Switch Theme:

Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Deadnight wrote:

So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.
I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?.


There is not an innate flaw in points.

The designers design the game. The game is a logical mathematical system with a solution that can be described by the points system. By definition, a properly designed points system absolutely would factor in all the synergies etc that are controllable by the designer.

If the game allows a desert army to be composed entirely of unarmed pontoon bridge engineers, with a points value of X, which is equal to X points of tanks, infantry and artillery, that is a choice by the designer.

A sensible player would not choose to compose their army entirely of useless units, but if the designer wanted to prevent this from ever happening, they could write a force selection system that stops the player from taking more than one pontoon train.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 Kilkrazy wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
Deadnight wrote:

So in other words, points are a mechanism for balance and they work when the designers are doing their jobs.
I don't completely disagree, but you place the blame on the designers. There is absolutely no way that a point system could factor in all the different synergies, advantages, and changing game factors - is that the designer's fault that points have innate flaws? And if so, wouldn't a really good designer, rather than patch those holes with additional systems, look for a different system which was not innately flawed?.


There is not an innate flaw in points.

The designers design the game. The game is a logical mathematical system with a solution that can be described by the points system. By definition, a properly designed points system absolutely would factor in all the synergies etc that are controllable by the designer.

If the game allows a desert army to be composed entirely of unarmed pontoon bridge engineers, with a points value of X, which is equal to X points of tanks, infantry and artillery, that is a choice by the designer.

A sensible player would not choose to compose their army entirely of useless units, but if the designer wanted to prevent this from ever happening, they could write a force selection system that stops the player from taking more than one pontoon train.


You might need to be more precise what you mean by a "logical mathematical system". Assigning a point value to a model or unit that has subjective value (context dependent), and then using these points as if they were scalar values is gibberish (mathematically speaking). If units in the armies have "true values" that are reasonably close together, and/or you use other balancing mechanism such as FOCs to help limit the damage, then you can end up with a system that makes balanced games a lot of the time. Of course, it's often not perfect, but what is?

If you're not sure what I'm talking about with this "scalar value", let me give an example from Amazon's rating system. A book has a score of 4.5 stars, that is derived because lots of people gave the book 4 or 5 stars, but a few people gave it 1 or 2 stars. These scores are ordinal values - 5 is better than 4 is better than 3... Showing them in the bar chart is perfectly sensible and appropriate, but as soon as Amazon compute the average, they stuffed up. It's fine as a marketing tool, but is gibberish mathematically speaking. Instead of using a 1-5 a scale, suppose they used an A-E scale. It's the same measure, but obviously Amazon wouldn't try to compute the average of lots of letters - nor should they do it with numbers. You CAN do things like add up, take averages, etc, with scalar values (eg, height).

So the trick for a game designer is to come up with a scalar points system that (reasonably) accurately models the units in the armies, taking into account objective and subjective qualities. Even allowing for an FOC-type structure, this is quite challenging for games with the breadth of model/unit power we see in AoS, WHFB, 40k, etc.

So back to points being a logical, mathematical system, you're quite correct, as long as they don't get abused through ignorance.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/26 23:24:30


 
   
Made in gb
Painting Within the Lines






 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 bitethythumb wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"


What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.

Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/26 23:52:55


 
   
Made in gb
Painting Within the Lines






 Talys wrote:
 bitethythumb wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"


What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.

Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.
and for some that is not the case, a lot of wargamers dare I say most play to recreate real battles and to have fun, if you are a wargamer and you try to recreate a historical French battle its not like you expect to win as the French ( ) this I say with the assumption that most wargamers do not play fantasy style games... Again AoS is great for pickup gamers if both are seeking the same outcome as you, assuming most wargamers are trying to one up other players is just that, an assumption... AoS is simply a different styled wargame than what you want in a wargame... Seek another... Its good as a pickup game and bad dependent on the players, I find list building boring, tedious and a waste of time... But that is just me... Maybe that is why the things I bought reflect me not caring about lists (steam tank, dwarf engineer, empire engineer on steed, hellpit, savage orc, spirit hosts, flamers, cairn wraith, necromancer, AoS starter box.. Which I got for the stormcasts, will trade the khorne ones for other things... Celestant makes for a great hero)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 00:12:25


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Deadnight wrote:

You not liking a solution doesn't invalidate it's effectiveness. Don't be so quick to dismiss.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying about not having points in AoS. I think points are an albatross around wargaming's neck, but to a lot of people, it is more like a sacred cow.

So basically, the tl:dr is it's too big to balance.

Not too big, too situational. As in, a single number can not encompass all the variables required to evaluate a unit's value in a given situation.

