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.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Yes, but from what I have seen most of the same type of units are balanced with each other.
Example: Clan Rats vs. Slave Rats.

What about, say, 10 Clan Rats vs 50 Clan Rats?

Still balanced?

Attritionally, no. But larger units have certain vulnerabilities that can be exploited due to the footprint of the unit.

Beyond the total wound count, the main factor in a unit's efficiency is number of models it can bring to bear. A larger unit is very easy for your opponent to dictate how it piles in and results in melee bottlenecks. Throw in a few effects and a big unit can become more of a hindrance than a help.

A large unit such as 50 clan rats can be more of a hinderance because it gets in the way of your other units, and makes it hard to position your army effectively.

It also pushes you closer to unlocking sudden death to your opponent.

Not saying it is perfect, but those ARE the balancing mechanisms for large vs small units in AoS.

If someone takes a bunch of units of their armies best infantry because they like the models, that's cool. If they do the same because they are the best infantry, also cool. Basic infantry are slow enough to be killed by ranged chariots, archers, and artillery without much they can do about it. Even the best of one unit type is countered by larger numbers of an inferior version of the same unit type, and other unit types that are designed to counter them anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, you are limited in army size based on deployment zone size. So if you can't fit 50 clan rats in your dz, you can't have them.

 insaniak wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Yes, but from what I have seen most of the same type of units are balanced with each other.
Example: Clan Rats vs. Slave Rats.

What about, say, 10 Clan Rats vs 50 Clan Rats?

Still balanced?

That was sort of not my point, but...
If I saw 50 Model Clan Rat Unit put on the table I would know what to expect and put down a Large unit I think would counter it.
If it was a 10 Model Clan Rat Unit on the table I would put down a Small Unit I think would counter it.

If I put down my 10 Model Unit of Slave Rats and my opponent pulled out a 50 Model Unit of Cavalry to counter it I probably would still play the game with that guy once...ONCE!

That is sort of the point I keep trying to make and others to that a lot seem to be missing. While the Game lets you play what ever you want (On of the best things I think the game has done) it come down to 'Just because you Can, does not mean you Should.

Well said, MongooseMatt!

Ok so we can see in the OP that the game is not lacking in the tactics department, and really drives the whole unit synergy thing.

But if that's the case why play this over warmahordes? The first thing I thought when I saw the poxy sigmarines is "Oh god, GW has tried to copy warmahordes, badly."

 Zaku212 wrote:
Ok so we can see in the OP that the game is not lacking in the tactics department, and really drives the whole unit synergy thing.

But if that's the case why play this over warmahordes? The first thing I thought when I saw the poxy sigmarines is "Oh god, GW has tried to copy warmahordes, badly."

In my experience, WMH is really harsh. That's not a criticism, the few games I've played have been fun, but if your opponent really knows what they're doing then you're just going through the motions.
It's intended to be brutal and unforgiving and - most importantly - directly competitive.
AoS is not even slightly intended to be played competitively.
Both games should be fun, but that's your choice. TFG should play WMH, because he will generally learn very quickly that being TFG isn't so hot and might get some manners beaten into him.

On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.

AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.

Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.

Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits

 Herohammernostalgia wrote:
On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.

AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.

Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.

Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits

Exalted.

 Herohammernostalgia wrote:
On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame?

That depends on how the game is going to be played.


If you're talking about a game that is designed primarily for scenario play, or that is only going to be played at home or amongst an established group of gamers who know each other and are happy to cooperate to create a social game, then balance is not necessarily particularly important.

Where it is important, is when the people playing the game don't know each other. That's been the key to the growth of WHFB and 40K over the last few decades - the fact that you could build an army and walk into a gaming club or store just about anywhere and expect a game with minimal setup required. You have an army, someone else has an army - you play.

For that to work, you need some semblance of balance, so that people can be more confident of getting an enjoyable and reasonably fair game.


So this really just comes back to how this game is intended to be played. AoS is clearly intended more for the former type of play than the pickup game. And that's fine... it's just not going to be appealing to those who don't play with friends or an established group. People latch onto the idea that tournaments have their own balancing mechanics... forgetting that tournament players are only one part of the 'playing with strangers' crowd, and not even the larger part. There are an awful lot of people out there playing against complete strangers, who have never entered a tournament.

 Herohammernostalgia wrote:
On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.

