams to want us to do.
And then for each battle size (15 figs, 25 figs, 35 figs, 50 figs and so on... yeah, my friends and I likes skirmish games... and warmahorde) there is a MIN-MAX of units we can use.
Added to that, there is a MIN-MAX for a couple of keywords that are recurrents.



ATTENTION I didn't say this will balance the game, I clearly don't have this pretention. But it can add a little bit of frame to the game.
My first intention was to make this chart for my game club. It was suppose to become an "official" chart for the games in our club. We are not competitive players, but more friends who like
to have fun with fluffy armies and like the hobby etc. We don't like to "faire des coups de pute" as we say in french (i'll let you search the meaning).

But in final, why not share this, why not discuss this with community, improve it with the help of people who know this game far better than me, and then share the result everywhere in the internet and why not in the shops etc to make it an unofficial but commonly accepted rule.

What do you think of it?
(As english is not my first langage, please don't use too much special english acronym )

This belongs in proposed rules. The existing game has a clearly defined army creation method that everyone seems to be ignoring. You simply don't make lists ahead of time in this new game.

1. Bring all of the models you think you might want to play with.
2. After rolling off, alternate deploying units.
3. Once one person is done, the other person can continue deploying units until he's done or has filled his deployment zone.

If both players are decent, step 2 ensures balance. I should put down units that counter what he's put down and he should do the same. If one player decides to put down a massive army in step 3, sudden death objectives provide balance.

 Kriswall wrote:
This belongs in proposed rules. The existing game has a clearly defined army creation method that everyone seems to be ignoring. You simply don't make lists ahead of time in this new game.

1. Bring all of the models you think you might want to play with.
2. After rolling off, alternate deploying units.
3. Once one person is done, the other person can continue deploying units until he's done or has filled his deployment zone.

If both players are decent, step 2 ensures balance. I should put down units that counter what he's put down and he should do the same. If one player decides to put down a massive army in step 3, sudden death objectives provide balance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
though I will add, that only works if the army strength/size disparity isn't too great. If I have 5000 8Epts of WoC and my opponent has 500 8Epts of Lizardmen, it probably won't work, even w/ Sudden Death unless he gets real lucky.

That is, unless we're decent human beings and actually kind of discuss that before hand.

But I'm w/ you on this one. Your interpretation is exactly how my friend interpreted it. I like it alot, just have to avoid possible drastic imbalance.

 Kriswall wrote:
This belongs in proposed rules. The existing game has a clearly defined army creation method that everyone seems to be ignoring. You simply don't make lists ahead of time in this new game.

1. Bring all of the models you think you might want to play with.
2. After rolling off, alternate deploying units.
3. Once one person is done, the other person can continue deploying units until he's done or has filled his deployment zone.

If both players are decent, step 2 ensures balance. I should put down units that counter what he's put down and he should do the same. If one player decides to put down a massive army in step 3, sudden death objectives provide balance.

So the armies are can be uneven in power. Even if sudden death objectives will be used to obtain victory, I feel like the player with weaker army will still be at a disadvantage. Since if the weaker player needs to kill a certain unit or character the opponent can hide the unit/character behind all other units.
The other problem that may occur here is that the suddenth death should only be given to aside with an actual disadvantage. What if one side consists of hord units like clanrats and outnumbers the other side 3:1 but the other side consists of hammerers. In this case the clanrats might be even at a disadvantage.

Re :Biokemnia I would add maximum number of warscrolls per side and limit the number of elite models to 5 per a warscroll. Than if you want a bigger unit of elite models you would have to spend more warscroll and would no be able to field the maximum number wounds worth of models allowed.

Why are people so obsessed with balance?

You guys are tearing your hair out over a free set of awesome, game-night-with-friends rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why are people so obsessed with balance?

You guys are tearing your hair out over a free set of awesome, game-night-with-friends rules.

And taking the game beyond game-night with friends needs a comp system.

Personally I find that the most even games are the most entertaining as they are the most challenging for both players and exciting as you may not be sure who wins to the last second.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why are people so obsessed with balance?

You guys are tearing your hair out over a free set of awesome, game-night-with-friends rules.

And taking the game beyond game-night with friends needs a comp system.

Do you enjoy hamfisting square pegs into round holes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Personally I find that the most even games are the most entertaining as they are the most challenging for both players and exciting as you may not be sure who wins to the last second.

