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.

RoperPG wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

burningstuff wrote:

Demandread wrote:
So I suppose the hiccup here is whether a necro sphinx halves wounds or haves the damage of wounds an wether or not it affects an entire pool or each attack individually?

GW could avoid a lot of problems with a better editing process. But because the description says "any" not "all", I'm going with halving each wound taken.

The process is as follows, taken straight from the rules.

Making the attack(s):

Roll to hit

Roll to wound

Roll saving throw

Determine damage.

Then, after all attacks have been carried out, damage is allocated. That's when models actually suffer wounds. That's key here. They choose what unit to attack, and that unit makes their saving throws, but damage is not allocated until all attacks against that unit have been carried out. For example, 20 attacks cause 10 wounds, then there's 3 more attacks that have Rend -1 and deal D3 damage, dealing, for instance, 5 wounds. After all of those are resolved (saves and all) then the damage is allocated.


So, my interpretation would be a "pool" of wounds is dealt, in which case, the pool is halved against a Sphinx.

^^This guy gets it.

There is no requirement to pool your attacks. Most of the time it makes no difference, but in this case, I'd be inclined to tell my necrosphinx opponent that I'm rolling one at a time, which I have every right to do (from all 50 of my skaven clanrats). Of course, we will both quickly realise that it would be insane to actually roll 1 attack at a time, so we'd agree that any unsaved wounds from my 1 Damage models would inflict 1 wound.

Read the section "Inflicting Damage". Once all attacks made by a unit have been resolved, that's when you actually allocate damage.
The 50 clanrats cause 50 wounds to the Necrosphinx 'unit'. The Necrosphinx player then has to allocate all 50 wounds to models in the unit. There's only one, so all 50 wounds go to the Sphinx, so it takes 25.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, to be clear - it doesn't matter if you resolve attacks individually or just roll a bucket of dice, you don't actually cause any wounds until all models in the unit have attacked.

RoperPG wrote:
Read the section "Inflicting Damage". Once all attacks made by a unit have been resolved, that's when you actually allocate damage.
The 50 clanrats cause 50 wounds to the Necrosphinx 'unit'. The Necrosphinx player then has to allocate all 50 wounds to models in the unit. There's only one, so all 50 wounds go to the Sphinx, so it takes 25.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, to be clear - it doesn't matter if you resolve attacks individually or just roll a bucket of dice, you don't actually cause any wounds until all models in the unit have attacked.

I see what you mean, but Inflicting Damage doesn't say to allocate the total wounds inflicted (except in the last para that gives the option of rolling everything together, presumably where it doesn't matter). Determine Damage says each successful attack inflicts a number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic. Inflicting Damage tells the necrosphinx owner to allocate any inflicted wounds as they see fit, not the total of the inflicted wounds. So doesn't the 50-clanrat model inflict 50 Damage-1 wounds, each of which can be halved by Sacred War Statue?

 Kriswall wrote:

Now... what I see when I look at Age of Sigmar. I see a game that actively undermines the ability for a tournament meta to exist. The game is predicated on playing with what you want and having fun with your friends. I'm not expecting to see a meta appear for the core game since there are so few elements to latch onto. There is no model count limit. There is no Hero limit. There are no points. You simply play with your friends using the models you like. If you lose too often, ask your friends to cut back on some of their tougher units or buy something new to be more competitive. Buy literally whatever you like.

The thing is, AoS did not invent that way of playing. It can be done with any other game, even the most competitive ones.

I know some Magic players who only play casually, taking care their deck is balanced with their opponent's one. They just aren't interested to buy the OP card of the moment to add to their Ultimate Deck.

The sad truth is that AoS in itself will not stop some players to keep saying such unit is more powerful than the other and thus this last one is useless. It's in fact even more true now that there is no point cost and you cant take everything you want - players used to play one way will not leave it aside just because the rules aren't the same. It's already happening, anyway, and that topic shows it as well.

If I want uncontrollable fun, I'll play Age of Sigmar.

People eventually get tired of the uncontrollable part. And when they do, the fun will not be here anymore.

We'll see on the long term, but until now, I agree with mikhaila when he says the "take all the models you want on the table" will not be enough. People aren't stupid, but they'd rather spend their time playing than arguing with their opponent about what would be fair and what would not.

