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.

So the way I read it and RAW is that you come to the table and alternate deployment until you decide you are done placing units correct? And that for the sudden death rules it is based on the number of models not the number of wound/scrolls/etc?

So RAW I could come to the game with my ogres and place my 2 stonehorns, 2 thundertusks, 2 giants, 2 cannons, 1 scraplauncher and have a model count of 9 for the purposes of sudden death?

Not trying to be tfg but seeing if this is how it was meant to be played as far as army formation.

You are correct, that is the RaW form of army selection and deployment.

 streamdragon wrote:
You are correct, that is the RaW form of army selection and deployment.

awesome, I have a game against someone who swears this system is good(gw guy) and im going to make him understand how silly this is......

If you have any formation warscrolls in your army too, you can either deploy it: one unit at a time, partially at a time, or all together at once.

Edit: I know I read this somewhere, but can't think of where right now haha

 Bottle wrote:
If you have any formation warscrolls in your army too, you can either deploy it: one unit at a time, partially at a time, or all together at once.

I was kinda planning on running all of my big guys to really put a lot of hitting power on the table without the high model count, greasus, skragg, plus 6 monsters, 3 war machines, and gorgers

 namiel wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
You are correct, that is the RaW form of army selection and deployment.

awesome, I have a game against someone who swears this system is good(gw guy) and im going to make him understand how silly this is......

It's a system that if you try to break it, it breaks.

And i agree, the sudden death rules are silly and not well playtested, they add nothing to the game.
-If both players are working to balance their armies somewhat against each other to have a good game, sudden death isn't needed.
-If one or more of the players is trying to overwhelm his opponent and win by having a lot more stuff, Sudden death rule is actually just another tool, because of how powerful many models can b.

So either way, i don't see it needed. And it's too easily manipulated. I dumped it out of the rules I made for playing games in my shop league.

 namiel wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
You are correct, that is the RaW form of army selection and deployment.

awesome, I have a game against someone who swears this system is good(gw guy) and im going to make him understand how silly this is......

So, you're ACTIVELY trying to be TFG. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. If your intention is to prove that playing against a min/maxing jerk isn't fun, I'm pretty sure you don't need to play the game. This is a generally understood thing in the community.

Maybe try to show up and enjoy the game? You might find it's actually fun to play with others when you aren't trying to poop in their Cheerios.

namiel wrote:awesome, I have a game against someone who swears this system is good(gw guy) and im going to make him understand how silly this is......

It is a sticking point for a lot of people.

mikhaila wrote:It's a system that if you try to break it, it breaks.

And i agree, the sudden death rules are silly and not well playtested, they add nothing to the game.
-If both players are working to balance their armies somewhat against each other to have a good game, sudden death isn't needed.
-If one or more of the players is trying to overwhelm his opponent and win by having a lot more stuff, Sudden death rule is actually just another tool, because of how powerful many models can b.

So either way, i don't see it needed. And it's too easily manipulated. I dumped it out of the rules I made for playing games in my shop league.

It's more like a broken system, that some people will gingerly step around the brokenness. To me, when a point system existed (or unit choice system for games that didn't use points or whatever), you at least had an underlying accepted notion. "These armies should be about the same strength". Obviously, it was never perfect. It was "a system that if you [tried] to break it, it [broke]". Deathstars, point denial builds, all sorts of unfun things you could do with a point (or unit) based system. But there was at least a clear understanding.

Now, two people show up and start plonking units with no baseline. No system. No limits. Nothing beyond "deployment zone's the limit". That, to me, is inherently broken. Some people will just be big enough to try to patch it up with the person they're playing with. Invariably, someone will get stabbed with one of the shards.

Kriswall wrote:So, you're ACTIVELY trying to be TFG. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. If your intention is to prove that playing against a min/maxing jerk isn't fun, I'm pretty sure you don't need to play the game. This is a generally understood thing in the community.

Maybe try to show up and enjoy the game? You might find it's actually fun to play with others when you aren't trying to poop in their Cheerios.

Maybe he enjoys pooping in Cheerios. Folks, strokes and all that.

 streamdragon wrote:

namiel wrote:awesome, I have a game against someone who swears this system is good(gw guy) and im going to make him understand how silly this is......

