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.

O_o. I gave my statement, which did include an example and serves as a summary of my discussion with my opponent, and we are both fairly casual players. You were not my opponent. I gave examples, but I don't really expect a rebuttal, as you are not my opponent nor one of the game designers. I weighed on my opinion based on my own collected thoughts and data on a forum. Not everything has to be torn down.

You know the people in your club or LGS that are a-holes. Don't play them.

BEFORE you even start putting models on the table, have a discussion with your opponent.

"Hey Bob! I really want to play Nagash today. Are you up for it?"
"Sure Tim! I'm gonna bring a bunch of Bolt Throwers to see how it goes. I have a feeling this game is gonna go quick. Wanna play another one after this?"
"That sounds good Bob. I brought my Chaos Warriors too. We can do the 'Jerk Match' first, then play a real game"

-Or-
"Hey Bob! I really want to play Nagash today. Are you up for it?"
"Not really Tim. He's pretty powerful, and I just wanted to play with a couple units and get stuck in, know what I mean?"
"Ah, that's cool Bob. I still really want to get a game in with Nagash, but I brought my Chaos Warriors too. Let's get a game in, then go get a pint?"
"Sounds good Tim. Let me think a bit about Nagash and maybe next week I'll play against him?"

-Or-
"Hey Bob! I really want to play Nagash today. Are you up for it?"
"Tim, you are such a power gamer. No way! I have nothing that can go against Nagash. Is that the only thing you brought, or can we play something else?"
"It's all I brought"
"Well, next time bring something else. I guess no AoS today then"
"..."

Not everyone has played for years or with the same group. Groups must grow as well or stagnate and die. And why is the nagash player a jerk for wanting to play what he brought. A thing that wouldn't be sneaked at with a mechanical balance of some kind? It's not like the presence if one means you don't have kind discussions with others before a game anyway.

Demandread wrote:
Not everyone has played for years or with the same group. Groups must grow as well or stagnate and die. And why is the nagash player a jerk for wanting to play what he brought. A thing that wouldn't be sneaked at with a mechanical balance of some kind? It's not like the presence if one means you don't have kind discussions with others before a game anyway.

Warhammer 40k has a balance mechanic... points. However, not all points are created equally. 1500 points of Imperial Knights will beat 1500 points of Space Marine Scouts EVERY TIME. Now, imagine this instead...

1. We roll off and you win.
2. You put down an Imperial Knight
3. Seeing that I'm going to have to deal with some heavy armour, I look through my models and put down a Squadron of Lascannon equipped Predators
4. You put down a second Imperial Knight
5. Oh man. What else do I have that can hurt these guys? I again look through my case and put down a Lascannon equipped Devastator Squad
6. You put down a third Imperial Knight
7. Good lord. I need some heavy hitting power! I look through my case again and this time put down some Thunder Hammer wielding Termies in a Land Raider with Las sponsons.
8. You're done.
9. I know I need some more ways to kill you, so I throw in a couple of Melta toting Bikes and Attack Bikes. I also add a Chapter Master on Bike with a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield.
10. I outnumber you by quiet a bit, so you get a Sudden Death objective. My only chance to win is basically to kill your three Knights.

This is now going to be a lot more fun for both of us than if we'd both arbitrarily shown up with 1500 point lists. I would contend that my above example has more inherent balance than just showing up with the same points worth of models. In the games I've played so far, NOT making lists ahead of time and alternating deployment creates inherent balance. Summoning might potentially be an issue, but army deployment isn't bad.

Honestly, if someone deploys Nagash, just put down a couple solid units of shooters or a couple of War Machines. Nagash becomes less effective as he takes wounds. You can also just throw down a bunch of your own Wizards and try to Unbind all his spells. Sure, he starts with a +3 to cast, but that reduces to a +2 pretty quick. Basic High Elf Mages get +1 to Unbind, +2 if they're standing near Arcane terrain. Being able to custom tailor your list as you're deploying helps a lot. What happens if you don't have the right sorts of models to counter your opponent? Well then, you know what to buy next. And before you scream "pay to win", of course this game is pay to win. Whoever has the most tactical options, as represented by multiple units in his case, will have the best ability to counter his opponent.

I don't see how a poor example of balance from a different game is a reason to dismiss the idea entirely. What you stated isn't better, nor a fair system, and I dare say worse. Think of how much better it would be with the system they just made, AND a balancing point like system especially since unlike old hammer every unit here is at least capable of hurting other units. When the only answer to balance is tough cookies buy more things...well that applies to that scout army as well doesn't it?