After all, if we keep having conflicts all around the world, that's precisely because people aren't always able to agree with the others. AoS will not be an exception, I'm afraid.

Snapshot wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Read the section "Inflicting Damage". Once all attacks made by a unit have been resolved, that's when you actually allocate damage.
The 50 clanrats cause 50 wounds to the Necrosphinx 'unit'. The Necrosphinx player then has to allocate all 50 wounds to models in the unit. There's only one, so all 50 wounds go to the Sphinx, so it takes 25.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, to be clear - it doesn't matter if you resolve attacks individually or just roll a bucket of dice, you don't actually cause any wounds until all models in the unit have attacked.

I see what you mean, but Inflicting Damage doesn't say to allocate the total wounds inflicted (except in the last para that gives the option of rolling everything together, presumably where it doesn't matter). Determine Damage says each successful attack inflicts a number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic. Inflicting Damage tells the necrosphinx owner to allocate any inflicted wounds as they see fit, not the total of the inflicted wounds. So doesn't the 50-clanrat model inflict 50 Damage-1 wounds, each of which can be halved by Sacred War Statue?

Nope. The right process is detailed step-by-step in the rules. It's 4 pages, read them.

Vetril wrote:

Snapshot wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Read the section "Inflicting Damage". Once all attacks made by a unit have been resolved, that's when you actually allocate damage.
The 50 clanrats cause 50 wounds to the Necrosphinx 'unit'. The Necrosphinx player then has to allocate all 50 wounds to models in the unit. There's only one, so all 50 wounds go to the Sphinx, so it takes 25.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, to be clear - it doesn't matter if you resolve attacks individually or just roll a bucket of dice, you don't actually cause any wounds until all models in the unit have attacked.

I see what you mean, but Inflicting Damage doesn't say to allocate the total wounds inflicted (except in the last para that gives the option of rolling everything together, presumably where it doesn't matter). Determine Damage says each successful attack inflicts a number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic. Inflicting Damage tells the necrosphinx owner to allocate any inflicted wounds as they see fit, not the total of the inflicted wounds. So doesn't the 50-clanrat model inflict 50 Damage-1 wounds, each of which can be halved by Sacred War Statue?

Nope. The right process is detailed step-by-step in the rules. It's 4 pages, read them.

Regular fething comedian aren't we! Where does it say we total the inflicted wounds before allocating?

"Determine Damage: Once all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, each successful attack inflicts a
number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon."

Step 4.

It also repeats it in the next section. Otherwise you get the situation I saw in a Miniwargaming battle report, where models were taken off after the Lord celesta the hit, making the dracoth out of range. You total up a wound pool for the unit, then apply damage.



The next reference is...

"INFLICTING DAMAGE
After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit). When inflicting damage, if you allocate a wound to a model, you must keep on allocating wounds to that model until either it is slain, or no more wounds remain to be allocated."

 Sarouan wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Now... what I see when I look at Age of Sigmar. I see a game that actively undermines the ability for a tournament meta to exist. The game is predicated on playing with what you want and having fun with your friends. I'm not expecting to see a meta appear for the core game since there are so few elements to latch onto. There is no model count limit. There is no Hero limit. There are no points. You simply play with your friends using the models you like. If you lose too often, ask your friends to cut back on some of their tougher units or buy something new to be more competitive. Buy literally whatever you like.

The thing is, AoS did not invent that way of playing. It can be done with any other game, even the most competitive ones.

I know some Magic players who only play casually, taking care their deck is balanced with their opponent's one. They just aren't interested to buy the OP card of the moment to add to their Ultimate Deck.

The sad truth is that AoS in itself will not stop some players to keep saying such unit is more powerful than the other and thus this last one is useless. It's in fact even more true now that there is no point cost and you cant take everything you want - players used to play one way will not leave it aside just because the rules aren't the same. It's already happening, anyway, and that topic shows it as well.

If I want uncontrollable fun, I'll play Age of Sigmar.

People eventually get tired of the uncontrollable part. And when they do, the fun will not be here anymore.

We'll see on the long term, but until now, I agree with mikhaila when he says the "take all the models you want on the table" will not be enough. People aren't stupid, but they'd rather spend their time playing than arguing with their opponent about what would be fair and what would not.