It is a sticking point for a lot of people.

mikhaila wrote:It's a system that if you try to break it, it breaks.

And i agree, the sudden death rules are silly and not well playtested, they add nothing to the game.
-If both players are working to balance their armies somewhat against each other to have a good game, sudden death isn't needed.
-If one or more of the players is trying to overwhelm his opponent and win by having a lot more stuff, Sudden death rule is actually just another tool, because of how powerful many models can b.

So either way, i don't see it needed. And it's too easily manipulated. I dumped it out of the rules I made for playing games in my shop league.

It's more like a broken system, that some people will gingerly step around the brokenness. To me, when a point system existed (or unit choice system for games that didn't use points or whatever), you at least had an underlying accepted notion. "These armies should be about the same strength". Obviously, it was never perfect. It was "a system that if you [tried] to break it, it [broke]". Deathstars, point denial builds, all sorts of unfun things you could do with a point (or unit) based system. But there was at least a clear understanding.

Now, two people show up and start plonking units with no baseline. No system. No limits. Nothing beyond "deployment zone's the limit". That, to me, is inherently broken. Some people will just be big enough to try to patch it up with the person they're playing with. Invariably, someone will get stabbed with one of the shards.

Kriswall wrote:So, you're ACTIVELY trying to be TFG. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. If your intention is to prove that playing against a min/maxing jerk isn't fun, I'm pretty sure you don't need to play the game. This is a generally understood thing in the community.

Maybe try to show up and enjoy the game? You might find it's actually fun to play with others when you aren't trying to poop in their Cheerios.

Maybe he enjoys pooping in Cheerios. Folks, strokes and all that.

You're completely ignoring the inherent balancing mechanism of being able to add units to your 'army list' AFTER you know what your opponent is bringing. This new system allows you to tailor your army to fight his just as it allows him to tailor to fight yours. People can be angry that they can't make a list ahead of time and expect it to be balanced in every instance, but they can't be angry AND ignore the inherent balancing mechanisms present.

Assuming you all were independently wealthy you could, and had someone to tote around your miniatures for you

Otherwise, it still comes down to who has the most models.

 Kriswall wrote:

You're completely ignoring the inherent balancing mechanism of being able to add units to your 'army list' AFTER you know what your opponent is bringing. This new system allows you to tailor your army to fight his just as it allows him to tailor to fight yours. People can be angry that they can't make a list ahead of time and expect it to be balanced in every instance, but they can't be angry AND ignore the inherent balancing mechanisms present.

I'm not completely ignoring it, because what you said isn't completely true. One person decides to stop, the other person is then free to place as many units as they want.

So if you we go back and forth to, let's say, 60 models. You decide you're done. I now can continue to place until I have 79 models. Assuming our starting 60 models were similar in power level, I now have a sizable advantage AND have denied you Sudden Death.

You're welcome to walk away from the table of course, but what I've done is not against the rules. Huff all you want, that's the game that Age of Sigmar is. That's the game you agree to play.


Hence why I said "it's a broken system that people will be big enough to patch with the person with whom they are playing".

 streamdragon wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

You're completely ignoring the inherent balancing mechanism of being able to add units to your 'army list' AFTER you know what your opponent is bringing. This new system allows you to tailor your army to fight his just as it allows him to tailor to fight yours. People can be angry that they can't make a list ahead of time and expect it to be balanced in every instance, but they can't be angry AND ignore the inherent balancing mechanisms present.

I'm not completely ignoring it, because what you said isn't completely true. One person decides to stop, the other person is then free to place as many units as they want.

So if you we go back and forth to, let's say, 60 models. You decide you're done. I now can continue to place until I have 79 models. Assuming our starting 60 models were similar in power level, I now have a sizable advantage AND have denied you Sudden Death.

You're welcome to walk away from the table of course, but what I've done is not against the rules. Huff all you want, that's the game that Age of Sigmar is. That's the game you agree to play.


Hence why I said "it's a broken system that people will be big enough to patch with the person with whom they are playing".

It's not even remotely broken. Just don't play with a-holes. I've played several games now, having stuck exactly to the rules. All of them have been quite fun and fairly balanced. This just isn't a game intended for power gamers. Maybe go play Magic the Gathering? It still supports net listing quite nicely. AoS doesn't.

