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.

See subject, this is how we play. You guys?

We use if for a rough guide, aiming at around 50 for a shorter game, 75 for more. Larger games take too long as we try to get several games in.

We don't slavishly stick to it, aiming at the moment for what seems about right (usually use formations which seem quite fair tbh) sometimes we add more to one side, sometime not. Nobody is too silly in our group so it works great.

I understand why people would choose this, but personally I find it a really bad indicator of balance. Compare four Skaven clanrats with one Ogre. Or two Skaven clanrats with a single Cold One Knight. It doesn't compare very well.

We tried Wound count and it was too rough for Armies with basic dudes and few Specialty Characters (or at least good ones - Dwarves).

We instead use a Point system I created and it works fairly well.

The clan rats are ok in large numbers and with the buff from the formation. On a one for one though they aren't very good. A large blob gets +1 to hit and wound and with the formation buff is bravery 10. They really don't work well in smaller numbers though. 3 units of 20+ in the formation is ok, as they all get the warlord buff, but otherwise they aren't the best.

We use wounds as a size guide as I said, because we won't all get games in otherwise lol. As I said, we adjust based on what looks right, and we tend to use bigger units of things like skaven and gobbos, provided the player doesn't take ages moving lol.

Special characters aren't much of a problem, as not all of them have great unit buffs, it tends to be situational. The most used dwarf one the the engineer special character, as +6" range is awesome! The only time normal engineers get used is for the artillery formation buff. The empire player almost always just uses the general on foot, as he uses the infantry formation as a defensive line, and +1 hit and wound makes them quite scary lol.

This is the document that supposedly leaked and is tournament rules for some GW store or whatever - not official, just store rules, but I must admit after four games I see that forces built using that were roughly balanced - there was no victory won "by far", it was always tough fighting till the end, so I would recommend giving it a shot. Of course if you both go competitive you're not going to take clanrats, but Stormvermin because they're plain better if not fielded in huge units, same goes with characters, but it still works pretty good. It all balances itself - it's obvious that you're taking the best characters and best units first, but then you have to settle down for those less powerful as the cost of your army rises.

Sure, it's not totally balanced, there can be cheesy combos, but that's just the way it is. It's not like there weren't juicy combos back in 8th anyway - GW was not able to balance stuff properly for years now.

But, yeah, four games played - sigmarines vs bretonnia and ogres vs bretonnia - two close ogre victories, one sigmarine victory, one bretonnian victory, all very hard fought, so it works for me until someone comes up with a real point system. :-)

As a baseline, I've found wounds are a rough, ready and lazy place to begin. While I like the unofficial pack Klerych posted and think it makes the game much more playable as a competitive game, it also imposes a number of changes beyond just a comp pack, bringing AOS closer to WMH than some may care for.

I'm still a fan of the simple comp email GW sent around to stores within a couple weeks of AOS dropping:



We've adapted this gently, expanding max unit size to 30 wounds and allowing triples of non-HERO warscrolls, as doubles cuts out a good number of formations.

- Salvage

Wounds per army determines game size, then you use stuff like max unit size, number of scrolls, heroes, monsters and the like to set the outer bounds of fielded armies. This gives people room to be creative and field interesting armies whilst also setting limits to further encourage creativity within bounds.

How's the local scene back in Albany, Salvage? I would love to play your Nurgle-Skaven again, were I not on the other side of the planet. :p

overtninja wrote:
How's the local scene back in Albany, Salvage? I would love to play your Nurgle-Skaven again, were I not on the other side of the planet. :p

That long run-up to AOS crippled the club pretty badly. The tournament dudes are playing the 8E events that were already scheduled, but not really pick-up games. And while I'm game for lightly comped AOS myself, the rest of the dudes are looking around to see what we want to do instead of or in addition to 8E - pretty sure Cory and I are the only people who have even tried AOS. We all have a lot of Wrath of Kings and they've played a few times, but I'm not very interested and haven't paid attention. Have been putting lots of money and what time I have into Malifaux instead

Word is AOS players might be doing things at Zombie Planet? But can't confirm. If I have a Sunday free sometime I might pop in and roll all the dice. Not that I have free Sundays

We are talking about running an AOS event sometime in the next month or so, based on the above GW email with a few more tweaks (no measuring by the model, no Sudden Death, winner based on % killed vs starting). Should be a fun day's hobbying.

- Salvage

Good to hear, man! I'm not terribly surprised that all the oldhammer guys aren't really jumping into the hobby, but it's good that at least some people are playing it where you are!

I need to find a spot in Taipei where people play it too...

It's a bad idea as there's a huge gap of power level between models with the same number of wounds. You're better off using a points-system that's been developed by the community. While not ideal, they are the best approach to getting AoS somehow balanced currently available to us.

I just use table size to determine army size. Play on a card table, (mine is just under four feet squared) and take the time to set up according to the core rules. None of my games have been problematic...

We play using points, because that's what we like and that's what works for us

Well, atm we play AoS at the 75 wounds level using the supplementary Toronto rule set.
We plan a local tourney in Sept.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, atm we play AoS at the 75 wounds level using the supplementary Toronto rule set.

Heard about this comp pack yesterday. Uses a pool of available warscrolls from which you choose a smaller number to match the enemy force + scenario for that round (ala Malifaux). More here: http://www.lordsofwartournament.com/content/events/2015Summer/Lords-of-War-Rules-Package.pdf

- Salvage

Limiting wounds doesn't work.

Examples:
Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon: 14 wounds
14 Skaven Clan Rats: 14 wounds

Example:
Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster: 14 wounds
14 Orcs: 14 wounds

Who do you think will win in that match up?

There is no correlation between how powerful a unit is and how many wounds it has. Hits and wounds are an independent event not based on the target. As in, nothing your target can do affects the outcome of your to hits and wound rolls. Oh, they might have a spell or buff or something that modifies the die roll, but you are not comparing the WS vs WS or S vs T. So something can be said for quantity of models. If each model has two attacks and hits on a 4+, then a unit of 20 should hit 10 times, right? And then if they wound on a 4+, that's five wounds that the target gets to save (on the Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon). The Vampire just took three wounds. His response: 6 claw attacks, 1 bite, 4 sword, and don't forget his breath attack- probably killing around 6 Orcs. The Orcs have to take a break test as they lost models, the Vampire does not. More Orcs removed after failing the break test.

Break tests are where units suffer greatly in this system. If you can make a unit Unbreakable, you just upped your chances of winning. Remember that all Generals have the Command Ability to make 1 unit Unbreakable for a turn.

Pretty sure wounds is most often used to establish a target game size, and perhaps place caps on unit size. Wounds-based comp virtually all go on to place limits on HERO / MONSTER / WARMACHINE keywords after selecting game size.

A better version of your examples might be this:

Vampire Lord on Zombie Dragon: 14 wounds
Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster: 14 wounds

14 Skaven Clan Rats: 14 wounds
14 Orcs: 14 wounds

If only because it acknowledges that both HERO and MONSTER warscrolls are special and limited.

- Salvage

You wouldn't take 14 Clanrats anyway. You'd take a minimum of either 20 or 30 for the horde bonus.

Not only that, their gigantic blob of models will limit enemy movement more than say, 2 Bloodthirsters (which would take up 2 monster slots too if that's a limiting factor) and that can be a big factor in itself.