After all, if we keep having conflicts all around the world, that's precisely because people aren't always able to agree with the others. AoS will not be an exception, I'm afraid.

This style of play may not last. I'll give you that. What we know to be an absolute truth though is that the 8th Edition style of play was a failure. It DID NOT last. It performed so poorly that the company decided to cut it as a product line and re-purpose it's models for a new game.

kyrellification wrote:
"Determine Damage: Once all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, each successful attack inflicts a
number of wounds equal to the Damage characteristic of the weapon."

Step 4.

It also repeats it in the next section. Otherwise you get the situation I saw in a Miniwargaming battle report, where models were taken off after the Lord celesta the hit, making the dracoth out of range. You total up a wound pool for the unit, then apply damage.



The next reference is...

"INFLICTING DAMAGE
After all of the attacks made by a unit have been carried out, the player commanding the target unit allocates any wounds that are inflicted to models from the unit as they see fit (the models do not have to be within range or visible to an attacking unit). When inflicting damage, if you allocate a wound to a model, you must keep on allocating wounds to that model until either it is slain, or no more wounds remain to be allocated."

kyrellification, it's that last part that makes me think you don't total the wound pool. It says to keep allocating wounds until the model is slain (allocate a wound, is it dead, allocate a wound, is it dead, .....) . I'm obviously reading that different to other folk.

 Kriswall wrote:

This style of play may not last. I'll give you that. What we know to be an absolute truth though is that the 8th Edition style of play was a failure. It DID NOT last. It performed so poorly that the company decided to cut it as a product line and re-purpose it's models for a new game.

Honestly, I have nothing towards 8th edition. I left that game a long time ago and didn't regret it. However, I don't have a grudge against it either - I remember having great games with it, be it in tournaments, campaigns or just casual games. What I learned is that there was not one "style of play", but many different players with a lot of varied points of view.

I do understand why GW made AoS. I'm not especially angry for the "loss" of the old background/game, because I already grieved for it when End Times happened.

But I believe it is best to defend AoS for what is rather than comparing it to the 8th edition. It will not change players, this is just a set of rules. If the same players from 8th come to play AoS, they will bring their own habits and playstyles with them. You can already see a lot of topics talking about what unit is best in comparison to others, even so there is no point cost at all. So, that will stay the same.

And then the question about Necrosphinx being too broken...well, that's not new as well. The answer here would be "it depends of the units he was played with or against". If it was alone against some of the Dark Elf units in the OT, it would certainly be different.

You allocate damage from the pool, to individual models, and it is this total pool for the unit that gets halved. Means if you had 10 single model units, each inflicting 1 wound, then the Necro would take 10*(1*0.5 rounded up) so would take the full 10. It makes them better against large monsters and big units. If you want to see what happens when you allocate everything individually, I think it is battle report 11 on Miniwargaming.

If you were to allocate attacks by type individually, resolve wounds then move on to the next model combat would get confusing and messy quickly. It would lead to most people asking for individual resolution, as they could remove models from front, reducing enemy number of attacks. Then pile in when it is their turn. Best not to go there as it would be quite mad ;-)

Snapshot wrote:
kyrellification, it's that last part that makes me think you don't total the wound pool. It says to keep allocating wounds until the model is slain (allocate a wound, is it dead, allocate a wound, is it dead, .....) . I'm obviously reading that different to other folk.

We noticed. You're reading it wrong. Thanks for calling me a comedian though.

Stop crying! I played against an army led by Nagash last night with my Dwarf Army. The Dwarf's got him down to 5 wounds before I conceded. I count it as a moral victory!

It's not a moral victory if you have to take a Slayer Oath for conceding, laddie! Get the orange dye out, lads, we got another one!

 Kriswall wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I followed the rules of your simulation, why do I have to run another one? Sounds like goalposts are being moved...

Necrosphinx is really good at doing something. A lot of units are really good at doing things. I would much rather fight a Necrosphinx than 20-30 Phoenix Guard, White Lions, or Sword Masters.

My brother runs 3-5 sphinxes of varying types (and has since 8th edition, we both think sphinxes are really cool and love seeing them on the table). It is not an OP unit (both when going against 50 Slayers and when facing a dwarf artillery line). Age of Sigmar is the first time I have been able to reliably take them down...