Your anecdotes and ad homs vs my example with rule citing.

I'll let people reading decide which is more reliable.

 Kriswall wrote:

Spoiler:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

You're completely ignoring the inherent balancing mechanism of being able to add units to your 'army list' AFTER you know what your opponent is bringing. This new system allows you to tailor your army to fight his just as it allows him to tailor to fight yours. People can be angry that they can't make a list ahead of time and expect it to be balanced in every instance, but they can't be angry AND ignore the inherent balancing mechanisms present.

I'm not completely ignoring it, because what you said isn't completely true. One person decides to stop, the other person is then free to place as many units as they want.

So if you we go back and forth to, let's say, 60 models. You decide you're done. I now can continue to place until I have 79 models. Assuming our starting 60 models were similar in power level, I now have a sizable advantage AND have denied you Sudden Death.

You're welcome to walk away from the table of course, but what I've done is not against the rules. Huff all you want, that's the game that Age of Sigmar is. That's the game you agree to play.


Hence why I said "it's a broken system that people will be big enough to patch with the person with whom they are playing".

It's not even remotely broken. Just don't play with a-holes. I've played several games now, having stuck exactly to the rules. All of them have been quite fun and fairly balanced. This just isn't a game intended for power gamers. Maybe go play Magic the Gathering? It still supports net listing quite nicely. AoS doesn't.

seriously, Kriswall gets it. Surprisingly, lots of wargamers don't. But is that really such a surprise?

 streamdragon wrote:
Your anecdotes and ad homs vs my example with rule citing.

I'll let people reading decide which is more reliable.

Oh, I'm sorry. It looked like you were giving me a hypothetical situation that might happen if one were to follow the rules. I gave you an actual situation that did happen when a friend and I did follow the rules.

Nay say all you want, but again, pick your opponents based at least partly on their sportsmanship and this will never be an issue. If you play someone who has poor sportsmanship, simply don't play them again... or have a conversation and explain to them why they are a bad opponent. If you don't like the idea of potentially having to play against strangers where you have no control over your opponent's sportsmanship... maybe stay away from organized tournament play?

 Kriswall wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Your anecdotes and ad homs vs my example with rule citing.

I'll let people reading decide which is more reliable.

Oh, I'm sorry. It looked like you were giving me a hypothetical situation that might happen if one were to follow the rules. I gave you an actual situation that did happen when a friend and I did follow the rules.

Nay say all you want, but again, pick your opponents based at least partly on their sportsmanship and this will never be an issue. If you play someone who has poor sportsmanship, simply don't play them again... or have a conversation and explain to them why they are a bad opponent. If you don't like the idea of potentially having to play against strangers where you have no control over your opponent's sportsmanship... maybe stay away from organized tournament play?

its not a sportsmanship issue. 90% of the people around the shop are just fine to play with but a system that's rule is to just field "whatever you like". Honestly the rest of the system is good but the deploy until you are done, units having no upper limit(for those that need them anyway), and model count being important while very powerful minis still counting for a single without balancing. He says I will enjoy that but it truly removes something I love from the game.

I play 40k for fun and to screw around, I played WHFB for competitive games, tournaments, and because it was fun. He swears ill love this system and he knows im a competitive player who likes the tournament scene. I know ill eventually end up playing KOW or finding groups still playing 8th ed simply because as it sits now this system has no ability to regulate itself except for the $$$ spent.

 Kriswall wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Your anecdotes and ad homs vs my example with rule citing.

I'll let people reading decide which is more reliable.

Oh, I'm sorry. It looked like you were giving me a hypothetical situation that might happen if one were to follow the rules. I gave you an actual situation that did happen when a friend and I did follow the rules.

Nay say all you want, but again, pick your opponents based at least partly on their sportsmanship and this will never be an issue. If you play someone who has poor sportsmanship, simply don't play them again... or have a conversation and explain to them why they are a bad opponent. If you don't like the idea of potentially having to play against strangers where you have no control over your opponent's sportsmanship... maybe stay away from organized tournament play?

So, where do you draw the line? At what point is somebody being a bad opponent? If you're going to play the gatekeeper, I'd like to know what your rules are.

In the examples given, the players were following all of the rules of the game.