CCGs are probably the closest games in this situation, as they are very situational in nature + endless expansions, and they don't use points. They let you use any card (though some limit how many copies), and the players decide guidelines (not rules) for creating effective decks. Stuff like, half the deck should be resource cards. Some games require you to make multiple decks. I think L5R has you build two different types of decks of 30 cards each, together making a 60 card deck. Star Trek CCG has two decks (seed decks for building the game space and adventure decks for the ships and crew members that play in it) and can have multiple different side decks of ten cards or so for various purposes.

While it doesn't create completely balanced game, the random nature of the CCGs mixed with the engine building aspect means that hard counters are guaranteed to show up at the right time and that more powerful cards tend to come out later in the game, so the games tend to go for a while before becoming completely one sided. Wargames just put all the units on the table from the get go, so your $100+ tank that you love is instantly worthless if your opponent fields its counter unit.

So genuine question, (and bear in mind, I play this way with fow) how do you mix and match for a 'fair game' in aos? Surely, eyeballing it is as prone to error as the 'innately flawed' points system? Or for you, is the creativity this approach allows worth the error rate?

I don't think AoS has a strict RPS style dependency. Where one unit is better at doing something, it is only slightly better - to the point where synergies can be overcome with brute force or tactical maneuvering. In that way, I don't think you need to really account for the worth of each model, but instead just need to limit their number in some way.

I think wound counts work well enough. Most people I've heard from seem to think it works well. Actually, I don't think I've heard of it not working. Has anyone tried using wounds and it didn't result in a halfway decent game?

Actually, you are partially incorrect. Since The players define and essentially are 'the system' in aos, then thry can be a systematic flaw. All you need is for someone to say 'no' or make a bad judgement call and you end up with a rubbish game. I do see value in it, but it also has potential to be 'innately flawed' to me.

Well, I think a system which, when used as intended, results in a bad game to be more flawed than a bad player. After all, you can just not play with bad players, but there's nothing you can do to ever make your favorite model worth its given points.

Sounds like your WMH group is very uncreative and unimaginative. It's a shame really - best thing about the game, IMO is trying out new stuff. Right there in page5.

Oh, they are very uncreative and unimaginative. It drives me nuts. The thing is, though, they don't seem to be particularly out of character with the online sentiments I see from other players. It's possible to hear a discussion about army design from one of them and then read the exact same discussion online a week later - a separate group of unrelated people thinking the same thoughts completely independent of each other. This has happened twice so far, and I think it is a bit creepy actually.
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





 Talys wrote:
 bitethythumb wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"


What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.

Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.

As someone who relies almost exclusively on pick up games, your views are very inaccurate about them, Talys.
What makes AOS very bad for pick up games, is the pre-negotiation before the battle with a complete stranger. It's easy to do so with a close knit group of friends. But that trying to get an even battle with someone that has different ideas of "fair" is quite difficult. Also, the idea of bringing your collection instead of a tighter thought out army makes transportation a hassle. The rules out of box are somewhat lacking and houseruling is also difficult with a stranger.



Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in gb
Painting Within the Lines






 MWHistorian wrote:
 Talys wrote:
 bitethythumb wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice.
That's fine. Different taste and all.
But the no points thing, while fun for close friends, is unworkable for pick up games, thus illiminating a large portion of your player base.
Points can be used for scenarios, narratives and whatever else. So, points is the superior system because it allows for more varied styles of play while still keeping it reasonably balanced.
why would it "eliminate" pick up players? If you go to play AoS expect a fast easy to play skirmish game, that should be the aim, what about AoS makes for bad pick up games? Any problem should/could be fixed through a simple conversation especially if the aim is for both players to enjoy/have fun... I keep hearing how AoS is bad for pick up games but most of the time their argument is "some player will bring too many models/ create an abusive list like 5 nagash" if that happens unless the player is a total tool he should compromise... Like "sure, use 5 nagash but no sudden death Kay?"


What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.

Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.