Edit- I see that you’re talking about a comp system. Perhaps under your comp it is broken, but for the base game it isn’t.

Amen, brother. Most of the comments I've read about units being 'OP' go like this... "Unit ABC is OP. You can't take enough other models using the non-official, homebrew army construction guidelines we've come up with."

Maybe your comp system is broken. The way the actual game is intended to be played is:

1. Player 1 puts down a Necrosphinx.
2. Player 2 thinks "oh crap, this thing is strong" and starts dropping enough units so that he feels he'll have a sporting chance.

Done. When you place artificial limits and balancing mechanisms in place, you break that ability to balance on the fly. Sure, the Necrosphinx is powerful. In the Azyr Comp system, the Necrosphinx is 10 points. So are 24 Skeletons. the 24 Skeletons don't stand a remote chance against a Necrosphinx, yet if I use this comp, this assumption is that they are roughly balanced. My natural conclusion is that the Azyr Comp fails in this instance. The core game wouldn't fail as it relies on the players to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of their armies and deploy accordingly. If you're a crap player, this is harder, but the solution is to become a better player and not put a crutch in place.

What you are looking for is a precision system, wherein you exactly and precisely compare one model vs another model.

Azyr is not a precision comp system, and is stated as such that it is not a precision comp system. It is used for determining the general balance of armies overall (primarily in a narrative scenario environment), not between X number of skeletons vs a monster or things of that nature.

Azyr absolutely fails as a precision comp system because that is not its intent.

auticus wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I followed the rules of your simulation, why do I have to run another one? Sounds like goalposts are being moved...

Necrosphinx is really good at doing something. A lot of units are really good at doing things. I would much rather fight a Necrosphinx than 20-30 Phoenix Guard, White Lions, or Sword Masters.

My brother runs 3-5 sphinxes of varying types (and has since 8th edition, we both think sphinxes are really cool and love seeing them on the table). It is not an OP unit (both when going against 50 Slayers and when facing a dwarf artillery line). Age of Sigmar is the first time I have been able to reliably take them down...


Edit- I see that you’re talking about a comp system. Perhaps under your comp it is broken, but for the base game it isn’t.

Amen, brother. Most of the comments I've read about units being 'OP' go like this... "Unit ABC is OP. You can't take enough other models using the non-official, homebrew army construction guidelines we've come up with."

Maybe your comp system is broken. The way the actual game is intended to be played is:

1. Player 1 puts down a Necrosphinx.
2. Player 2 thinks "oh crap, this thing is strong" and starts dropping enough units so that he feels he'll have a sporting chance.

Done. When you place artificial limits and balancing mechanisms in place, you break that ability to balance on the fly. Sure, the Necrosphinx is powerful. In the Azyr Comp system, the Necrosphinx is 10 points. So are 24 Skeletons. the 24 Skeletons don't stand a remote chance against a Necrosphinx, yet if I use this comp, this assumption is that they are roughly balanced. My natural conclusion is that the Azyr Comp fails in this instance. The core game wouldn't fail as it relies on the players to understand the relative strengths and weaknesses of their armies and deploy accordingly. If you're a crap player, this is harder, but the solution is to become a better player and not put a crutch in place.

What you are looking for is a precision system, wherein you exactly and precisely compare one model vs another model.

Azyr is not a precision comp system, and is stated as such that it is not a precision comp system. It is used for determining the general balance of armies overall (primarily in a narrative scenario environment), not between X number of skeletons vs a monster or things of that nature.

Azyr absolutely fails as a precision comp system because that is not its intent.

Can you help me understand the point of imposing a balancing system that you acknowledge isn't good at balancing actual units against each other? The Azyr Comp system seems like an overly elaborate way of saying 'basic troops are generally less powerful than elite troops' while totally ignoring all specific and unit interactions. I could tell you that without consulting a PDF.

Based on your tone and attitude I'm doubting you want to actually have a constructive conversation on the topic.

auticus wrote:
Based on your tone and attitude I'm doubting you want to actually have a constructive conversation on the topic.

I absolutely want to have a constructive conversation on the topic.

I don't understand why you'd bother with something like the Azyr Comp system when you know it's bad. It provides SOME general balance but also introduces SOME general imbalance in that you're codifying the imbalance and making it 'home brew legal'.