Demandread wrote:
I don't see how a poor example of balance from a different game is a reason to dismiss the idea entirely. What you stated isn't better, nor a fair system, and I dare say worse. Think of how much better it would be with the system they just made, AND a balancing point like system especially since unlike old hammer every unit here is at least capable of hurting other units. When the only answer to balance is tough cookies buy more things...well that applies to that scout army as well doesn't it?

It absolutely does. GW's continued existence is predicated on two things... roping in new players and then getting them to buy more stuff. A slow escalation where you keep buying bigger and better units to outdo your opponents recent purchases is exactly what they want. In the corporate training (I used to run a store), they referred to it as 'fostering a Cold War style escalation' mentality.

Which goes partly into the major criticisms. It's a decent system wrapped in greed and hubris, with no official way to make things fair. Which will drive off new and existing customers after the novelty wears away. I want the game to catch and be good. Sorry you feel differently.

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. Sorry you feel differently.

If you want a game with perfect balance that requires no additional purchases to stay competitive in the long run, I would suggest chess. Warhammer has always required additional purchases over time to stay competitive as the meta changes. This is nothing new. The major issue now is that the meta is EXTREMELY fluid and effectively changes from game to game. I understand that this makes tournament players and anyone who likes to build competitive lists ahead of time unhappy. If change were fun, everyone would do it all the time. Change does, however, often lead to greener pastures.

 Kriswall wrote:

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. Sorry you feel differently.

If you want a game with perfect balance that requires no additional purchases to stay competitive in the long run, I would suggest chess. Warhammer has always required additional purchases over time to stay competitive as the meta changes. This is nothing new. The major issue now is that the meta is EXTREMELY fluid and effectively changes from game to game. I understand that this makes tournament players and anyone who likes to build competitive lists ahead of time unhappy. If change were fun, everyone would do it all the time. Change does, however, often lead to greener pastures.

I wonder if people would be annoyed with a game that worked for GW's sales as well as being a balanced, tournament friendly, new gamer friendly game?

I understand gw needs to make money but with some effort they can do that as well as making a Solid game

 namiel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. Sorry you feel differently.

If you want a game with perfect balance that requires no additional purchases to stay competitive in the long run, I would suggest chess. Warhammer has always required additional purchases over time to stay competitive as the meta changes. This is nothing new. The major issue now is that the meta is EXTREMELY fluid and effectively changes from game to game. I understand that this makes tournament players and anyone who likes to build competitive lists ahead of time unhappy. If change were fun, everyone would do it all the time. Change does, however, often lead to greener pastures.

I wonder if people would be annoyed with a game that worked for GW's sales as well as being a balanced, tournament friendly, new gamer friendly game?

I understand gw needs to make money but with some effort they can do that as well as making a Solid game

I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head here. GW doesn't care about making a tournament friendly game. They haven't for years. They DO care about making a new gamer friendly game. AoS is extremely new gamer friendly. WFB 8th Edition was cumbersome and difficult to learn or play infrequently due to the huge rulebook. AoS takes less time to learn than most board games I own. It's ideal for new players. It's also ideal for existing players who are looking to have fun with friends. The only two segments that seem really upset about the new rules are tournament players who wanted a strictly regimented system of balance with lists made ahead of time and casual players who only ever play strangers and are never sure what to throw in their cars.

I understand growing pains within a community for an FLGS, but those pains should subside quickly and you should hit a point where you know what a "normal" amount of minis to bring is. Tournaments could easily be played using the various scenarios that look to be coming out.

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. It's a decent system wrapped in greed and hubris, with no official way to make things fair. Which will drive off new and existing customers after the novelty wears away. I want the game to catch and be good. Sorry you feel differently.

This. All the game needs is a balance mechanism and GW has a good game out there.

Concocting a Strawman and telling me that I essentially should not play when we were discussing in good faith is disheartening. I am neither a tourney player or highly competitive and yet I see no reason why a point system cannot exist in a game that no longer has the old problem of Unit x being 100% worthless against unit Z.

Frankly that is ,IMO, the key downfall to a mostly sound set of mechanics.

Demandread wrote:
Concocting a Strawman and telling me that I essentially should not play when we were discussing in good faith is disheartening. I am neither a tourney player or highly competitive and yet I see no reason why a point system cannot exist in a game that no longer has the old problem of Unit x being 100% worthless against unit Z.

Frankly that is ,IMO, the key downfall to a mostly sound set of mechanics.

To each his own, I suppose. Every game I've played so far has worked out perfectly well. Maybe it's because I'm picky about who I play with. Hard to tell.

 Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. Sorry you feel differently.

If you want a game with perfect balance that requires no additional purchases to stay competitive in the long run, I would suggest chess. Warhammer has always required additional purchases over time to stay competitive as the meta changes. This is nothing new. The major issue now is that the meta is EXTREMELY fluid and effectively changes from game to game. I understand that this makes tournament players and anyone who likes to build competitive lists ahead of time unhappy. If change were fun, everyone would do it all the time. Change does, however, often lead to greener pastures.

I wonder if people would be annoyed with a game that worked for GW's sales as well as being a balanced, tournament friendly, new gamer friendly game?

I understand gw needs to make money but with some effort they can do that as well as making a Solid game

I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head here. GW doesn't care about making a tournament friendly game. They haven't for years. They DO care about making a new gamer friendly game. AoS is extremely new gamer friendly. WFB 8th Edition was cumbersome and difficult to learn or play infrequently due to the huge rulebook. AoS takes less time to learn than most board games I own. It's ideal for new players. It's also ideal for existing players who are looking to have fun with friends. The only two segments that seem really upset about the new rules are tournament players who wanted a strictly regimented system of balance with lists made ahead of time and casual players who only ever play strangers and are never sure what to throw in their cars.

I understand growing pains within a community for an FLGS, but those pains should subside quickly and you should hit a point where you know what a "normal" amount of minis to bring is. Tournaments could easily be played using the various scenarios that look to be coming out.

Sorry, i'll disagree. I'll believe GW has playable scenarios for Tournaments when they show up. Until then, I'll write my own, and continue to work on rules/points/guildelines for army building. At this point, after 25 years of working with GW, I would be amazed if they got tournaments scenarios right. Especially when they keep stating they aren't trying at all to do so.

I have had 0 players excited about playing in any type of league or tournament at the store with GW's base rules. Pick up games with friends they don't have trouble with, but still find difficult. Most can't even wrap their heads around the "no points, no format," concept. I might have sold a couple AoS by sitting on my butt waiting for GW. Instead i sold 3 dozen to customers who are looking forward to the game, but absolutely want structure.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. Sorry you feel differently.

If you want a game with perfect balance that requires no additional purchases to stay competitive in the long run, I would suggest chess. Warhammer has always required additional purchases over time to stay competitive as the meta changes. This is nothing new. The major issue now is that the meta is EXTREMELY fluid and effectively changes from game to game. I understand that this makes tournament players and anyone who likes to build competitive lists ahead of time unhappy. If change were fun, everyone would do it all the time. Change does, however, often lead to greener pastures.

I wonder if people would be annoyed with a game that worked for GW's sales as well as being a balanced, tournament friendly, new gamer friendly game?

I understand gw needs to make money but with some effort they can do that as well as making a Solid game

I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head here. GW doesn't care about making a tournament friendly game. They haven't for years. They DO care about making a new gamer friendly game. AoS is extremely new gamer friendly. WFB 8th Edition was cumbersome and difficult to learn or play infrequently due to the huge rulebook. AoS takes less time to learn than most board games I own. It's ideal for new players. It's also ideal for existing players who are looking to have fun with friends. The only two segments that seem really upset about the new rules are tournament players who wanted a strictly regimented system of balance with lists made ahead of time and casual players who only ever play strangers and are never sure what to throw in their cars.

I understand growing pains within a community for an FLGS, but those pains should subside quickly and you should hit a point where you know what a "normal" amount of minis to bring is. Tournaments could easily be played using the various scenarios that look to be coming out.

Sorry, i'll disagree. I'll believe GW has playable scenarios for Tournaments when they show up. Until then, I'll write my own, and continue to work on rules/points/guildelines for army building. At this point, after 25 years of working with GW, I would be amazed if they got tournaments scenarios right. Especially when they keep stating they aren't trying at all to do so.

I have had 0 players excited about playing in any type of league or tournament at the store with GW's base rules. Pick up games with friends they don't have trouble with, but still find difficult. Most can't even wrap their heads around the "no points, no format," concept. I might have sold a couple AoS by sitting on my butt waiting for GW. Instead i sold 3 dozen to customers who are looking forward to the game, but absolutely want structure.

Actually, you had at least one player excited about the base rules.

I lost interest immediately when I saw all the additional restrictions and efforts to, in my mind, make AoS conform to a previous edition's army construction methods. I guess I'm one of the rare players that loves the idea of just showing up with your toys, throwing some on the table and knowing that you'll have a good game because your opponent values fun and sportsmanship as much as you do. I think I'm too much of an idealist. There is just no place in organized play for someone who doesn't care about winning and just wants to have fun with a themed army. The competitive people crush the joy out of the game for people like me.