Maybe the army I want to play is a squad of monstrous creatures and warmachines. You're going to tell me that I'm being a jerk, when I haven't broken any rules at all? I'm a polite, courteous player, not trying to break the game or ruin anybody's fun. All I wanted was an AoS match, but now I'm in the wrong because I've crossed some arbitrary social threshold set by you and others that isn't a part of the game at all.

If you're going to put additional restrictions on army composition, call them what they are: house rules.

 Jambles wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
Your anecdotes and ad homs vs my example with rule citing.

I'll let people reading decide which is more reliable.

Oh, I'm sorry. It looked like you were giving me a hypothetical situation that might happen if one were to follow the rules. I gave you an actual situation that did happen when a friend and I did follow the rules.

Nay say all you want, but again, pick your opponents based at least partly on their sportsmanship and this will never be an issue. If you play someone who has poor sportsmanship, simply don't play them again... or have a conversation and explain to them why they are a bad opponent. If you don't like the idea of potentially having to play against strangers where you have no control over your opponent's sportsmanship... maybe stay away from organized tournament play?

So, where do you draw the line? At what point is somebody being a bad opponent? If you're going to play the gatekeeper, I'd like to know what your rules are.

In the examples given, the players were following all of the rules of the game.

Maybe the army I want to play is a squad of monstrous creatures and warmachines. You're going to tell me that I'm being a jerk, when I haven't broken any rules at all? I'm a polite, courteous player, not trying to break the game or ruin anybody's fun. All I wanted was an AoS match, but now I'm in the wrong because I've crossed some arbitrary social threshold set by you and others that isn't a part of the game at all.

If you're going to put additional restrictions on army composition, call them what they are: house rules.

This is a tricky topic because intent is involved. If the guy who wants to play a horde of monsters is doing so because he loves the idea and just prefers those models, I'd be happy to play him. I'm going to be putting down mostly units that can fight monster effectively, so it'll end up as a fairly balanced game.

If instead, he didn't really care about the units, but simply thought that selection of models would give him the best chance to steamroll players who don't understand the tactical and strategic decisions involved in picking appropriate units that can counter... well, his intent isn't so pure. That's poor sportsmanship. I know it seems arbitrary, and it probably is a little since I can never really know what's in the other guy's mind.

It's like in 40k. If you want to bring swarms of flyers in an effort steamroll your opponents who aren't likely to have armies full of AA, fine. But expect two results. Result #1... no one will play you again. Result #2... you'll start seeing LOTS of AA and balance will occur.

Ultimately, if you have TFG show up and drop his all monster list, balance can still occur. You just have very little flexibility in what you can counter with. If you don't have enough anti-monster units, buy some more. I know, I know. You're screaming "but then the game becomes pay to play". Well, news flash. It's always been that way.

Its not like its nothing I haven't put down on the table in the past but to me this seems game breaking now since im no longer required to put 25% troops. I have used the hunter on stonehorn +1 stonehorn and thunder tusk with a giant then bring a big unit of mournfang. It was my OK monsters list. Bring a beefy tyrant on carpet and minimal units of gnoblars or bulls. Now instead of the tyrant it will be skragg and instead of bulls or gnobos it will be gourgers. This list isn't foreign concept for me but without the internal balance of a points system nothing stops me from fielding a 18 model army with a major ability to walk through armies right to the sudden death victory. This is the point I am trying to make about the game as to why I don't think its for me but giving it an honest go, and I play COMPETITIVELY I play whfb to win the game and I invite opponents to play tough lists and play competitively. To me the challenge is the fun in the game

Oh and yes I will play fluffy games but unless you say that assume im going to bring my best

I guess thats the thing that's going to shake out with AoS. Folks who enjoy competitive play exclusively (and there are a fair number of those people) are not going to find this game fulfilling. Unless they are TFG, then they'll just find themselves without many opponents. Honestly, this game just is not going to work in a competitive organized play setting.

There are LOTS of games out there that are great for that. AoS is not that game. And that's okay.

It might work, but only after the following get down:

1) Drop the current victory conditions.

2) Come up with new victory conditions.

3) Come up with a way to have some sort of parity in games.

4) FAQ of unclear situations.

5) Lots of games played.

6) TO's who want to run tournaments using a system like this.