I would think you'd either want 'play what you want and rely on players to show sportsmanship' or 'complete and effective balance between units using some arbitrary scoring system (points?)'. How is something like the Azyr Comp not just a half assed attempt at providing SOME balance? I'd genuinely like to know your opinion.

 Kriswall wrote:

auticus wrote:
Based on your tone and attitude I'm doubting you want to actually have a constructive conversation on the topic.

I absolutely want to have a constructive conversation on the topic.

I don't understand why you'd bother with something like the Azyr Comp system when you know it's bad. It provides SOME general balance but also introduces SOME general imbalance in that you're codifying the imbalance and making it 'home brew legal'.

I would think you'd either want 'play what you want and rely on players to show sportsmanship' or 'complete and effective balance between units using some arbitrary scoring system (points?)'. How is something like the Azyr Comp not just a half assed attempt at providing SOME balance? I'd genuinely like to know your opinion.

The problem with your opinion, as you've stated in multiple threads, is that you think AoS works straight out of the box, and comp actually makes it messy. Let's do the "you place a unit, I place a unit" game: you drop 15 empire handgunners, I drop a winged demon Prince. You drop a detachment of 10 Halberds, I drop another demon Prince. You drop a unit of 15 greatswords, I drop a winged demon Prince. You get where this is going? I own ten demon Prince models, collected back to when Azrael was running around. Or they've been self created demon Prince models, which isn't ACTUALLY that hard to do. The game I played had 5 demon princes chew up a table. Imagine what I can do with ten? Imagine if my opponent has the same number of units that I do, and my demon princes fly all over, killing the high powered stuff first.

Oh, wait. Your balancing act is walking away from the table. Not finding a balance point. I can bring a whole mess of uglies to the table and legitimately flood one side of the table. But I want a system that introduces at least a bit of balance. Is Azyr perfect? No, but that's because it's trying to fix a broken set of rules that GW has been infamous for for years. If you're molding with poop, even if the statue you make is lovely, it's still poop in the end.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Let's do the "you place a unit, I place a unit" game: you drop 15 empire handgunners, I drop a winged demon Prince. You drop a detachment of 10 Halberds, I drop another demon Prince. You drop a unit of 15 greatswords, I drop a winged demon Prince. You get where this is going?

Yup, you're playing someone who has no idea, no intent or the inability to match you.
You drop a Daemon Prince, the immediate response is a warmachine, war altar, or some other better suited unit description. Not blindly 'well, I want to set up my halberds'.
I totally get that the game has no composition or balancing mechanic of any description outside of Sudden Death. But it's not about trying to hamstring yourself, it's making sure your opponent and you are going to enjoy your game. Just because you can kerbstomp someone, doesn't mean you have an obligation. It's not about games being 'fair', either. It's fine to completely outmatch or be outmatched, as long as you know what you're getting into!
Just out of curiosity - presuming you have all those Daemon Princes - you must have a lot of other stuff too, right? That you could put down instead?
What if the person you are playing against has a really limited collection? Like the gunners, halberdiers and greatswords are all they have at that time, and you know this?
You know they can't beat Daemon Princes, yet you continue to place more of them.
It does seem that in your stated example you have cast yourself as "that guy". So kudos to you.

*eyeroll* My point is to show how broken the rules are. I actually only set one Prince out in games. And use summoning to get more if my opponent doesn't target the Sorc. But good going using my suggested possibility to label me as TFG. Just because I have the capability doesn't mean I do it-it means the game allows for it. And yes, if you want to know my WoC army amount...
Tzeentch lord on demon mount
2 mounted Slaanesh lords
Mounted Nurgle lord
Archaon on foot
Mounted BSB
10 man units of warriors for all 4 gods
10 Knights
10 Wrathmongers w/Skaar
5 Blightkings with Gutrot
5 hellstriders
Hellcannon
Mutalith beast
10 demon princes
40 marauders
Warshrine
5 chosen/Blood Warriors
40 Khorne Forsaken/bloodreavers
3 chariots
Glottkin
Maggoth Lord Sorc
Nurgle and Tzeentch Sorc on foot
2 Khorne heroes
Slaanesh hero on foot

And that leaves out all the demons. Which shadows that army. I have the capabilities. I typically aim for an 80 wound army that has the following:
Lord
Sorc
Demon Prince
Hellcannon
2 units of Warriors
Hellstriders

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

auticus wrote:
Based on your tone and attitude I'm doubting you want to actually have a constructive conversation on the topic.

