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.

 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).

I can understand and appreciate your position because points are what you're used to as both the balancing AND limiting factor. Here's a take on a Force Organization Chart used in W40K. Perhaps it will provide some perspective on my position.

Compulsory & Optional Keywords:

1-5 HERO
0-3 MONSTER
2-6 ORDER / CHAOS / DEATH / DESTRUCTION *
0-3 WAR MACHINE

Restrictions:
- 20 Wounds max per Warscroll

* Cannot contain Keywords HERO, MONSTER or WAR MACHINE. Does not count towards the compulsory & optional HERO, MONSTER or WAR MACHINE Keyword limitations.

Designers Note: If a Warscroll contains both the HERO and MONSTER Keywords, it will count towards both the HERO and MONSTER Keyword limitations.

I came up with this in a couple minutes. If both players follow the same formula for deploying their armies it can help to achieve balance and sets a limiting factor for army size & construction that's a little more structured than "table size". I'm not saying my chart is perfect, but I believe the idea is sound.

 streamdragon wrote:

 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".

And you continue to read a single line out of context and ignore all the decisions you need to make when fielding an army. Do the rules allow you to field an army consisting of a single Night Goblin Shaman? Sure. Do the rules allow you to field an army consisting of 50 Nagash models? Sure. Are either of these situations ever likely to happen in an actual, real world situation? No. Why? Because there are other considerations to consider when deciding what to field past what you feel like fielding. If you want to ignore this, fine.

Saying that GW put no thought into army composition while ignoring all of the elements they introduced to help you make decisions about army composition (alternating deployment, sudden death objectives, first turn, extra rules for Battalions) comes off as a little whiny. Refusing to acknowledge that there are several factors impacting your army composition choices doesn't mean there are no factors impacting your army composition choices.

Ultimately, you CAN put down whatever you feel like. If you DO put down whatever you feel like without considering the numerous factors impacting your army composition decisions, you are likely to lose the game before it has started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
I can understand and appreciate your position because points are what you're used to as both the balancing AND limiting factor. Here's a take on a Force Organization Chart used in W40K. Perhaps it will provide some perspective on my position.

Spoiler:

Compulsory & Optional Keywords:

1-5 HERO
0-3 MONSTER
2-6 ORDER / CHAOS / DEATH / DESTRUCTION *
0-3 WAR MACHINE

Restrictions:
- 20 Wounds max per Warscroll

* Cannot contain Keywords HERO, MONSTER or WAR MACHINE. Does not count towards compulsory and optional Keywords containing HERO, MONSTER or WAR MACHINE.

I came up with this in a couple minutes. If both players follow the same formula for deploying their armies it can help to achieve balance and sets a limiting factor for army size & construction that's a little more structured than "table size". I'm not saying my chart is perfect, but I believe the idea is sound.

Immediately falls apart for certain armies. Skaven Moulder, as a common example, needs more heroes than average. This historically worked better in 40k as the various armies were relatively balanced in the sense that you could reasonable expect a ratio of 1-2 HQs for 2-6 Troops to be fair. In 7th Edition, this is no longer the case as some armies don't even have HQ models. Inquisition, Legion of the Damned, Skitarii, Imperial Knights, etc can't be fielded using the old 'standard' force org.

I would not be averse to a customized 'force org' per army, but I think that's what the Battalions are supposed to represent. It also severely limits your ability to mix races in your army. I'm playing Khorne Bloodbound for offense, Tzeentch Daemons for Magic and Skaven for ranged support. I have more Heroes than most opponents, but varied units. I lose a lot of the synergies for focusing in on one race. Why should I be penalized for not focusing in on one race?

 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.

List building is one of the foundational cores of all warhammer. It's interesting how hard people are refusing to give it up, even when GW takes it away.

Lists are also far easier to talk about than tactics. Even the tactics forum was probably 75% talking about what units were worth including on a list.