A competitive game should be balanced because it then becomes a test of skill rather than looking at a board and knowing who's going to win. A points systems potentially allows two or more opponents to come to a game, put down their armies, and play. If a points systems doesn't allow that, then it's the fault of the designer.

Games that have imbalanced scenarios will often give both players different objectives so that the player with the weaker force will still have a chance to win the scenario. Some games even use points to differentiate Attackers (with more points) and Defenders (with less points, but a natural advantage). AoS does not have this, unless you want to pay $75 for some weak scenarios.

AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.

Sudden death gives bonuses to whichever player has less miniatures on the table. A player with a smaller, elite force should isn't exactly an 'underdog player.'

Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.

Player skill is still in army composition - but now that skill happens to be "do you own enough?" And if the player with the disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, does the other player have a lesser challenge? Doesn't that lessen the worth of the game for him? And if he wins, does the player that lost get to say, Yeah, but you were going to win anyway? And why should I have to play a game potentially multiple times before I and my opponent can work out a fair, fun game?

Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits

I went to a SAGA tournament in June. No units banned, no restrictions. Bring a 6 point Warband of your choice from the 3 Dark Ages book or the Crusades book. So it's not that tournaments have always had these things, you've just never bothered to look for them.

On balance, just my two cents and not to defend either party but... Mordheim is terribly unbalanced but somehow we manage to not buy 20 Clanrats with slings.

More to the point, Warhammer the Game of Fantasy Battles is also terribly unbalanced, somehow we forget that it's up to the player to engage in fair play. Just because imbalances exist doesn't mean we need to actively pursue them for the sake of winning. All this mumbo jumbo about talking with your opponent, seems to me like that's a requirement of any game that involves more than one player. I don't see how Warhammer draws criticism for this, but in AoS its praised. Honestly I have never played a game that didn't involve some sort of dialogue between the players beforehand.

At the end of the day however, GW is going to do whatever they like and its up to us to decide whether or not to play along. Keep in mind though, the onus isn't on the player to provide a quality game. That's up to GW. AoS isn't the bad guy here. This game could actually turn out okay, but we have to hope that GW doesn't make a botch of it. So instead of us tearing each others throats out, how about we agree to disagree and lets see what GW does.

@infinite_array - the philosophical question that I pose is: In a competitive game that is a test of skill, should that test begin before or after the coin toss?

I would argue that a game of skill requires two, fairly matched battle forces; and that of asymmetry exists in the armies (in terms of strength) then it is not a good test of skill.

In my imagining, in a true test of player skill, neither player gets to choose their army: They are prebalanced, exhaustively tested, and nobody has an advantage based on list. It's the best PLAYER, not the best ARMY.

In my opinion, any time you get to attempt to build synergy or efficiency into an army list, you open the possibility for an unfair fight. So the real question is, should building an effective list a part of the game?

In almost every war game, the answer is YES. In AoS, the answer is, only if you want it to be -- because if you build an ineffective army, the game relies on your opponent to make their army equally ineffective before you start.

Talys,

First off, I agree in some cases. If we're working on the idea that we're two opponents who have never met each other, but are comparable in gameplay skill and knowledge of a game, we should be able to meet, put down our forces, and play a game.

I think that your example of a "true test" does fall a little short, however - a good wargame will allow players to use different playstyles to win a game, depending on what they feel they can do best. If both of the armies in your example are based on moving forward and hitting each other, then the player who favors a movement based game will lose. If both armies favor movement over hitting power, then the player who is better at hitting will be disadvantaged. If the armies are of equal proportions, and each players favors a different approach, then the question comes down not to skill, but which method of play the rules favor.

And, of course, there is always the problem of dice - if, like in GW's games, a large part of the game comes down to rolling dice, the world's best player can always roll more 1's than the world's worst player.

@darkcloak - not that the is the norm, but there are some people who I've met that would rather minimize the social part of it, and are looking for a tabletop version of a computer game. I don't really understand this mentality (because I think a computer game with matchmaking is just better in this respect), but I guess to each their own.

@infinite array - right, in a perfect world we'd be able to pick two forces and blindly charge into battle for a fair fight. I thin that would be a wonderful thing, but most war games have bad matchups to some degree that makes that at least not quite so. I think we accept that chance is a factor when we play these games, and play on the averages, which to me is ok.

The bigger issue though, is that if I'm a person who wants to play an army based on ogres and giants seeming cool together, and you're a person who assembles their army based on synergy of high elves and sigmarites, how do we get a fair fight? Let's say that my army had no range and no magic, because that's the nature of those units, and while those types of units exist, I choose not to avail myself of them because the models don't thematically for the army.