Having said that, I freely acknowledge that you run an absolutely wonderful store and know what is best for your store's community and continued success. I can still show up and play a quick game with a friend. I'm not much of a tournament player, which is probably why I'm always turned off by community based efforts to balance perceived flaws in a rule set. I quit playing 40k tournaments when organizers started in with the 'two sources only" thing. Organized play became immediately exclusive and my army consisting of an Inquisitor leading some Space Marines (painted as Deathwatch) and backed up with an Assassin was no longer welcome on the table. I had too many sources, so clearly I was trying to game the system. Sigh.

 Kriswall wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. Sorry you feel differently.

If you want a game with perfect balance that requires no additional purchases to stay competitive in the long run, I would suggest chess. Warhammer has always required additional purchases over time to stay competitive as the meta changes. This is nothing new. The major issue now is that the meta is EXTREMELY fluid and effectively changes from game to game. I understand that this makes tournament players and anyone who likes to build competitive lists ahead of time unhappy. If change were fun, everyone would do it all the time. Change does, however, often lead to greener pastures.

I wonder if people would be annoyed with a game that worked for GW's sales as well as being a balanced, tournament friendly, new gamer friendly game?

I understand gw needs to make money but with some effort they can do that as well as making a Solid game

I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head here. GW doesn't care about making a tournament friendly game. They haven't for years. They DO care about making a new gamer friendly game. AoS is extremely new gamer friendly. WFB 8th Edition was cumbersome and difficult to learn or play infrequently due to the huge rulebook. AoS takes less time to learn than most board games I own. It's ideal for new players. It's also ideal for existing players who are looking to have fun with friends. The only two segments that seem really upset about the new rules are tournament players who wanted a strictly regimented system of balance with lists made ahead of time and casual players who only ever play strangers and are never sure what to throw in their cars.

I understand growing pains within a community for an FLGS, but those pains should subside quickly and you should hit a point where you know what a "normal" amount of minis to bring is. Tournaments could easily be played using the various scenarios that look to be coming out.

Sorry, i'll disagree. I'll believe GW has playable scenarios for Tournaments when they show up. Until then, I'll write my own, and continue to work on rules/points/guildelines for army building. At this point, after 25 years of working with GW, I would be amazed if they got tournaments scenarios right. Especially when they keep stating they aren't trying at all to do so.

I have had 0 players excited about playing in any type of league or tournament at the store with GW's base rules. Pick up games with friends they don't have trouble with, but still find difficult. Most can't even wrap their heads around the "no points, no format," concept. I might have sold a couple AoS by sitting on my butt waiting for GW. Instead i sold 3 dozen to customers who are looking forward to the game, but absolutely want structure.

Actually, you had at least one player excited about the base rules.

I lost interest immediately when I saw all the additional restrictions and efforts to, in my mind, make AoS conform to a previous edition's army construction methods. I guess I'm one of the rare players that loves the idea of just showing up with your toys, throwing some on the table and knowing that you'll have a good game because your opponent values fun and sportsmanship as much as you do. I think I'm too much of an idealist. There is just no place in organized play for someone who doesn't care about winning and just wants to have fun with a themed army. The competitive people crush the joy out of the game for people like me.

Having said that, I freely acknowledge that you run an absolutely wonderful store and know what is best for your store's community and continued success. I can still show up and play a quick game with a friend. I'm not much of a tournament player, which is probably why I'm always turned off by community based efforts to balance perceived flaws in a rule set. I quit playing 40k tournaments when organizers started in with the 'two sources only" thing. Organized play became immediately exclusive and my army consisting of an Inquisitor leading some Space Marines (painted as Deathwatch) and backed up with an Assassin was no longer welcome on the table. I had too many sources, so clearly I was trying to game the system. Sigh.

the thing about it is that you can have that friendly, show up with your toys game and have the ability to run organized play but with this set it rules out the latter. it's easier to remove rules not add them.

hehehe which is why I bring my collection of skaven for over 5 years each skaven shall be a unit of a single model. With no movment trays I shall make the person being a dick wish for death.

On a side note if i bring my "Collection" I may need to employ a Uhaul. Last time I checked I tried to fill my kitchen tabel...it failed it could not even hold my smallest army, woodelves. I have close to 40+ boxes with like 300+ models in them. Gathered from a local store selling all GW stuff 75% off when 8th came out friends quiting and giving me their stuff and my girl collecting. I was never even able to lay out a full army because it took me more then 2 hours then I thought it will take just as long to put them away and stopped lol.