I'm doing a "for gits and shiggles" tournament this Sunday. I have rudimentary start on items 1-3. Will be taking notes for an FAQ. Starting work on a points system. That's going to take a bit, since i need a boatload of data before I do one. Lots of games need to be played/observerd.

 lordwellingstone wrote:
I guess thats the thing that's going to shake out with AoS. Folks who enjoy competitive play exclusively (and there are a fair number of those people) are not going to find this game fulfilling. Unless they are TFG, then they'll just find themselves without many opponents. Honestly, this game just is not going to work in a competitive organized play setting.

There are LOTS of games out there that are great for that. AoS is not that game. And that's okay.

I generally like competitive play but fun fluffy games that have a theme are good as well, the issue I struggle to get behind is the complete lack of army composition for general games. In a system that has tighter rules for that its easy to ignore to get those "bring what you want" games.

What I don't understand at this point is the army list section now. It really has no function since there are no restrictions to army creation. Its literally people putting arbitrary restrictions on themselves writing up groups of units.

 namiel wrote:

 lordwellingstone wrote:
I guess thats the thing that's going to shake out with AoS. Folks who enjoy competitive play exclusively (and there are a fair number of those people) are not going to find this game fulfilling. Unless they are TFG, then they'll just find themselves without many opponents. Honestly, this game just is not going to work in a competitive organized play setting.

There are LOTS of games out there that are great for that. AoS is not that game. And that's okay.

I generally like competitive play but fun fluffy games that have a theme are good as well, the issue I struggle to get behind is the complete lack of army composition for general games. In a system that has tighter rules for that its easy to ignore to get those "bring what you want" games.

What I don't understand at this point is the army list section now. It really has no function since there are no restrictions to army creation. Its literally people putting arbitrary restrictions on themselves writing up groups of units.

Agreed. One of the absolutely CORE concepts behind this game is that you don't put a list together ahead of time. This isn't 8th Edition. You're allowed to change your 'list' as you see what your opponent is deploying. The tactics forum should be blowing up and the lists forum should be dying.

 Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 lordwellingstone wrote:
I guess thats the thing that's going to shake out with AoS. Folks who enjoy competitive play exclusively (and there are a fair number of those people) are not going to find this game fulfilling. Unless they are TFG, then they'll just find themselves without many opponents. Honestly, this game just is not going to work in a competitive organized play setting.

There are LOTS of games out there that are great for that. AoS is not that game. And that's okay.

I generally like competitive play but fun fluffy games that have a theme are good as well, the issue I struggle to get behind is the complete lack of army composition for general games. In a system that has tighter rules for that its easy to ignore to get those "bring what you want" games.

What I don't understand at this point is the army list section now. It really has no function since there are no restrictions to army creation. Its literally people putting arbitrary restrictions on themselves writing up groups of units.

Agreed. One of the absolutely CORE concepts behind this game is that you don't put a list together ahead of time. This isn't 8th Edition. You're allowed to change your 'list' as you see what your opponent is deploying. The tactics forum should be blowing up and the lists forum should be dying.

The idea of deploy what you have to counter the opponent really solidifies the "pay to win/play" idea. If you want a chance of winning you really need to make sure you have EVERYTHING available to you to counter anything that the other player might have. So really this is maximizing the idea the more you spend the better you will do.

 mikhaila wrote:
It's a system that if you try to break it, it breaks.

It's a system that breaks without people trying to break it.

 namiel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 lordwellingstone wrote:
I guess thats the thing that's going to shake out with AoS. Folks who enjoy competitive play exclusively (and there are a fair number of those people) are not going to find this game fulfilling. Unless they are TFG, then they'll just find themselves without many opponents. Honestly, this game just is not going to work in a competitive organized play setting.

There are LOTS of games out there that are great for that. AoS is not that game. And that's okay.

I generally like competitive play but fun fluffy games that have a theme are good as well, the issue I struggle to get behind is the complete lack of army composition for general games. In a system that has tighter rules for that its easy to ignore to get those "bring what you want" games.

What I don't understand at this point is the army list section now. It really has no function since there are no restrictions to army creation. Its literally people putting arbitrary restrictions on themselves writing up groups of units.