I think part of the reason most of the discussion in AoS ends up being about "I hate aos" "I love aos" or "what comp should I use" is that there's not a whole lot else to talk about. Tactics are generally too situational to discuss in great length on an internet forum, especially when there aren't any built in tools to use to display information.

 argonak 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.

List building is one of the foundational cores of all warhammer. It's interesting how hard people are refusing to give it up, even when GW takes it away.

Lists are also far easier to talk about than tactics. Even the tactics forum was probably 75% talking about what units were worth including on a list.

I think part of the reason most of the discussion in AoS ends up being about "I hate aos" "I love aos" or "what comp should I use" is that there's not a whole lot else to talk about. Tactics are generally too situational to discuss in great length on an internet forum, especially when there aren't any built in tools to use to display information.

100% agreed. Quite a few people just can't seem to handle that the answer to 'what should I take' is 'whatever you think looks cool' and 'is this any good' is 'maybe, depends on what your opponent deploys'.

 namiel wrote:
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.

well I'll bring 9 dragons and do 3 *4d6 mortal wounds from 12inches away...before I even begin close combat


how is that for evening the odds??

I didn't even read the rest of this besides the first couple of posts. My suggestion would be that the op needs to die off with warhammer fantasy. If you don't like the system, that's fine. Just don't go around being a TFG who purposely breaks the system to try and ruin it for others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I didn't even read the rest of this besides the first couple of posts. My suggestion would be that the op needs to die off with warhammer fantasy. If you don't like the system, that's fine. Just don't go around being a TFG who purposely breaks the system to try and ruin it for others.

 Mindstrike1 wrote:
op needs to die off with warhammer fantasy

Classy.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Mindstrike1 wrote:
op needs to die off with warhammer fantasy

Classy.

He kind of has a point, though. I don't agree with the delivery, but I do agree with the message. If you want a systemically balanced game where your opponent is more or less interchangeable and your only goal is victory, Age of Sigmar probably isn't for you. You need to have like minded people to play against. Ultra-competitive tournament players don't always get along with casual players, and vice versa. Age of Sigmar seems to favor the casual player right now (but works totally fine in a league/tournament setting with like minded individuals). If you're an ultra-competitive type who just NEEDS to pre-build min/maxed lists... either find some like minded individuals and add house rules to Age of Sigmar or find another game. Trying to 'break' the game to convince someone that they shouldn't be enjoying it just seems petty. It's bully behavior. It's the kind of behavior that would earn you a conversation outside back when I ran a store.

Don't forget you are basically immune to battleshock with all monsters...

 Kriswall wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Mindstrike1 wrote:
op needs to die off with warhammer fantasy

Classy.

He kind of has a point, though. I don't agree with the delivery, but I do agree with the message. If you want a systemically balanced game where your opponent is more or less interchangeable and your only goal is victory, Age of Sigmar probably isn't for you. You need to have like minded people to play against. Ultra-competitive tournament players don't always get along with casual players, and vice versa. Age of Sigmar seems to favor the casual player right now (but works totally fine in a league/tournament setting with like minded individuals). If you're an ultra-competitive type who just NEEDS to pre-build min/maxed lists... either find some like minded individuals and add house rules to Age of Sigmar or find another game. Trying to 'break' the game to convince someone that they shouldn't be enjoying it just seems petty. It's bully behavior. It's the kind of behavior that would earn you a conversation outside back when I ran a store.

Technically if all one wants to do is win, AoS still works fine. if you lose, just buy more figures. . . its the people who wanted a "balanced" game that can't enjoy AoS pickup games. If all you want to do is win, just buy 9 dragons like the guy said. If that doesn't work, but some blood thirsters. Whatever. Just keep buying stuff until you win. Nothing in the rules to stop you. <shrug> people might not want to play you but its not like you're breaking rules. And it doesn't mean you're being a bully if you're still nice about it, I guess.

Pickup games aren't an issue at all, just don't try to guarantee victory at deployment.