As someone who relies almost exclusively on pick up games, your views are very inaccurate about them, Talys.
What makes AOS very bad for pick up games, is the pre-negotiation before the battle with a complete stranger. It's easy to do so with a close knit group of friends. But that trying to get an even battle with someone that has different ideas of "fair" is quite difficult. Also, the idea of bringing your collection instead of a tighter thought out army makes transportation a hassle. The rules out of box are somewhat lacking and houseruling is also difficult with a stranger.
so far I have found it pretty easy to do it with strangers and if that fails I would let the gods of dice decide as it clearly says in the rules or "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" if 2 players cannot come a conclusion, roll a dice, winner concludes... I mean its a lot harder for 2 strangers to ignore a written rule then to add one in, imagine a player coming to play a game but he says "can we ignore the X rule because X and Y"... I am sure you could roll a dice and decide if it stays but then most players play as is written, and AoS writes clearly "talk with your opponent" the rules demand discussions
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 MWHistorian wrote:
 Talys wrote:

What it eliminates almost completely is the pickup scene where players try to one-up each other with killer lists that sounded great on the Internet. It also -- to an extent -- takes out a lot of the rewards for figuring out really effective combos -- ie synergies that dramatically increase your win ratio, because you pay points only for the individual units, not for the great synergy.

Unfortunately (or not), these are also reasons that a lot of people play war games, and some peeps feel that preparing the most winningest list ever is part of the war games.

As someone who relies almost exclusively on pick up games, your views are very inaccurate about them, Talys.
What makes AOS very bad for pick up games, is the pre-negotiation before the battle with a complete stranger. It's easy to do so with a close knit group of friends. But that trying to get an even battle with someone that has different ideas of "fair" is quite difficult. Also, the idea of bringing your collection instead of a tighter thought out army makes transportation a hassle. The rules out of box are somewhat lacking and houseruling is also difficult with a stranger.


Please keep in mind that I'm not saying that ALL people who enjoy pickup games are like this. I'm not making a claim on any ratio of players who like to gain an advantage by list-building, nor am I saying there is anything wrong with it. Quite to the contrary, 95%+ of Hearthstone players are like this, and a huge chunk of Magic players. I'm this way on PC games.

All I'm saying is that AoS is a huge turnoff to people who want to list-to-win war games, and that a massive portion of that is netlisting rather than novel armies.

To address your point about difficulties with playing with strangers, I've now played about 9-10 AoS games, some with strangers, or at least people I've never played with. It's really easy to arrive at equivalence. It takes like, a few minutes at most. And really, we've not had any problems RAW other than measure from base. I will happily concede that games with friends are easier to figure out, though tbh, the main reason to play with friends for me is that I like playing in a home rather than in a club/store, prefer playing with people who really enjoy well-painted models, and prefer to NOT bump into the occasional waste-of-time game.
   
Made in ch
Warning From Magnus? Not Listening!





Holy Terra.

Honestly, when I first read the AoS rules I felt like crying. Seriously, they've changed everything about the game we loved. But then played a few games (completely destroyed a HE army without my skaven losing a single wound, or even getting hit ), saw how epic my WoC look in lose formation, and realized its an absolutely amazing game. I still think its missing stuff (Templates, blasts,MOAR SPELLS) but still, it's fun. I'm keeping all my models on square bases, except my new Bloodreavers, so I can still play WHFB. Just give AoS a chance, Mabey you'll like it


Ember

   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

What I mean by a logical mathematical system is that an inch is an inch. A unit with a movement value of 6 inches is more valuable than a unit with a movement value of four inches.

Similarly, a unit that puts out more damage than another unit is more valuable. A unit with more hit points is harder to kill and therefore more valuable.

These are all mathematical measurements that have effect objectively on the table top. Subject to the variation of luck and player decisions, the game will play out according to these objective factors.


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran





 Kilkrazy wrote:
What I mean by a logical mathematical system is that an inch is an inch. A unit with a movement value of 6 inches is more valuable than a unit with a movement value of four inches.

Similarly, a unit that puts out more damage than another unit is more valuable. A unit with more hit points is harder to kill and therefore more valuable.

These are all mathematical measurements that have effect objectively on the table top. Subject to the variation of luck and player decisions, the game will play out according to these objective factors.



Thanks for clarifying what you meant and you're 100% correct. You've highlighted the key issue for developing a points system - 6" move > 4" move, 4 damage > 2 damage, summon 2x per turn > once per turn, and so on, are objectively true but assigning a point value to the relation "is more valuable than", and then combining a bunch of these to derive the point value of a model/unit is really quite the trick.

IF your model/unit types are fairly homogeneous, you can probably get away with it, but for units that have wildly varying stats and abilities you're basically pissing in the wind. It's in this sense that trying to assign points to units is fatally flawed because you end up making up all sorts of bogus "rules" for how things fit together. Play-testing can sometimes help to hack the points allocation to adjust for the grossest errors, but there's always holes you can drive a truck through - a lot of folks like these holes, because that's where the net-lists live....

PS. I am not opposed to points and comp systems when they help me and my friends play put together exciting games. I don't like them when they produce lop-sided games, which is all too frequent in my opinion.