I absolutely want to have a constructive conversation on the topic.

I don't understand why you'd bother with something like the Azyr Comp system when you know it's bad. It provides SOME general balance but also introduces SOME general imbalance in that you're codifying the imbalance and making it 'home brew legal'.

I would think you'd either want 'play what you want and rely on players to show sportsmanship' or 'complete and effective balance between units using some arbitrary scoring system (points?)'. How is something like the Azyr Comp not just a half assed attempt at providing SOME balance? I'd genuinely like to know your opinion.

The problem with your opinion, as you've stated in multiple threads, is that you think AoS works straight out of the box, and comp actually makes it messy. Let's do the "you place a unit, I place a unit" game: you drop 15 empire handgunners, I drop a winged demon Prince. You drop a detachment of 10 Halberds, I drop another demon Prince. You drop a unit of 15 greatswords, I drop a winged demon Prince. You get where this is going? I own ten demon Prince models, collected back to when Azrael was running around. Or they've been self created demon Prince models, which isn't ACTUALLY that hard to do. The game I played had 5 demon princes chew up a table. Imagine what I can do with ten? Imagine if my opponent has the same number of units that I do, and my demon princes fly all over, killing the high powered stuff first.

Oh, wait. Your balancing act is walking away from the table. Not finding a balance point. I can bring a whole mess of uglies to the table and legitimately flood one side of the table. But I want a system that introduces at least a bit of balance. Is Azyr perfect? No, but that's because it's trying to fix a broken set of rules that GW has been infamous for for years. If you're molding with poop, even if the statue you make is lovely, it's still poop in the end.

Why in the world do you think I'd counter your Daemon Princes with 10 Halberds? I'm not an idiot. Give me a little credit. I'd use the inherent balancing mechanisms and counter your Daemon Princes with things that can handle Daemon Princes. If I don't own enough different models to handle 10 Daemon Princes, I'd have to make a decision. If I think doing so would make for a fun game, I'd buy more models. If I don't think that would make for a fun game, I simply ask you to play a different army and if you said no you'd lose a potential opponent.

AoS does work straight out of the box. It does, like MANY games, completely fall apart when a player shows up with the intention of exploiting loopholes. That player will get his one game, using excuses like "what I've done is legitmate" and then he'll develop a reputation and never get another game. AoS works wonderfully straight out of the box in that it's incredibly easy to identify players you never want to play again during the deployment step. Most games require you to play several times before you realize a person has no sportsmanship.

Tossing down Daemon Prince after Daemon Prince is a loophole? That must be a loophole the size of the Lincoln Tunnel.

Alright, fine, using a base unit doesn't work for you...you pitch a unit of 10 state troops and after I counter with a DP, you drop a Stank. I drop another DP, you toss a hellblaster. My winged princes will still rule the battlefield.

And what gives you the right to dictate "fun". Maybe somebody wants to play a big monster mash. Who are you to tell them they're having fun wrong?

As I told the last poster, I don't throw out 10 demon princes on setup. But the game actively tells you to play what you want. If somebody wanted to, you'd either play together, or your walk away because you don't like how they have fun. That's your problem. Not theirs. My entire post was to prove a point. And apparently all it's proven is that if I say something CAN be done in the scope of the rules, it makes me TFG for even suggesting something, and that you should stay away from pickup games because you like telling others they have to have fun your way, or you'll pack up your ball and leave. Glad we cleared it all up.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Just because I have the capability doesn't mean I do it-it means the game allows for it.

We have a winner!
(Just for reference, I didn't 'label' you TFG - your example was a perfect case of being TFG!!).
You are exactly right - the game does allow for it. There is nothing in the rules to stop you deploying 10 Daemon Princes, 20 Necrosphinxes, 30 Bloodthirsters or whatever.
The only thing that's stopping you do it is you. Whether you should or shouldn't is down to your local group and friends.
All it takes is a brief chat. What do you both want out of that game? As long as you both know what's what before deployment, you'll likely both have a good experience.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Tossing down Daemon Prince after Daemon Prince is a loophole? That must be a loophole the size of the Lincoln Tunnel.