Then play identical armies with your opponent. *shrug*

Honestly, I think basing it on wound count would make it simpler and a little less restrictive while not being totally bonkers.

To me, I think armies should be composed in increments of 50 wounds.

Armies may include only 1 copy of each unit with the Hero keyword. (Alternatively, you could limit just Hero units with a specific name, since the rules allow multiples of the same named hero).

Armies may include a single unit model of 10+ wounds per 50 wounds for your army build. This is to help make those massive power houses still strong without flooding the field with them.
-Example at 50 pts, you get one 10+ wound model, at 100 Wounds you get two single model units with 10+ wounds.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why are people so obsessed with balance?

You guys are tearing your hair out over a free set of awesome, game-night-with-friends rules.

I'm afraid to inform you but not everyone shares you preference, many of whom have also sunk a sizable fortune into building their armies. You can have your 'beer and pretzels' game within a structured and reasonably balanced system.

nudibranch wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why are people so obsessed with balance?

You guys are tearing your hair out over a free set of awesome, game-night-with-friends rules.

I'm afraid to inform you but not everyone shares you preference, many of whom have also sunk a sizable fortune into building their armies. You can have your 'beer and pretzels' game within a structured and reasonably balanced system.

There are other systems which you can use the exact same minis for that more closely align with your 'preferences.' Stop trying to shove square pegs into round holes and just go find a round peg!

Yeah, before this goes off the rails, let's all accept that some people like Age of Sigmar as it is. However, those people should also accept that some people want to alter the rules so that they have a more balanced game and said people should only be commenting on a thread discussing such balance if they have something meaningful to say. "The game's fine guys, it's for fun", doesn't qualify as something meaningful, in this situation, I'm afraid.

In terms of the OP's chart, whilst I like the principle, I would really recommend swapping out "figures" for "wounds". Wounds already seem to be the go-to balancing system and I think a lot of people would be able, and be more prepared, to help if your own system went off that. It also removes the issue that some people's 3-15 figures may be man-sized, and another person's 3-15 figures might all be monstrous cavalry.

devestator 7777777 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
This belongs in proposed rules. The existing game has a clearly defined army creation method that everyone seems to be ignoring. You simply don't make lists ahead of time in this new game.

1. Bring all of the models you think you might want to play with.
2. After rolling off, alternate deploying units.
3. Once one person is done, the other person can continue deploying units until he's done or has filled his deployment zone.

If both players are decent, step 2 ensures balance. I should put down units that counter what he's put down and he should do the same. If one player decides to put down a massive army in step 3, sudden death objectives provide balance.

So the armies are can be uneven in power. Even if sudden death objectives will be used to obtain victory, I feel like the player with weaker army will still be at a disadvantage. Since if the weaker player needs to kill a certain unit or character the opponent can hide the unit/character behind all other units.
The other problem that may occur here is that the sudden death should only be given to aside with an actual disadvantage. What if one side consists of hord units like clanrats and outnumbers the other side 3:1 but the other side consists of hammerers. In this case the clanrats might be even at a disadvantage.

there are portals that let you 'outflank' or move to another portal, i played a game with a smaller army i picked to slay a unit and jumped some units in behind for the kill on the first turn used the rest of my units as a wedge to road block and jumped my flying units over to the marked man and id won by turn 3 with the exspence of loosing most of my dude but it was a heroic death or glory mission by boys where on so its all gravy, it was tones of fun to play
Also i think your aint taking a clanrat pure army to a torny and if your not in a torny whats wrong with asking for a leniency, if i had four dragon and you had 40 clan rats i dont think id worry about sudden death.

nudibranch wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why are people so obsessed with balance?

You guys are tearing your hair out over a free set of awesome, game-night-with-friends rules.

I'm afraid to inform you but not everyone shares you preference, many of whom have also sunk a sizable fortune into building their armies. You can have your 'beer and pretzels' game within a structured and reasonably balanced system.

When you create your army and deploy as the rules state the game IS balanced. The Deploy/Counter-Deploy method of building your army is it's own mini-game and it gives you every opportunity to build a list that is a strong match-up to your opponent. And someone who "sunk a sizeable fortune into building their armies" is actually in a _better_ position here as they have a larger selection of models to choose from during deployment.

The only thing this game needs is a language for describing what size game you'd like to play.

-frank