Seriously, that is in its entirety the only issue that can be had. If you don't try to give yourself the win at deployment, you won't be too powerful for your opponent to handle. You can see their units, you know what yours do, field whatever you want. But when they only have a starter box and a hero, don't decide to crush them to paste.

I do find it slightly disheartening that some people are very binary on this issue - you're either playing to lose because that's "fair", or you're playing to win - in which case you should play to crush your opponent.
Yet it seems these same people - whilst acknowledging neither of these options are likely to make an enjoyable experience - seem unable to comprehend the middle ground.
It's almost " Hey, I'm not TFG, but he is".

If you play the deployment phase as the rules infer you should, then it should be very easy for both players to maintain (if that's your intent) a rough 'balance' between the forces as they deploy. Whether planned or pick-up.

That said, imbalanced games can be fun as long as both players know what they're getting into.

Indeed.

The moment you think to yourself "this should be easy" during deployment, you should probably pick back up the model you just placed.

RoperPG wrote:
I do find it slightly disheartening that some people are very binary on this issue - you're either playing to lose because that's "fair", or you're playing to win - in which case you should play to crush your opponent.
Yet it seems these same people - whilst acknowledging neither of these options are likely to make an enjoyable experience - seem unable to comprehend the middle ground.
It's almost " Hey, I'm not TFG, but he is".

If you play the deployment phase as the rules infer you should, then it should be very easy for both players to maintain (if that's your intent) a rough 'balance' between the forces as they deploy. Whether planned or pick-up.

That said, imbalanced games can be fun as long as both players know what they're getting into.

I think you have the camps wrong. I think the binary split is more along the lines of either playing such that both players have fun OR playing such that you win regardless of whether or not both players have fun. I don't think anyone has recommended actively trying to lose. I'm not sure where you're getting that.

There are different kinds of players... and that's fine. Some people don't care about winning so long as they're having fun. Some people can only have fun if they're winning and don't care if their opponent is having fun. Lots of people are somewhere in between. As an example, I play to win... BUT, only if there is a challenge. I would NEVER deploy a tournament winning caliber army against a new player or someone who doesn't own many models. There is no challenge so neither of us would enjoy the experience. I'd deploy what I judged to be a roughly balanced army with maybe a small handicap to represent my experience playing. Then I'd actively try to win. I'm not 'playing to lose because that's fair'. I'm just trying to create a balanced game where I can play to win.

Sorry, wasn't particularly clear. It seems that one camp feel that they can't put down Nagash or whatever because by playing to win they will be seen as TFG. As you've pointed out, the mid ground is "I don't want to win by default, but me and my opponent are going to have to work for a win".

RoperPG wrote:
Sorry, wasn't particularly clear. It seems that one camp feel that they can't put down Nagash or whatever because by playing to win they will be seen as TFG. As you've pointed out, the mid ground is "I don't want to win by default, but me and my opponent are going to have to work for a win".

There's a huge difference between putting down Nagash against a veteran player with a wide selection of models to choose from and putting down Nagash against a relatively new player who has the starter set and maybe one or two other units. I don't think some people really get this. The first is fine. The second is kind of a stereotypical TFG move. It totally lacks sportsmanship.

I play Tau Empire in Warhammer 40k. I have a nice 1850 point Farsight Bomb list that absolutely slaughters most casual lists. I like to win, but I absolutely don't feel that I can bring this list when playing a relatively new player or a veteran who doesn't run competitive lists. Sure, the game allows it, but it lacks sportsmanship. I would absolutely (and I would argue rightly) be seen as TFG and nobody would want to play me. I wouldn't want to play me if the tables were turned. I would, however, absolutely bring this list to a competitive tournament environment. I'd probably lose since the 40k meta tends to be rock, paper, scissors and my list isn't top tier anymore, but that's a different conversation.