Alright, fine, using a base unit doesn't work for you...you pitch a unit of 10 state troops and after I counter with a DP, you drop a Stank. I drop another DP, you toss a hellblaster. My winged princes will still rule the battlefield.

And what gives you the right to dictate "fun". Maybe somebody wants to play a big monster mash. Who are you to tell them they're having fun wrong?

As I told the last poster, I don't throw out 10 demon princes on setup. But the game actively tells you to play what you want. If somebody wanted to, you'd either play together, or your walk away because you don't like how they have fun. That's your problem. Not theirs. My entire post was to prove a point. And apparently all it's proven is that if I say something CAN be done in the scope of the rules, it makes me TFG for even suggesting something, and that you should stay away from pickup games because you like telling others they have to have fun your way, or you'll pack up your ball and leave. Glad we cleared it all up.

I ABSOLUTELY have the right to dictate fun FOR MYSELF. I ABSOLUTELY have the right to pack up my ball and leave if the game I've shown up to HAVE FUN playing looks like it's not going to actually BE FUN. Is it your contention that I should sit there and go through the motions of completing a game when my opponent puts down an army of Daemon Princes because I shouldn't be able to dictate his fun and that somehow walking away from a game makes me a bad person? Is someone wants to play a game of Monster Mash, he needs to find an opponent who wants to play a game of Monster Hunter. To mirror the previous poster, all it takes is a brief chat.

To be honest, I'm not sure why people make this sort of argument. You're arguing a hypothetical situation that very rarely actually happens. "You could totally throw down half a table's worth of Daemon Princes. I'd never actually do that, because I'm not an a-hole, but it can be done." This isn't a game issue, it's an a-hole issue. Eliminate a-holes from your gaming circle and the game runs totally smoothly. Allow them in and many people won't have fun. I ran a gaming store for a couple of years. When the a-holes show up, you simply have a conversation with them about sportsmanship and the average level of play in the community. If a ton of them show up, start running anything goes, competitive tournaments. Oddly, if the group is ENTIRELY composed of competitive a-holes, the system works fine because everyone is min/maxing everything all the time. Want to play an army of Daemon Princes? Fine. Have fun playing against 200 Wizards. Enjoy those d3 Mortal Wounds flying everywhere.

@Kris: The problem isn't that you're dictating fun for yourself, it's that you're trying to cram your version of fun down other people's throats. You're being an epitome of the "quit liking what I don't like" picture of a petulant child. You say AoS plays perfectly out of the box without comp. but if someone starts laying down demon princes like candy, suddenly you start calling them an a-hole. I'm sorry, that's what GW wants. You're limited by what you spend money on.

You, however, don't want comp until you dislike what your opponent puts down, then you want to comp it away by house ruling. Basically, you're trying to dictate how the group has fun. In the three communities I've introduced the Azyr rules, they've been met with open arms. AoS, straight out of the box, has been welcomed by exactly 1 single high school kid. One. Single. Person. As opposed to three COMMUNITIES of people. Which is better on paper? The one that gains better support.

You don't like comp? Fine. You don't like rules the way GW wants you to play? Fine. Then stay away from pickup games, or be prepared to be labeled TFG yourself. Nobody wants to play with somebody giving ultimatums: "if you put down 4 daemon princes, I'm walking away because that's BS". A negative attitude begets a negative gaming experience. Everyone loses when somebody forces their version of fun on everybody else.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
@Kris: The problem isn't that you're dictating fun for yourself, it's that you're trying to cram your version of fun down other people's throats. You're being an epitome of the "quit liking what I don't like" picture of a petulant child. You say AoS plays perfectly out of the box without comp. but if someone starts laying down demon princes like candy, suddenly you start calling them an a-hole. I'm sorry, that's what GW wants. You're limited by what you spend money on.

You, however, don't want comp until you dislike what your opponent puts down, then you want to comp it away by house ruling. Basically, you're trying to dictate how the group has fun. In the three communities I've introduced the Azyr rules, they've been met with open arms. AoS, straight out of the box, has been welcomed by exactly 1 single high school kid. One. Single. Person. As opposed to three COMMUNITIES of people. Which is better on paper? The one that gains better support.