Although this is pretty hypothetical, in 40k, we do it all the time (for instance, one side has ZERO range). It might even take 2-3 games to get it tuned right, and maybe we have to jigger the terrain a bt too. All I'm saying is.. Getting to that fair fight can be a lotta work! LOL. (still, the points ARE useful as a starting point; they're just nor useful as an ending point).

I've been enjoying the game. Getting 2 first time players into it this week.

 Herohammernostalgia wrote:
On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.

AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.

Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.

Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits

You know what else war is? Not fun.
A game is supposed to be fun. When the winner is obvious from the beginning its no longer fun.
Thats why people advocate balance and fairness.

@Talys
not saying your idea of a "true test of skill" is wrong cause it isn't but that to me isn't the only way to test ones skill a lopsided match can just as well test ones skill even if you end up you can sit there and be proud that you nearly turned it around.

as aos is concerned I'm optimistic about it points or no points be damned i play to have fun.

also those couple posts about the lore being destroyed, no its not destroyed in fact all the old lore is still there and still valid even plays a major part in the realms current predicament (sigmars alliance falling apart)

 Herohammernostalgia wrote:
On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.

It's a War game, not war. We are not doing a real war, nor a simulation of it.

And why have 'equal' armies? For the same reason boxing has weight categories.to allow for a level playing field.

Good original post and i agree with most of it.

AoS as is, is not my type of game though.

Back when i started playing wargames (25 years ago) most players were 18+
And my favourite games still are games like Epic (Armageddon) and Blood Bowl. Games that even most adult players cannot get good at.
For me AoS is too far from that type of game and i have more than enough other games to play.

I do have quite some WHFB armies and i will just wait and see what i can play with those armies. Maybe WHFB 8th edition, maybe a future version of AoS, maybe something else.

I do think AoS is a smart move and executed quite well bij GW. And i love the models.
And i have more models from games i never played, so i even agree to GWs statement "we make models, not games".

Deadnight wrote:

 Herohammernostalgia wrote:
On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.

It's a War game, not war. We are not doing a real war, nor a simulation of it.

And why have 'equal' armies? For the same reason boxing has weight categories.to allow for a level playing field.

Weight categories only give a range so theres no definite equality, only approximate.

AoS suggests (but doesn't codify) the same thing. i.e. the players make the judgement on what is approximately equal if that is desired.

Most AoS gamers seem to be capable of this, with or without the use of warscrolls as a rough ready reckoner.

 notprop wrote:

Weight categories only give a range so theres no definite equality, only approximate.

AoS suggests (but doesn't codify) the same thing. i.e. the players make the judgement on what is approximately equal if that is desired.

Most AoS gamers seem to be capable of this, with or without the use of warscrolls as a rough ready reckoner.

Joe and Sam, strangers that come across each other make a time to meet the following day to play The Wargame. They meet at the local store the next day and both unpack their armies of predetermined sizes. As they lay them out, Joe silently notes that, by chance, the configuration of his army is pretty optimal against the configuration of Sam's army. Sam eyes Joe's army, and silently concludes that, the configuration of his army is probably a poor match for Joe's -- not an impossible fight, but a very difficult and likely frustrating one.

So at this point, what do Joe and Sam do?

A) Neither says anything, deploy, and play the game
B) Joe says something and offers to remove some units
C) Sam says something and asks for Joe to remove some units

We have all seen and participated in this ritual before, and more likely than not been in both shoes. A is by far the most common. B is really rare, for a few reasons. First of all, Joe wants to win! An advantage is good. Second, maybe Sam is really good, or has some mean trick that Joe doesn't know about; or at least, this is a rationale for shutting up. Third, it was up to Sam to bring a good army anyhow. C almost never happens, because that just sounds like whining.

And that's assuming that Joe is interested in a fair fight. There's a good chunk of war gamers out there that would gleefully drool in anticipation of an easy win. I've met lots.

The social experiment that is AoS pairs Joe and Sam together. Joe and Sam then a) figure out what kind scenario they're going to play b) look at the models that both have available to them, and c) figure out what models they *should* play in order to make the game fun and fair.