PPS. Not that I think NO structure makes it easy to make good games - different challenge altogether....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 11:19:00


 
   
Made in au
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

Why are so many people arguing that points and balance can't work when there are SO MANY examples of it working wonderfully?

 Fafnir wrote:
Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
 
   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran





One reason may be that you just can't put a point value on certain things in a given context. I'll give you an example. DZC is using points very well. Yes they come with a whole lot bunch of restrictions, units aren't that unique from one another, you have to take some units (and if you you just can't play the game and will lose without question), but on the large they provide what most people defending here are looking for: a size estimate for an army with which no army should have the upper hand just by means of army construction. There are some counters and bad matches, but they'll not in be the scope of my example. For all the effort the designer has put into the point system, there is one fact that is widely accepted (well as widely as there are players and there aren't that many for now ) - Shaltari (a somewhat 40k eldar equivalent)dominate the tournaments more often than not. This is due to a combination of a passive 5+ invulnerable (that may be boosted) and more importantly, due to their teleporting mechanic (mostly troops). There was some point increases (and decreases) to some units, but the status quo remains mostly the same. How one can balance that with points? Increase the point cost of non-transports and other armies will trample over them with sheer firepower. You may be mobile but anywhere you go there will be 5 tanks waiting for your two. Increase the point cost of transports and the shaltari are suddenly left with isolated pockets of slow moving walkers or paper-thin tanks (their transports are already on the high end of the point scale). This is something, I think, points can't fix in full. I'd love to be proved wrong and to see Dave&co think of a solution, though.

Bottom line is, the units above have point values, but their functionality is so much apart from everything else in the game that their cost loses its meaning.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/27 11:51:10


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 jonolikespie wrote:
Why are so many people arguing that points and balance can't work when there are SO MANY examples of it working wonderfully?
Well, I'm not sure about that. But my stance has always been that points are fine and not having points is fine too. I've mostly been defending the latter by showing that points aren't perfect in many ways and could actually be detrimental to certain types of games. They also don't actually create balance, which is why most people seem to favor them so much. They act as limitations for army building and work more to incentivize choices.

That being said, I don't mind points in general. I don't love them though and welcome novel approaches.
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





Snapshot wrote:


IF your model/unit types are fairly homogeneous, you can probably get away with it, but for units that have wildly varying stats and abilities you're basically pissing in the wind. It's in this sense that trying to assign points to units is fatally flawed because you end up making up all sorts of bogus "rules" for how things fit together. Play-testing can sometimes help to hack the points allocation to adjust for the grossest errors, but there's always holes you can drive a truck through - a lot of folks like these holes, because that's where the net-lists live....


Speaking as a games designer (who has done some small work on GW games in the past), this is not untrue by any stretch.

We (games designers and, looking at these posts, many of you) have known that points systems are not only not 100% accurate (and thus 100% balanced) but that they cannot be. This is for several reasons, but they include synergies between units and their interaction with opposing units.

For example, the three Land Raider problem, something that was recognised during 3rd ed (and maybe before that, would have been before my time as a writer). One Land Raider probably is worth 250 points in most battles. But once you add a second, both are worth just a little bit more, as most armies can deal with one heavily armoured vehicle but two is a bigger problem. Add a third Land Raider and the problem starts compounding.

Those three Land Raiders are creating their own synergy that is not in the rules and, more to the point, is . That starts getting very, very hard to quantify.

Imagine the humble Grot for a moment. Aside from maybe providing cover to another unit (and how will we measure that in points?), he has no value against those Land Raiders (certainly nothing you can measure without using decimal points). Get enough of his mates together though, and they will cause a Tactical Squad problems. This would be an (extreme) example of interactions between armies.

Or the Drop Pod. Its value certainly changes depending on whether you put a Tactical Squad inside or Centurions. And it will change again, depending on what you arm them with (which, again, will be affected by the force they are pitted against).

On top of all that, once you add player skill to the mix, things go right out of the window. You cannot put a points value on player skill - more importantly, it cannot effectively be measured. Once you add the random element of these games (dice), it gets buried further. Imagine, for example, two players playing a game then having it discussed afterwards among the onlookers. They divide between those who say the victor was skilful, while others say the loser was unlucky on his dice rolls (as an aside, Jervis did a great article in a not-so-recent White Dwarf about luck and the perceptions of players, but I digress). If you fancy some introspection, think about your own games and why you won/lost them.

There seems to be a thought in this thread that all these numbers can just be popped into a computer and it will spew out the correct points values for every unit - and that GW is a little bit simple for not doing so. Unfortunately, that does not work. It has been tried. People just started feeding those same figures into another computer which provided them with optimum builds, and the cycle continues.