I play(ed) WHFB since 3rd edition and Age of Sigmar has a few rules that balance problems that WHFB has ALWAYS had.
If an opponent maximises and army, a smaller army gets an option to, if played well, win by sudden death.
Furthermore in AoS EVERY model you"field can actually fight, not just the first rank(s) and you pay points (and money) for the rest, again something that changes the game and the "tactic" for most min/max and cheese players i have faced in 25 years.

Typically some things that the "competitive players" (and that's something completely different from good players) use to build min/max armies that use armybuilding and not playing well to win.

AoS still has to prove itself, but this is a bit early to judge and compare. The current rules are not the complete rules, we all (should) know that.

But as a VERY long time player of many game systems i see a few aspects of these rules that are actually quite good.
Some i like less (especially that we still activate per army, not alternate 1 unit per player), but i am interested where this is going.

And armybuilding restrictions are coming, the number of wounds, the number of warscrolls, the number of wounds per unit type etc.

Personally I rather like the concept of balance that they have put forth in AoS, The primary force being the player fights what they are comfortable fighting, but the really interesting idea for balance is with the sudden death mechanic, in that your win condition shifts depending on what you are playing against, It could be far more engaging than a point system and the lack of a point system is far better for new players because what ever they "like" is valid

 Kriswall wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Demandread wrote:
Which goes partly into the major criticisms. Sorry you feel differently.

If you want a game with perfect balance that requires no additional purchases to stay competitive in the long run, I would suggest chess. Warhammer has always required additional purchases over time to stay competitive as the meta changes. This is nothing new. The major issue now is that the meta is EXTREMELY fluid and effectively changes from game to game. I understand that this makes tournament players and anyone who likes to build competitive lists ahead of time unhappy. If change were fun, everyone would do it all the time. Change does, however, often lead to greener pastures.

I wonder if people would be annoyed with a game that worked for GW's sales as well as being a balanced, tournament friendly, new gamer friendly game?

I understand gw needs to make money but with some effort they can do that as well as making a Solid game

I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head here. GW doesn't care about making a tournament friendly game. They haven't for years. They DO care about making a new gamer friendly game. AoS is extremely new gamer friendly. WFB 8th Edition was cumbersome and difficult to learn or play infrequently due to the huge rulebook. AoS takes less time to learn than most board games I own. It's ideal for new players. It's also ideal for existing players who are looking to have fun with friends. The only two segments that seem really upset about the new rules are tournament players who wanted a strictly regimented system of balance with lists made ahead of time and casual players who only ever play strangers and are never sure what to throw in their cars.

I understand growing pains within a community for an FLGS, but those pains should subside quickly and you should hit a point where you know what a "normal" amount of minis to bring is. Tournaments could easily be played using the various scenarios that look to be coming out.

Sorry, i'll disagree. I'll believe GW has playable scenarios for Tournaments when they show up. Until then, I'll write my own, and continue to work on rules/points/guildelines for army building. At this point, after 25 years of working with GW, I would be amazed if they got tournaments scenarios right. Especially when they keep stating they aren't trying at all to do so.

I have had 0 players excited about playing in any type of league or tournament at the store with GW's base rules. Pick up games with friends they don't have trouble with, but still find difficult. Most can't even wrap their heads around the "no points, no format," concept. I might have sold a couple AoS by sitting on my butt waiting for GW. Instead i sold 3 dozen to customers who are looking forward to the game, but absolutely want structure.

Actually, you had at least one player excited about the base rules.

I lost interest immediately when I saw all the additional restrictions and efforts to, in my mind, make AoS conform to a previous edition's army construction methods. I guess I'm one of the rare players that loves the idea of just showing up with your toys, throwing some on the table and knowing that you'll have a good game because your opponent values fun and sportsmanship as much as you do. I think I'm too much of an idealist. There is just no place in organized play for someone who doesn't care about winning and just wants to have fun with a themed army. The competitive people crush the joy out of the game for people like me.

Having said that, I freely acknowledge that you run an absolutely wonderful store and know what is best for your store's community and continued success. I can still show up and play a quick game with a friend. I'm not much of a tournament player, which is probably why I'm always turned off by community based efforts to balance perceived flaws in a rule set. I quit playing 40k tournaments when organizers started in with the 'two sources only" thing. Organized play became immediately exclusive and my army consisting of an Inquisitor leading some Space Marines (painted as Deathwatch) and backed up with an Assassin was no longer welcome on the table. I had too many sources, so clearly I was trying to game the system. Sigh.