Philosophically, it sounds like a wonderful. Practically, it's excludes a segment of gamers who wants to be rewarded at least a little bit by getting a leg up by building a clever army, and excludes completely the segment of gamers who want to REALLY want an advantage by bringing a clever army. I think those two groups are pretty big, and if I'm honest, for the majority of my gaming life, I was probably in the, "Screw fair! I want to build an advantageous list!" category. It's probably only been about half my gaming career (since 1988) that I've become ambivalent to "the win", and probably entirely because I've found a great group that is much more satisfying to play with than just beat the snot out of.

A few factors have played in my shift -- a much greater focus (by both me and my friends) on awesomely painted models and really cool armies defocuses to some extent the spotlight on superoptimal armies. Also, MtG with totally non-competitive players really helped shine a light on how fun a game can be as a social event, rather than a competitive one. Competitive computer games have gotten a lot better, to scratch that itch. And finally, I think I've just chilled some as I got older. I don't really have anything to prove to anyone (especially myself), and a "win" just doesn't mean as much anymore.

Still, I RELISH building super duper armies that exploit rules to the maximum, even if I never play them. It's just fun theoryhammering them up. Maybe playing it against myself for kicks... like, that new 1+ FNP Iron Hands trick, for instance, made me salivate in a Pavlovian way.

That's a er really interesting story you have there chap.

But the important bit is in the first sentence where Jim and Billybob met and arranged things.

If you chaps in the North or Amurika are just blundering around on the off chance that Cleetus from the next county might have arrived with same idea as you then of course you are going to have troubles. Talking to one another before hand helps in so many things.

I don't think it's a case of removing units - it's a case of one or both spotting that the match up might be extremely one-sided - whether by volume or synergy - and discussing whether further deployment occurs.

My area used the Clash of Sword UK tournament comp, and we're having a blast. The same people who usually do very well in WHM/40k/infinity still continue to do well. However, the difference now, is that those who often take tabletop hobby casually or just simply aren't good at any of them actually enjoy playing. A lot of the non-competitive players are happily playing alongside the competitive guys.

That difference actually makes the game really enjoyable. I would say AoS is like Hearthstone is to MTG. I would keep whatever "competitive" tabletop game I'm already playing AND AoS.

@Talys: good description.

Among friends we usually might play it anyway, but the next time we both see to it that one army gets better or the other worse.

Something i also thought of by this example is the aspect of nice miniatures.
In tournaments, i often face players with an army that is build to win and in many cases:
- not their army and/or not painted by themselves; paintjob is exactly so to get the maximum op painting points
- an unpainted army; because painting points are all or nothing anyway

Especially the unpainted armies bother me a bit. Because you don't need a painted army to win "best general".

And IMO the best general would be someone who scores best in a tournament where everyone plays 2 battles against every opponent: playing their own army and playing the other.
But i have never seen that tournament set-up.

 notprop wrote:

Weight categories only give a range so theres no definite equality, only approximate.
AoS suggests (but doesn't codify) the same thing. i.e. the players make the judgement on what is approximately equal if that is desired.
Most AoS gamers seem to be capable of this, with or without the use of warscrolls as a rough ready reckoner.

I wasn't talking about aos, but ok. I was talking about the appeal of 'equal', or 'balanced' armies. Specifically in relation to the question of why it is important.

You eyeball it in aos, and some historicals, you use a sideboard and multi list format in wmh. other games have their own systems. Ultimately it's important that the players can approach from a level and 'fair' playing field.

Can't go back to old way. 40k limiting and restricted now. AoS is the future. Buy whatever you want is the new way. World of opportunity open.

 Talys wrote:

Joe and Sam, strangers that come across each other make a time to meet the following day to play The Wargame. They meet at the local store the next day and both unpack their armies of predetermined sizes. As they lay them out, Joe silently notes that, by chance, the configuration of his army is pretty optimal against the configuration of Sam's army. Sam eyes Joe's army, and silently concludes that, the configuration of his army is probably a poor match for Joe's -- not an impossible fight, but a very difficult and likely frustrating one.

So at this point, what do Joe and Sam do?

A) Neither says anything, deploy, and play the game
B) Joe says something and offers to remove some units
C) Sam says something and asks for Joe to remove some units

D) walk away from these terribly balanced games. Have a beer. Discuss possible alternatives.

None of those suggestions are wrong. They all work fine. But You're still assuming they got to the scenario in the first place. This does not have to be though. Other games have other solutions. Malifaux lets you create your list after rolling for mission. Wmh has two or three list formats. Infinity is just brilliantly balanced.