As a games designer, wanting to keep everything accessible, you use averages. Sometimes this means starting with an actual formula for calculating points (Battlefleet Gothic did - which is why those core cruisers are so close in points - and the 1st edition Warhammers did). Another method (one I like myself) is to pick a base line unit (or units), set that at 100 points and then base every other unit in the game in an around that via playtesting - that is effectively doing things 'by eye' which I am fairly certain is how GW have done things for a long stretch and, though it sounds terribly, it is done because 99% of the time, it works. Doing this every day of your working life gives you a sense of what will work and what won't. However, the goal is to build that framework that will cater to the 99%. I really don't want to sound poncey about this, but there is an element of art involved, even when you are dealing with hard mechanics. It ain't just about the maths.

There is no magic wand for points systems and resulting balance. There cannot be because of the wide variations within these games and because you buggers will always try to find the road less travelled It comes down to creating a platform within the context of an entire army that allows two reasonable players to come together and enjoy a game without things being too lopsided. At the end of the day, that is the goal.

Anyway, I am starting to waffle now, so I'll bow out...

40k and Age of Sigmar Blog - A Tabletop Gamer's Diary: https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/

Mongoose Publishing: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/ 
   
Made in us
Cosmic Joe





MongooseMatt wrote:




On top of all that, once you add player skill to the mix, things go right out of the window. You cannot put a points value on player skill - more importantly, it cannot effectively be measured. Once you add the random element of these games (dice), it gets buried further. Imagine, for example, two players playing a game then having it discussed afterwards among the onlookers. They divide between those who say the victor was skilful, while others say the loser was unlucky on his dice rolls (as an aside, Jervis did a great article in a not-so-recent White Dwarf about luck and the perceptions of players, but I digress). If you fancy some introspection, think about your own games and why you won/lost them.


Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
The purpose of points is to allow two players of roughly equal skill to have a fair game.
Roughly, because (as the second part of the above paragraph talks about) chance enters into the game. Chance has nothing to do with points.
Your whole assumption about points is that it's not perfect.
No one is saying that it is or can be. What we're saying is that it's still better than anything else out there. It allows for free army construction withing confines. And this sounds counter intuitive, but confines and restrictions are often how creativity is spurred forward. (It's an art major thing I can explain later.) Also, points allow competitive play, pick up games, narrative campaigns, etc. So, its actually far less restrictive to type of games.
I'll also say, in fair match ups, it allows a greater freedom of army construction because you're not building your army to your opponents. You bring what you want regardless. (within the point limit) In AOS people can do that but it'll end up a one sided mess.
One players has a much higher skill level? Give them a point penalty. It's a base line to work from.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 13:50:39




Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





@MongooseMatt (long post just above)

What you have said has been putt up often before, and is something that GW fails at more than most games design studios do (at least the more popular ones)

A lot of games don't use points in a vacuum useing both missions and a use of combined arms to even out as best for there games.
Warmachine is expecting people to be useing there units as a whole in synergy to each other.
Most other games I play also.

Some reason I think GW is pushing this can take anything you want over thinking about your army, and I think it's hurting the Avg gamer.

What I think GW neglects as a whole nowadays

-Well thought out points and army structure
-Good quality missions and scenarios
-failure at providing alternate ways of play despite pushing there players in all difernt directions.

Things I would have liked to see was an advanced sheet with a way for points and army structure.
At least 10 good missions with a scenario or campaign for all the army's to take part in up.
They really should have put some more effort into keeping the rules clear. For such a small rule set there are way many issues.
Not that much to ask from a company like GW.

Who right now I think are making the same mistakes they made with fantasy.
The next year will be interesting for the community, but I wonder how many bridges have been burned.


Minor thought I don't think I have seen a company fail so much at marketing :0 this I find even harder to understand than anything.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 MWHistorian wrote:

Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
That was unnecessary.

I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game, and that players will blame the game, not their own skill, for the imbalance. Since you cannot measure player skill, you cannot control for it in the design, and thus even the most balanced experience will still appear unbalanced to the players.

The purpose of points is to allow two players of roughly equal skill to have a fair game.
It was at this point that Sqorgar realized the conversation was going in circles.
   
Made in gb
Painting Within the Lines






Apple fox wrote:

They really should have put some more effort into keeping the rules clear. For such a small rule set there are way many issues.
Not that much to ask from a company like GW.
have you tried obeying "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" that usually sorts out any issues you have in 10 seconds or less.. I think is by far the greatest piece of rule writing ever designed in a wargame.
   