+1

Perhaps Kriswall and I are the minority, but I too decided to bail on your league mikhaila when I saw the restrictions you were putting into place.

Unfortunately, you have to look at it from Mik's perspective: what did he say, 30 people interested in the rules and structure he gave, 2 of you mentioning you don't want it? 2 players spending money or 30? Sorry guys, but he's gotta choose the 30. However, you should still talk to him about trying to run a table without the restrictions and see if you can get any further interest in your preferred style.

Comp systems should be treated like training wheels. Get used to the game in safety, then learn to ride properly...

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Unfortunately, you have to look at it from Mik's perspective: what did he say, 30 people interested in the rules and structure he gave, 2 of you mentioning you don't want it? 2 players spending money or 30? Sorry guys, but he's gotta choose the 30. However, you should still talk to him about trying to run a table without the restrictions and see if you can get any further interest in your preferred style.

I understand his decision 100% and I don't fault him for it one bit.

What I don't quite understand is why he and so many others want to change and twist AoS to work like the previous WFB system(s) in regards to army construction. Points aren't needed to establish balance. In fact, points can unbalance a game as much as they can balance it. IMO composition is the way forward with AoS. I just think it's a shame that composition wasn't given more thought.

I sincerely hope that as time progresses composition will start to take hold and sway the thinking of those who have such an entrenched mindset for points.

 oni wrote:

What I don't quite understand is why he and so many others want to change and twist AoS to work like the previous WFB system(s) in regards to army construction. Points aren't needed to establish balance. In fact, points can unbalance a game as much as they can balance it. IMO composition is the way forward with AoS. I just think it's a shame that composition wasn't given more thought.

I sincerely hope that as time progresses composition will start to take hold and sway the thinking of those who have such an entrenched mindset for points.

I don't understand how you can wish composition was given more thought, when it wasn't given any thought. It is literally "put what you want down". That's not thought. That's GW washing their hands of it completely.

 streamdragon wrote:

 oni wrote:

What I don't quite understand is why he and so many others want to change and twist AoS to work like the previous WFB system(s) in regards to army construction. Points aren't needed to establish balance. In fact, points can unbalance a game as much as they can balance it. IMO composition is the way forward with AoS. I just think it's a shame that composition wasn't given more thought.

I sincerely hope that as time progresses composition will start to take hold and sway the thinking of those who have such an entrenched mindset for points.

I don't understand how you can wish composition was given more thought, when it wasn't given any thought. It is literally "put what you want down". That's not thought. That's GW washing their hands of it completely.

While you're not wrong, I think there may be a little more to it. AoS is still in its infancy. I firmly believe that as AoS progresses we'll see various things emerge that work similarly to the recent composition mechanics being used in W40K (e.g. Necron Decurion, Gladius Strike Force, Lions' Blade Strike Force or the various Force Organization Charts).

If we as players are able to both a) hard counter powerful units by means of the 'you chose a unit in your collection to deploy - I chose a unit in my collection to deploy' method as well as b) have restrictions on specific amounts of units based on their keywords as well as restrictions on overall army size... We can easily achieve some manner of balance and all with using only composition.

 streamdragon wrote:

 oni wrote:

What I don't quite understand is why he and so many others want to change and twist AoS to work like the previous WFB system(s) in regards to army construction. Points aren't needed to establish balance. In fact, points can unbalance a game as much as they can balance it. IMO composition is the way forward with AoS. I just think it's a shame that composition wasn't given more thought.

I sincerely hope that as time progresses composition will start to take hold and sway the thinking of those who have such an entrenched mindset for points.

I don't understand how you can wish composition was given more thought, when it wasn't given any thought. It is literally "put what you want down". That's not thought. That's GW washing their hands of it completely.

It is NOT put what you want down. I get to put units down after I've already seen a portion of my opponent's army. In this way, I get to make a strategic choice as to how I want to counter his units as he deploys them. I get to decide whether or not I want to stop deploying first and take the first turn or keep deploying and take the second. I get to decide whether I want to outnumber an opponent and give him additional paths to victory, or play small and try for the Instand Death objective.

If you think none of the above involves thought... you probably aren't paying close enough attention to the new rule set. At no point am I just putting down what I want in a vacuum. There are TONS of considerations.