I hated the last several edition of Fantasy. I far prefer a skirmish type of game play and am having great fun with AoS. Right now, I don't have that many models. I'm basically a new player. When I play a game with someone, I usually ask that we play a 'low intensity' game since I'm still building a collection. So far, everyone has been cool with this. If someone tried to deploy Nagash against my starter set models, I'd probably have a conversation about what 'low intensity' means to me versus him. Maybe I'd play the game for fun, knowing that I'm almost certain to lose. Maybe I'd concede and walk away. It would really depend on the person's attitude. I tend to walk away from the 'the rules say I can deploy Nagash in a small game' guys while I'll play with the 'I know this will be one sided, but I bought the model and would really like to try it out' guys.

You done do wording more betterer than what I does.

RoperPG wrote:
You done do wording more betterer than what I does.

Hahahaha! I lurned good in skool.

All this talk about, deploy what can counter your enemy, sounds extremely like "pay to win". I'm sorry, but imagine a new player or someone with not that much disposable income at hand.
So he has to lose because he can't afford to counter the other player?

But the bigger problem is, that there is no incentive to take "core" models anymore. With no balancing mechanic why should I take the weaker stuff? That was also a reason why I didn't like Archaons unbound rules for WFB in particular.

And to make it clear I am not a Tourney player, I never participated in one for WFB.

 Seneca wrote:
All this talk about, deploy what can counter your enemy, sounds extremely like "pay to win". I'm sorry, but imagine a new player or someone with not that much disposable income at hand.
So he has to lose because he can't afford to counter the other player?

But the bigger problem is, that there is no incentive to take "core" models anymore. With no balancing mechanic why should I take the weaker stuff? That was also a reason why I didn't like Archaons unbound rules for WFB in particular.

And to make it clear I am not a Tourney player, I never participated in one for WFB.

These games have always been "pay to win". If you walk into a shop, tell the shopkeep that you don't care what units you buy so long as they're the cheapest dollar per model/point/unit/whatever... you'll likely lose game after game to the guy who is willing to invest a little more in his army. This is nothing new.

And as to why you'd take "core" models... look at the war scrolls. The general consensus is that there are no truly useless units. Because the core balancing mechanic allows you to deploy to match your opponent, core units allow you to outnumber your foe with weaker units. Sometimes that can be a valid strategy.

One undeniable fact is that many wargamers are on "the spectrum", and simply have no concept of playing for fun. It's win at all costs d'bag tactics, bend their way around RaW. Any reasonable person can tell the difference.

The point of AoS is to put models you like on the table and have some fun. It's not that hard.

If you set out to have a good time with your opponent there is no problem. Having points (or whatever balancing rules) makes things legal, even if you break the system. Now, they have taken away the ability to be cheesy and left the ability to just be an ; the latter is much easier to call out.
Do YOU really need the rules to tell you how not to ruin a game?
The OP is well aware that throwing those monsters down will ruin things and is just using it as an excuse to whine about AoS. We've heard it, AD NAUSEAM, we'll be enjoying this; you can join in or leave us be.

It sucks for you if you play fantasy for the competitive element, it was just not feasible for GW to continue supporting that. Love or hate AoS, a simple/easy to learn game with a low barrier of entry was a good decision from GW's point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seneca wrote:
All this talk about, deploy what can counter your enemy, sounds extremely like "pay to win". I'm sorry, but imagine a new player or someone with not that much disposable income at hand.
So he has to lose because he can't afford to counter the other player?

But the bigger problem is, that there is no incentive to take "core" models anymore. With no balancing mechanic why should I take the weaker stuff? That was also a reason why I didn't like Archaons unbound rules for WFB in particular.

And to make it clear I am not a Tourney player, I never participated in one for WFB.

"Core tax" was a big part of the barrier of entry and exactly why I started warhammer 6 months ago instead of 10 years ago. Maybe a new player needs to buy stuff to counter things (against rather unwelcoming opponents, I might add), but it used to be that a new player had to buy (and paint) a bunch of stuff he may or may not actually like to play at all.