Agreed. One of the absolutely CORE concepts behind this game is that you don't put a list together ahead of time. This isn't 8th Edition. You're allowed to change your 'list' as you see what your opponent is deploying. The tactics forum should be blowing up and the lists forum should be dying.

The idea of deploy what you have to counter the opponent really solidifies the "pay to win/play" idea. If you want a chance of winning you really need to make sure you have EVERYTHING available to you to counter anything that the other player might have. So really this is maximizing the idea the more you spend the better you will do.

This has more or less always been the case though. This isn't a cheap hobby. If you want a cheap, perfectly balanced game, go pick up a thrift store chess set. You can probably even find one with a nice, portable case.

The reality of the situation has always been that more models in your closet/case gives you more options for what to field on the battlefield. A brand new player who only has the contents of the starter set will never be as competitive as a long time player who has accumulated twenty years worth of models. Age of Sigmar is no different from 8th Edition in this respect.

Of course these games are pay to win. Most of these games are. Look at Warhammer 40k. The meta keeps changing, but at any given time you can go online, download a couple of top tier army lists, buy the models, pay someone to paint them and instantly become a top tier contender. Look at Magic: the Gathering. The meta keeps changing, but at any given time you can go online, download a couple of top tier deck lists, buy the cards and instantly become a top tier contender.

If anything, Age of Sigmar is LESS pay to win than the above examples. Sure, paying more money to have more models gives you a wider selection to choose from... BUT, having more models offers absolutely NO INSIGHT as to which unit you should deploy next. You need to be an actual good player who understand strategy and tactics. If you're not a good player, no amount of money will make you a top tier contender. It'll just mean that you have an impressive collection of models. There is far less of a 'meta' to take ideas from. You'll need to understand the units you own and when to use which units to counter specific threats.

 Melissia wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
It's a system that if you try to break it, it breaks.

It's a system that breaks without people trying to break it.

After having tried it. I have to agree. It needs a real balancing mechanic.

Well one other than a lecture about how you are a poor opponent for following what little rules there are to play what you want.

Demandread wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
It's a system that if you try to break it, it breaks.

It's a system that breaks without people trying to break it.

After having tried it. I have to agree. It needs a real balancing mechanic.

Well one other than a lecture about how you are a poor opponent for following what little rules there are to play what you want.

What specific issue did you have? It's not enough to say it needs a balancing mechanic. WHY does it need a balancing mechanic? What was unbalanced about the game you played?

I get that you think the game is fine, however there are many who disagree. For instance it just isn't fun to play the meta game of... Will person x think I'm an ass for playing the models I brought and will have fun with, because he finds it unfair or vice versa. Add that to the silliness. The game rules are fairly well inspired, but the "bring your 20years of wallet busting metal and plastic" deployment as well as not balancing weapon load out options and assuming that 1warscroll is as good as the next are frustrating especially to more casual collector/players and to newer player who might be interested but turned off by such.

I think I know your rebuttal, but I will just leave it at, actual balancing systems work to promote thoughtful discussion, and inclusiveness by the structure they represent.

Basically it would be better to just have a point system of a warscoll limit or wound or SOMETHING to bring parity and actual fun. I have great hopes such a thing will come, though it will probably be down theroad.

Demandread wrote:
I get that you think the game is fine, however there are many who disagree. For instance it just isn't fun to play the meta game of... Will person x think I'm an ass for playing the models I brought and will have fun with, because he finds it unfair or vice versa. Add that to the silliness. The game rules are fairly well inspired, but the "bring your 20years of wallet busting metal and plastic" deployment as well as not balancing weapon load out options and assuming that 1warscroll is as good as the next are frustrating especially to more casual collector/players and to newer player who might be interested but turned off by such.

I think I know your rebuttal, but I will just leave it at, actual balancing systems work to promote thoughtful discussion, and inclusiveness by the structure they represent.

Basically it would be better to just have a point system of a warscoll limit or wound or SOMETHING to bring parity and actual fun. I have great hopes such a thing will come, though it will probably be down theroad.

Again, you said you played a game and that it needed an extra balancing mechanic. What specifically was unbalanced about your game? I couldn't possibly rebut anything if I don't know what your problem is with the game. Saying "this is bad and needs to be fixed" without saying what specifically is bad adds nothing to this discussion.