You're also being a little melodramatic when you say GW is washing their hands completely. The reality is you just don't like the current balancing elements. They ARE there. They're just not points/wounds/etc based.

oni wrote:While you're not wrong, I think there may be a little more to it. AoS is still in its infancy. I firmly believe that as AoS progresses we'll see various things emerge that work similarly to the recent composition mechanics being used in W40K (e.g. Necron Decurion, Gladius Strike Force, Lions' Blade Strike Force or the various Force Organization Charts).

If we as players are able to both a) hard counter powerful units by means of the 'you chose a unit in your collection to deploy - I chose a unit in my collection to deploy' method as well as b) have restrictions on specific amounts of units based on their keywords as well as restrictions on overall army size... We can easily achieve some manner of balance and all with using only composition.

I'm afraid that as my group has pretty much switched to X-Wing exclusively, I'm unfamiliar with those formations specifically. Do they still use points, or is it prescribed model selections? I know earlier FOC just mimicked the old unit cards, but still required points.

As for restricting based on keywords or overall size, that's been discussed and I routinely find it completely inadequate. Limiting Keywords, for instance, usually sees Hero being the first thing restricted. Skaven Moulder lists practically require a plethora of Pack Masters, which are Heroes and the army basically falls apart without them. Basically, army composition alone doesn't really work as a limiting factor because the armies vary wildly in how they play. Armies like Skaven can vary wildly just within a Force, from "quantity is a quality all its own" slave style armies, to "as elite as skaven get" Moulder lists fielding lots of Rat Ogres. Now try forcing the same composition on wildly different armies like Ogre Kingdoms vs. High Elves vs. Orcs and Goblins. A generic abstract "value" system 'worked' (insofar as such systems are never perfect).

Kriswall wrote:It is NOT put what you want down. I get to put units down after I've already seen a portion of my opponent's army. In this way, I get to make a strategic choice as to how I want to counter his units as he deploys them. I get to decide whether or not I want to stop deploying first and take the first turn or keep deploying and take the second. I get to decide whether I want to outnumber an opponent and give him additional paths to victory, or play small and try for the Instand Death objective.

If you think none of the above involves thought... you probably aren't paying close enough attention to the new rule set. At no point am I just putting down what I want in a vacuum. There are TONS of considerations.

You're also being a little melodramatic when you say GW is washing their hands completely. The reality is you just don't like the current balancing elements. They ARE there. They're just not points/wounds/etc based.

"Armies can be as big as you like, and you can use as many models from your collection as you wish."

It IS what I want to put down, because nothing stops me from putting what I want on the table beyond limitations of table space.

Yes, you get to put units down as well. You did before, that hasn't changed. Sure, you can respond to what I put down, and I can put down more stuff. And so the whole thing comes down to "what do I put on the table", as I said. We've been over this before, and your solution was basically "I walk away from the table if I don't like what my opponent is doing, even if he's playing by the rules". There are no balancing elements. None. The only "equal" portion of deployment is deployment zone size. That's it. We can pretend that Sudden Death is a balancing factor, but anyone who thinks about it for 5 full minutes should be able to see how insufficient it is, even without going to absurd extremes like a deployment zone full of Nagashes (because Bloodthirsters are so passé).

In all practical senses, GW washed their hands of army composition when they said "You can put what you want on the table". Because we can, and will, take them at their word. If, to you, that means "Put your lovingly crafted and thematically chosen army down". Kudos. If, to someone else, it means "Fill your deployment zone with enough models to make Xerxes army at Thermopylae look small". That's their prerogative, and perfectly within the rules of the game as well.

 streamdragon wrote:

oni wrote:While you're not wrong, I think there may be a little more to it. AoS is still in its infancy. I firmly believe that as AoS progresses we'll see various things emerge that work similarly to the recent composition mechanics being used in W40K (e.g. Necron Decurion, Gladius Strike Force, Lions' Blade Strike Force or the various Force Organization Charts).

If we as players are able to both a) hard counter powerful units by means of the 'you chose a unit in your collection to deploy - I chose a unit in my collection to deploy' method as well as b) have restrictions on specific amounts of units based on their keywords as well as restrictions on overall army size... We can easily achieve some manner of balance and all with using only composition.

I'm afraid that as my group has pretty much switched to X-Wing exclusively, I'm unfamiliar with those formations specifically. Do they still use points, or is it prescribed model selections? I know earlier FOC just mimicked the old unit cards, but still required points.