Made in us
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm





Riverside CA

Spoiler:
MongooseMatt wrote:
Snapshot wrote:


IF your model/unit types are fairly homogeneous, you can probably get away with it, but for units that have wildly varying stats and abilities you're basically pissing in the wind. It's in this sense that trying to assign points to units is fatally flawed because you end up making up all sorts of bogus "rules" for how things fit together. Play-testing can sometimes help to hack the points allocation to adjust for the grossest errors, but there's always holes you can drive a truck through - a lot of folks like these holes, because that's where the net-lists live....


Speaking as a games designer (who has done some small work on GW games in the past), this is not untrue by any stretch.

We (games designers and, looking at these posts, many of you) have known that points systems are not only not 100% accurate (and thus 100% balanced) but that they cannot be. This is for several reasons, but they include synergies between units and their interaction with opposing units.

For example, the three Land Raider problem, something that was recognised during 3rd ed (and maybe before that, would have been before my time as a writer). One Land Raider probably is worth 250 points in most battles. But once you add a second, both are worth just a little bit more, as most armies can deal with one heavily armoured vehicle but two is a bigger problem. Add a third Land Raider and the problem starts compounding.

Those three Land Raiders are creating their own synergy that is not in the rules and, more to the point, is . That starts getting very, very hard to quantify.

Imagine the humble Grot for a moment. Aside from maybe providing cover to another unit (and how will we measure that in points?), he has no value against those Land Raiders (certainly nothing you can measure without using decimal points). Get enough of his mates together though, and they will cause a Tactical Squad problems. This would be an (extreme) example of interactions between armies.

Or the Drop Pod. Its value certainly changes depending on whether you put a Tactical Squad inside or Centurions. And it will change again, depending on what you arm them with (which, again, will be affected by the force they are pitted against).

On top of all that, once you add player skill to the mix, things go right out of the window. You cannot put a points value on player skill - more importantly, it cannot effectively be measured. Once you add the random element of these games (dice), it gets buried further. Imagine, for example, two players playing a game then having it discussed afterwards among the onlookers. They divide between those who say the victor was skilful, while others say the loser was unlucky on his dice rolls (as an aside, Jervis did a great article in a not-so-recent White Dwarf about luck and the perceptions of players, but I digress). If you fancy some introspection, think about your own games and why you won/lost them.

There seems to be a thought in this thread that all these numbers can just be popped into a computer and it will spew out the correct points values for every unit - and that GW is a little bit simple for not doing so. Unfortunately, that does not work. It has been tried. People just started feeding those same figures into another computer which provided them with optimum builds, and the cycle continues.

As a games designer, wanting to keep everything accessible, you use averages. Sometimes this means starting with an actual formula for calculating points (Battlefleet Gothic did - which is why those core cruisers are so close in points - and the 1st edition Warhammers did). Another method (one I like myself) is to pick a base line unit (or units), set that at 100 points and then base every other unit in the game in an around that via playtesting - that is effectively doing things 'by eye' which I am fairly certain is how GW have done things for a long stretch and, though it sounds terribly, it is done because 99% of the time, it works. Doing this every day of your working life gives you a sense of what will work and what won't. However, the goal is to build that framework that will cater to the 99%. I really don't want to sound poncey about this, but there is an element of art involved, even when you are dealing with hard mechanics. It ain't just about the maths.

There is no magic wand for points systems and resulting balance. There cannot be because of the wide variations within these games and because you buggers will always try to find the road less travelled It comes down to creating a platform within the context of an entire army that allows two reasonable players to come together and enjoy a game without things being too lopsided. At the end of the day, that is the goal.

Anyway, I am starting to waffle now, so I'll bow out...

The local META can have a big affect too.

Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.

Space Wolf Player Since 1989
My First Impression Threads:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/727226.page;jsessionid=3BCA26863DCC17CF82F647B2839DA6E5

I am a Furry that plays with little Toy Soldiers; if you are taking me too seriously I am not the only one with Issues.

IEGA Web Site”: http://www.meetup.com/IEGA-InlandEmpireGamersAssociation/ 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





 bitethythumb wrote:
Apple fox wrote:

They really should have put some more effort into keeping the rules clear. For such a small rule set there are way many issues.
Not that much to ask from a company like GW.
have you tried obeying "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" that usually sorts out any issues you have in 10 seconds or less.. I think is by far the greatest piece of rule writing ever designed in a wargame.


Lots of games have that rule (I have played games with it half my life), doesn't mean that the devs should not put in more effort. GW have been doing games for a long time, they kinda should know How it works by now.