You don't like comp? Fine. You don't like rules the way GW wants you to play? Fine. Then stay away from pickup games, or be prepared to be labeled TFG yourself. Nobody wants to play with somebody giving ultimatums: "if you put down 4 daemon princes, I'm walking away because that's BS". A negative attitude begets a negative gaming experience. Everyone loses when somebody forces their version of fun on everybody else.

I'm not remotely being a petulant child. This is how the conversation would go...

Me: Want to play a nice friendly game that we can both enjoy? I'm not that competitive and want to try out these new models I bought.
Him: Sure.
Me: ...I can't help but notice that you're deploying only Daemon Princes. This is not going to be a fun game. You know you're going to win. Can we tone it down a little and use more of a variety of units.
Him: Nope. This is the only way I like to play, and besides, the rules say I can deploy this army.
Me: They do indeed. However, I have no desire to play a game I know won't be fun for me. I'm going to go do some painting instead. If you feel like playing a more friendly game, come talk to me.

Nothing petulant there. I'm not forcing my fun on anyone. If anything, I'm avoiding a situation where someone else is trying to force their particular brand of fun on me. Choosing not to participate is the exact opposite of forcing my version of fun on someone else. Johnny Gamerman wants to play with an army composed of Daemon Princes. That's awesome. I'd love to watch that game. I just don't want to play it. In my experience, one trick pony lists are pretty boring and the outcome is usually a foregone conclusion. They tend to either win big or lose big depending on what the opponent counters with.

And let's make no mistake. Points wouldn't fix this at all. The same thing happens in 40k all the time and it has a 'balancing points system'. Screamstar. Farsun Bomb. Draigostar. All perfectly legal and all not even remotely fun to play against if you aren't willing to run one of a handful of meta approved lists.

This is how my version would be going:
"Hey, I'm not a huge fan of AoS with no points system. Want to try the Azyr rules? They look pretty balanced"
"Nope, I want a friendly game with no comp"
"That's way too easy to break and no structure. Sure I can't convince you of avoiding comp?"
"Nope. AoS rules as GW writes them"
"Okay..." *deploys ten demon princes to prove a point as opponent walks away. "Where are you going? You said you wanted to play 'as is'..."

You're still the jerk for "proving a point" a point in that situation. What's the problem with having a nice friendly game? Or just not playing?

Why waste his time if you don't intend on having fun?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
This is how my version would be going:
"Hey, I'm not a huge fan of AoS with no points system. Want to try the Azyr rules? They look pretty balanced"
"Nope, I want a friendly game with no comp"
"That's way too easy to break and no structure. Sure I can't convince you of avoiding comp?"
"Nope. AoS rules as GW writes them"
"Okay..." *deploys ten demon princes to prove a point as opponent walks away. "Where are you going? You said you wanted to play 'as is'..."

Seems an odd response to me. You seem to be giving the option, "play my comp or I put down 10 daemon princes". That implies a very black and white "play the way I want to or I will deliberately break the system to prove a point".

In the real world (unless you have some really gaming opponents, people won't deliberately break the system to prove a point. If they do, then they are definitely trying to be TFG. One way or the other, somebody deliberately pushing ANY system to break it to win is almost the exact definition of TFG. I really pity people who live in a world where their opponents (and indeed people who play pick-ups in their meta) are the people who need a comp or rule telling them not to be an otherwise they feel justified being one. There was someone in my area that always brought out 5 knights for 40k vs generic Forces. They never lost (as opponents never had any counters). do the rules (and points in this case) allow him to do that? Yes. Is he being unfair to people with casual fun lists when he surprises them with 5 Knights? Hell yes! Would I play him? Yes if I knew in advance. This mirrors your deliberate try to break it (as front the post you come across as a "if the rules don't say I can't, I will" type gamer. Sorry if I am wrong, but that is how you phrased a response above). Would I play 10 Daemon Princes? Yes if I had models to counter for a fair fight, or wanted to do a brave last stand type thing. Would I play you if I just wanted to try out a small game with Empire infantry (perhaps I am a new player?). no, and I would think you were TFG for doing that to someone in that setting.