As for restricting based on keywords or overall size, that's been discussed and I routinely find it completely inadequate. Limiting Keywords, for instance, usually sees Hero being the first thing restricted. Skaven Moulder lists practically require a plethora of Pack Masters, which are Heroes and the army basically falls apart without them. Basically, army composition alone doesn't really work as a limiting factor because the armies vary wildly in how they play. Armies like Skaven can vary wildly just within a Force, from "quantity is a quality all its own" slave style armies, to "as elite as skaven get" Moulder lists fielding lots of Rat Ogres. Now try forcing the same composition on wildly different armies like Ogre Kingdoms vs. High Elves vs. Orcs and Goblins. A generic abstract "value" system 'worked' (insofar as such systems are never perfect).

Kriswall wrote:It is NOT put what you want down. I get to put units down after I've already seen a portion of my opponent's army. In this way, I get to make a strategic choice as to how I want to counter his units as he deploys them. I get to decide whether or not I want to stop deploying first and take the first turn or keep deploying and take the second. I get to decide whether I want to outnumber an opponent and give him additional paths to victory, or play small and try for the Instand Death objective.

If you think none of the above involves thought... you probably aren't paying close enough attention to the new rule set. At no point am I just putting down what I want in a vacuum. There are TONS of considerations.

You're also being a little melodramatic when you say GW is washing their hands completely. The reality is you just don't like the current balancing elements. They ARE there. They're just not points/wounds/etc based.

"Armies can be as big as you like, and you can use as many models from your collection as you wish."

It IS what I want to put down, because nothing stops me from putting what I want on the table beyond limitations of table space.

Yes, you get to put units down as well. You did before, that hasn't changed. Sure, you can respond to what I put down, and I can put down more stuff. And so the whole thing comes down to "what do I put on the table", as I said. We've been over this before, and your solution was basically "I walk away from the table if I don't like what my opponent is doing, even if he's playing by the rules". There are no balancing elements. None. The only "equal" portion of deployment is deployment zone size. That's it. We can pretend that Sudden Death is a balancing factor, but anyone who thinks about it for 5 full minutes should be able to see how insufficient it is, even without going to absurd extremes like a deployment zone full of Nagashes (because Bloodthirsters are so passé).

In all practical senses, GW washed their hands of army composition when they said "You can put what you want on the table". Because we can, and will, take them at their word. If, to you, that means "Put your lovingly crafted and thematically chosen army down". Kudos. If, to someone else, it means "Fill your deployment zone with enough models to make Xerxes army at Thermopylae look small". That's their prerogative, and perfectly within the rules of the game as well.

Sigh... It's not SIMPLY put what you want down. If you truly just put whatever you want down without consideration to what your opponent puts down, outnumbering considerations or who goes first considerations... well then, you're a bad player who isn't going to win many games as you're completely ignoring the strategic decisions that go into what to field.

EVERY single game of AOS I've played so far has come out relatively balanced. We didn't know who was going to win until the game started winding down. I have yet to use any sort of artificial comp system.

 Kriswall wrote:
Sigh... It's not SIMPLY put what you want down. If you truly just put whatever you want down without consideration to what your opponent puts down, outnumbering considerations or who goes first considerations... well then, you're a bad player who isn't going to win many games as you're completely ignoring the strategic decisions that go into what to field.

EVERY single game of AOS I've played so far has come out relatively balanced. We didn't know who was going to win until the game started winding down. I have yet to use any sort of artificial comp system.

You say this repeatedly, and have yet to back it up with anything beyond ad homs and "MY games have been balanced". Well, good for you. Honestly, no snark, I am glad you have been able to enjoy AoS with like minded players.

That doesn't change the veracity of my original statement: GW put no thought into army composition because they wanted to let players field whatever the player wanted to field. "Armies can be as big as you like, and you can use as many models from your collection as you wish." It is literally the second sentence of the section titled "THE ARMIES".

 Kriswall wrote:
Sigh... It's not SIMPLY put what you want down. If you truly just put whatever you want down without consideration to what your opponent puts down, outnumbering considerations or who goes first considerations... well then, you're a bad player who isn't going to win many games as you're completely ignoring the strategic decisions that go into what to field.

EVERY single game of AOS I've played so far has come out relatively balanced. We didn't know who was going to win until the game started winding down. I have yet to use any sort of artificial comp system.

And yet, all those considerations play on what you want to field, so the appellation is still valid.

You don't want to cheat, so you don't put down more than the rulebook provided for in WHFB. You want to play the game again with friends so you don't want to put down the most cheesy models in your army in AoS.

What you WANT will change based on all those considerations you talk about, of course, but it is still, what YOU want to put down in the end. You may choose to self-censor what you place, but that's still your choice and what you want.

The only actual limitation in the rules is board space.