It also doesn't fix the issue coming up again, and the inconstancy that if two players agree to one interpretation. And then they both play 2 new players who roll and it plays the other way.

   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 Anpu42 wrote:
The local META can have a big affect too.

Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.


In a small community like miniature wargaming, the local meta is *huge*. In our area, *most* players don't go out and buy every model that's there, or every model that is produced. Therefore, you can garner a huge advantage by simply tailoring your lists/models to be good counters to the armies that are going to be effective against your most likely opponents -- you don't even need to decide what you're going to play until you know who you're going to play, even without going extreme (oh, the guy with all the S6... gonna bring in a Knight!). In a "casual pickup crowd", this makes a pretty big difference if you're one of the few people doing it.
   
Made in gb
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran





 Sqorgar wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
That was unnecessary.


Well, to be fair, there is a reason that gentleman is already on my ignore list Still, if anyone ever wonders why designers (from pretty much any company) don't frequent boards like this often, that is a good example of why.

I should also say, out of honesty, that I have never actually worked for GW. I have done some freelance writing in the past, some of which involved the creation of new units and scenarios.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game, and that players will blame the game, not their own skill, for the imbalance. Since you cannot measure player skill, you cannot control for it in the design, and thus even the most balanced experience will still appear unbalanced to the players.


Yes, that. Thank you!

 Anpu42 wrote:

The local META can have a big affect too.

Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.


Indeed, and that is a very good point.

Designers don't (can't!) design a game specifically for you. They have to make a game that will serve as many people as possible for as much of the time as possible.

(Actually, the starting point for most games is usually what the designer enjoys, with the hope that if he likes it, there should be others out there that do too - market forces and practicalities then kick in, hammering out the original plan).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 15:25:39


40k and Age of Sigmar Blog - A Tabletop Gamer's Diary: https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/

Mongoose Publishing: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/ 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




Think people complaining of unbalance are bringing 8th conceptions of units to their thoughts about the game. Everything dies in AoS. It's much more balanced because of that.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





MongooseMatt wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:

Wait....what? Player skill makes points unbalanced? Yeah, you definitely worked for GW.
That was unnecessary.


Well, to be fair, there is a reason that gentleman is already on my ignore list Still, if anyone ever wonders why designers (from pretty much any company) don't frequent boards like this often, that is a good example of why.

I should also say, out of honesty, that I have never actually worked for GW. I have done some freelance writing in the past, some of which involved the creation of new units and scenarios.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I believe his point is that two balanced armies in the hands of two unbalanced players still creates an unbalanced game, and that players will blame the game, not their own skill, for the imbalance. Since you cannot measure player skill, you cannot control for it in the design, and thus even the most balanced experience will still appear unbalanced to the players.


Yes, that. Thank you!

 Anpu42 wrote:

The local META can have a big affect too.

Using the Land Raider as an Example.
In my Local Meta that does not usually take a lot of Anti-Tank [Armor-Bane/Lance/Destroyer] Weapons a Single Land Raider can Dominate any Game, let alone three.
Take a META that has entire armies loaded up with those and the Land Raider is almost worthless.


Indeed, and that is a very good point.

Designers don't (can't!) design a game specifically for you. They have to make a game that will serve as many people as possible for as much of the time as possible.

(Actually, the starting point for most games is usually what the designer enjoys, with the hope that if he likes it, there should be others out there that do too - market forces and practicalities then kick in, hammering out the original plan).


This is a responce to the last part, but quoting is really weird today on iPad :(

Better games will have a better meta game, with the above thought on land raiders. 40k has a really avg meta game with difernt army's being overloaded with options,mane others with far less ability to confront what can be put on the table.

I think flyers are a perfect example of how something that could have ad a lot to the game, can really be implemented in a lazy and end up just another thing.
Some army's still don't have decent anti flyers on there own.

Let's face it as a community, age of sigmar isn't an amazing rule set, it's cheep and quick and does little more than provide for GW to sell minis. Which is fine, good even if they can work with that.

But GW killed a game to set this one up.
GW doesn't do feedback or market research so I don't think has any idea why people may have been buying less.

I play naritive games a lot, I run a RPG as a table top game with scenarios once a month, I do 1 RPG each weekend, another every 2 weeks.
I play warmachine points and non points in a variety of ways.
Infinity gives me tough games against good oponants and again, no points naritive on a semi regular basis.

As far as development I don't really think that much effort went into the game, and it only holds value for the naritive that GW mostly destroy. It's current naritive is bland and needs a lot of work. It has the chance at that, but does GW have what it takes as a company ? I wonder at that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/27 16:03:17


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Apple fox wrote:

Let's face it as a community, age of sigmar isn't an amazing rule set, it's cheep and quick and does little more than provide for GW to sell minis.
You are wrong. I'll provide as much evidence to back up my assertion as you did. None at all.

But GW killed a game to set this one up.

Did they? Everything I've heard said that WFB was already dead. Compare how WFB went out to how The Hobbit will go out in the next month or so. The Hobbit is already disappearing from store shelves, the products are rumored to be direct only until stock runs dry. No promotion. No new releases. Just a quiet, slow death - out of sight, out of mind.

Whereas WFB had the End Times before being put to pasture, and all your models work with the new game. Even if the game is different, it is a sequel. The Warhammer brand lives on. Your armies live on. It's a different game, but let's not pretend that WFB would've just continued on, as is, if Age of Sigmar hadn't stabbed it in the back. GW has bent over backwards to give WFB a grand send off and allow forward compatibility for you stuff.

The only real complaint you can have is that GW didn't admit they were killing WFB early enough, by it would've cast a gloomy shade over End Times and resulted in significantly lower sales while they were building a bridge to AoS - and the players would've been just as pissed off and just as offended at the very existence of AoS, so nothing would've been gained by either party.

GW doesn't do feedback or market research so I don't think has any idea why people may have been buying less.

I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.

Second, in most creative industries, the idea of a product being focused tested to banality and back is the worst creative decision that can be made in the eyes of players. Not doing market research would be a sign of integrity, as a game company sticks to its creative vision regardless of what the unwashed masses think. The fact is, when you don't like a company, nothing it does can please you, and you'll use whatever excuses you can to bash them. Not doing market research changes what information they have available, not what decisions they make, and there's a very high chance that market research would not change the direction of GW at all.

Third, GW is a tight lipped company. That's frustrating as hell, as fans, to not get feedback and feel like our complaints are being heard. It also makes it so we can only guess at the reasons why a decision was made, and our sick little minds always assume the most corrupt possibility must be the correct one. You see the same thing with other tight lipped companies, like Nintendo or Apple. It's okay to just say, "We don't know" instead of assuming that the company is filled with stereotypical greedy idiots, wringing their hands with dollar signs in their eyes.

I'm not a GW apologist. They make decisions that I find absolutely insane, like preventing webstores from selling their products. I don't have a long history with them, but decisions they made years ago are still frustrating. But not every decision they've made has been stupid, and not every irritation has been intentional. A little perspective is required, and I know that's asking a lot of long term GW fans, but holy crap, guys. How can you enjoy a hobby which makes you so angry, suspicious, and hateful?

As far as development I don't really think that much effort went into the game...
There's a saying that goes, a designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. I'd be surprised if AoS was the result of minimum effort. Minimum effort would be 40k rules with fantasy pasted on top. AoS is simple, but in its simplicity, quite surprising and daring.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Fantasy has been well killed off by GW for a long time, they left army's sit waiting for updates they needed, and when some did they lacked meaningful updates... I think it's hard to say that fantasy was well supported over the years.
Some army's didn't even get a book for each edition of the game.

Also I have provided my thoughts, and even in that post I have. The game has little thought to balance, there is bare minimum for missions or thought to naritive.
The options for army construction are fairly lacking with many issues in its set up, a simple wars roll to warscroll. With some of the powerful heroes being multiple as an extra advanced rule would have been awesome.
It doesn't have to be the main way they set up the game, but offering the choice would have been good.
Also with all the rule issues I am seeing, I am still out to wonder why?

I am looking at the game again, and I am still trying to work out why this game holds value.
Again I play many games that offer everything AoS does.
Now thanks to AoS killing fantasy dead here, we starting up kings of war it seems.

GW couldn't even choose a base setup, rather they try to make bases not a thing.
Cop out.

That saying I am curious to see in better context, as it sounds a bit meaningless in this context.

Sometimes a simple game is just that, at best I think it's a hope that GW can salvage what they have lost.

(Also I be leave the quote comes from Kirby, in the 2014 preamble, but the way GW handle themselves is easy enough. How they communicate with stores here makes me cringe.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/27 17:52:11


 
   
Made in bg
Dakka Veteran





 Sqorgar wrote:

I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.

The "scandalous" document in question is an yearly report for 2014. I'll find it in a minute. P.S. Ah, yes here it is http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Games-Workshop-Group-14-combined-FINAL-cover-version.pdf. Got it wrong the first time.
And the paragraph that lit the whole interned on fire itself:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche."

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/08/27 18:23:05


 
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: