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.

Here is my thought on the points thing, arguing against points is like arguing against weight classes in boxing. Weight classes aren't there to make sure every fight is even (that's the job of the rankings), weight classes are there to ensure the general capability of the fighters are similar. By controlling certain factors (such as weight, or points) you enable other factors (skill, army comp) to be larger determinants in the outcome.

It's not perfect, but it doesn't have to be to enable better games. I like a lot of the ideas in AoS, but until they actually make matchmaking less haggling and more math I'm just not interested.

 Talys wrote:
Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.

Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?

I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.

Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.

Are there any games where this is the case?

Star Wars CCG and Star Trek CCG made its story characters the most rare and powerful cards, so if you created a fluff deck built around named characters, you'd probably have a fairly strong deck without taking synergies or minmaxing into account. But I can't think of any other counter examples. Maybe Age of Sigmar, but I say that without any idea what a super competitive netlist would even look like in that game (which is awesome).

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.

Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?

I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.

Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.

True, but is some cases it just is that way. Sometimes it is me, sometimes it is the other guy.
It Does come down to Play-Style in the end. I have had people quit my local gaming group because we do not take the game 'Serious Enough' for them. Heck I have had people refuse to play me because my Space Wolves were Primer Gray not Space Wolf Grey.
I don't Play D&D with most of my old group [20+ years of playing the same campaign] because they changed to a primary 'Lets Just Kill Monsters' mode while I want to do more Role Play than I used to.
I have also ran into people who stopped playing Chess with me because I take an average of 20-30 Seconds to make my move rather than take 'Time to Make My Moves'.
There is no way to get around it other than accept that some people don't find the game fun the same way as you.
It has taking me almost 10 years to find like minded people, but I now have a smaller gaming group, but we are having more fun than I have had in 20+ years.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Maybe Age of Sigmar, but I say that without any idea what a super competitive netlist would even look like in that game (which is awesome).

You must not have much imagination then.

Nagash spam
Bloodthirster spam
Warmachine and engineer spam
Summon spam

Or any other spam of powerful troops.

I'm a fan of AoS, but most of your arguments in this thread Sqorgar are just bizarre to be honest.

 Bottle wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Maybe Age of Sigmar, but I say that without any idea what a super competitive netlist would even look like in that game (which is awesome).

You must not have much imagination then.

Nagash spam
Bloodthirster spam
Warmachine and engineer spam
Summon spam

Or any other spam of powerful troops.

I'm a fan of AoS, but most of your arguments in this thread Sqorgar are just bizarre to be honest.

How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.

Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?

I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.

Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.

There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:

1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".

In any game where there are force multipliers, preparation means maximizing the benefits of those force multipliers. It's not possible to make a game where preparing an effective battleforce is both important AND unimportant.

 Talys wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Scenario #1 - "Oops, guess we didn't get that right. Wanna go again?" Adjust troops, play Game #2.

Scenario #2 - If two people don't have a meeting of the minds of fairness, and neither is willing to budge, you're absolutely right. They should go play other people. No different than meeting the guy who insists on playing a really powerful list uncomped, in any game, that you just don't feel like playing. Why should anyone play a game they don't think will be fun?

I think that there is nothing wrong with the attitude of playing only the people and games that would entertain you. I take no offence if someone doesn't want to play me for any reason. And you don't have to be a jerk about it, just say, "Thanks, but, I didn't bring the right kind of army to play yours, so I'll pass." I've done it myself.

Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.

There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:

1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".

In any game where there are force multipliers, preparation means maximizing the benefits of those force multipliers. It's not possible to make a game where preparing an effective battleforce is both important AND unimportant.

Or play Infinity.

 Talys wrote:

There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:

1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".

Actually, AoS does all three of these things:

1. Most special abilities are insular. That is, they are passive abilities (get to reroll missed hits) or they are abilities that depend on how you create the unit (1 in 10 models carries a space mace, 20+ models gets an extra attack, hornblower increases charge range). Comparatively, there are fewer abilities which affect other units (largely command abilities or spells) or only work when near other specific units (Dwarf Engineers)

2. Because synergies are downplayed, they are actually explicitly detailed in battalion warscrolls. Instead of "unit A buffs unit B", you have a case of "take unit A and unit B, gain this ability". Battalion warscrolls don't overlap, so the special abilities shared between two units don't also apply to a second set of the same units, making it less likely for repeated synergies to break the game.

3. Synergies are broad. In most cases, when a unit buffs another unit, it buffs all units equally. The buff can cover some weakness in some units (like increasing save rolls on weak units), but in general, any unit can benefit from the buffs. Where units are related, it is usually based on keywords rather than individual models (this affects CHAOS models or within 18" of a HERO figure). In JRPG terms, it's the difference between healing 30 HP and healing 30% HP. One becomes less effective as you grow stronger, while the other remains useful for the entire game.

However, I don't feel like this negatively impacts the game. AoS, it is much more about the individual units abilities than how units work together, and I think that opens up list making. The units are still unique and there's enough of a relationship between them to reward paying attention when you select your army, but not so much that you end up punished for not doing what the game designers intended.

@Sqorgar - I actually didn't write it quite correctly. I meant, there were only three ways in a point-based game that wargames with special abilities and spells and force multipliers don't turn into games about lists (I didn't write that; but I meant it ).

I genuinely don't think arriving at fairness (armies at parity at turn 1) is an issue in AoS for the vast majority of players who enjoy the game in its current state.

@MWH - I actually can't get anyone to play Infinity with me. Nobody is even tempted in our group, partly because we don't really have suitable scenery and such built, and cardboard scenery (like what comes in operation icestorm) isn't that interesting. But also because the scale of the game (number of units and table size) is too small. We're a group that's debating going to 6x8 and 8x12 tables, up 4x6 amd 8x8.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.

1.) By spamming 100 of them. Nothing to say a named character is limited to one choice.

2.) Spells can only be unbound from 18". Good luck on turn 1 when your are 24" apart.

 Talys wrote:
@Sqorgar - I actually didn't write it quite correctly. I meant, there were only three ways in a point-based game that wargames with special abilities and spells and force multipliers don't turn into games about lists (I didn't write that; but I meant it ).

I genuinely don't think arriving at fairness (armies at parity at turn 1) is an issue in AoS for the vast majority of players who enjoy the game in its current state.

@MWH - I actually can't get anyone to play Infinity with me. Nobody is even tempted in our group, partly because we don't really have suitable scenery and such built, and cardboard scenery (like what comes in operation icestorm) isn't that interesting. But also because the scale of the game (number of units and table size) is too small. We're a group that's debating going to 6x8 and 8x12 tables, up 4x6 amd 8x8.

they do sell other scenery ya know. Quite cheap too.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Which is all well and good except there is no reason it has to be that way, in a well balanced game you can have someone put down their top tier, super competitive netlist and you put down your fluffy list and the difference will be so minor that player skill and luck are still the defining factors.

Are there any games where this is the case?

*Ahem*

Warmachine
Infinity
X wing
Dystopian Wars
Kings of War
Hell Warhammer Fantasy came close when it was alive.

Those are only the ones I have played personally, but I can't think of any examples of games off the top of my head where if you jump to their forum, say you are new and looking at X army you will be told X is bad, play Y instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

There are only three ways that you can make scifi/fantasy wargames with special abilities and spells and unit synergies not about listmaking:

1. Take out synergies, which is one of the most fun parts of wargaming to a lot of people.
2. Cost combinations of synergetic units differently than taking the units independently, which no game that I know of does.
3. Tone down the synergies to the point where they don't matter anymore, in which case people cry, "bland".

In any game where there are force multipliers, preparation means maximizing the benefits of those force multipliers. It's not possible to make a game where preparing an effective battleforce is both important AND unimportant.

You say that and yet I'd still put my money on someone who hasn't tried to maxamise his list synergies and whatnot but knows how to play the units he has brought vs a guy who copied his list from a grand tourney winners list but doesn't know how to play it in a game of warmachine.

 Bottle wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.

1.) By spamming 100 of them. Nothing to say a named character is limited to one choice.

2.) Spells can only be unbound from 18". Good luck on turn 1 when your are 24" apart.

Well, never thought that would be an issue, because someone with 3+ fateweavers wouldnt have to worry about setting down models when they show me what they are planning to put down.

What if I go first? What if I fly past your army on a griffon or dragon so you can't summon anything near me? Now your summon spam army is completely stopped from getting significant reinforcements.

Like I said, not really something I would be afraid of...

Their is a lot going on in this thread, allot of i"ts fun!" And "it is unplayable!" I for one don't even plan on giving AoS the time of day, (well except this post). My reasons have nothing to do with cost or sigmarians or old gamer syndrome. It has everything to do with the fact that they killed my world. Warhammer fantasy, for me, had one of the most captivating fantasy settings I've ever come across. More so then middle earth, forgotten realms, dragon lance, or even the 40 millinium...and they killed it and replaced it with some lazy catchall setting, something that reminds me of a bad anime. So enjoy AoS, if you want. But I won't bother.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

How do you "spam" a named character? Summon spam is limited by the models you bring to the table, and your opponents ability to counter spell. Any of the others listed don't even make me nervous with my little high elf army. When a super competitive netlist isn't actually a real threat, that show some balance.

1.) By spamming 100 of them. Nothing to say a named character is limited to one choice.

2.) Spells can only be unbound from 18". Good luck on turn 1 when your are 24" apart.

Well, never thought that would be an issue, because someone with 3+ fateweavers wouldnt have to worry about setting down models when they show me what they are planning to put down.

What if I go first? What if I fly past your army on a griffon or dragon so you can't summon anything near me? Now your summon spam army is completely stopped from getting significant reinforcements.

Like I said, not really something I would be afraid of...

You're getting confused. My original comment was to highlight how easy it is to think of strong "net lists". If you can think up hard counters to them like flying a gak ton of dragons into my deployment zone in turn one, then great, you're also just showing how easy it is too.

It doesn't take a gak-ton, just one will block most of you area to summon in. If i t happens to be a mage, they can even try to counter spell the power. The point I was making was that the proposed over powered lists weren't actually a problem for people with any decent sized collection to draw from.

Would they roll someone who owns say, a battalion box and a single hero? Yes, but who wants to ruin someone's game by ensuring the destruction of their opponent before any dice are rolled?

5on2, I understand your frustration. I played mageknight for years, loved the world setting, they got the story point to what would amount to the ends times of wfb. Then they killed the game. No more story, no more booster packs or new models, the game simply died.

Age of sigmar is allowing me to use my models for a campaign again. If you want to continue playing in the old world, please do! There is nothing stopping you from doing so. Unless you were primarily focused on recreating the battles of the old world, you don't need more examples of battles in the setting.

I won't try to tell you what to do, but the setting isn't the game, it's just where THEIR story is taking place now

This is getting pointless, but a single model isn't going to block much from being summoned, and won't even last long. If my army was say 10 Nagashes they could kill whatever monster it is and still have spells to summon a fleet of terrorgeists. And if my army was 10 Nagashes your army would have to be 9 models to get the first turn anyway...

It would be stupid to play like that. Point is making a list that can destroy a regular army is a simple thought exercise that takes almost no effort.

5on2, I understand your frustration. I played mageknight for years, loved the world setting, they got the story point to what would amount to the ends times of wfb. Then they killed the game. No more story, no more booster packs or new models, the game simply died.

Age of sigmar is allowing me to use my models for a campaign again. If you want to continue playing in the old world, please do! There is nothing stopping you from doing so. Unless you were primarily focused on recreating the battles of the old world, you don't need more examples of battles in the setting.

I won't try to tell you what to do, but the setting isn't the game, it's just where THEIR story is taking place now

Of course I can keep playing in the old world if I wanted, your not telling me anything I haven't thought of. Im not going to just take my army Ive collected for over 10 years and just dump it in the trash. Me and a few friends have been experimenting with alternative rules for several years already, even did a few 7th ed 40k conversation, worked great. So I suppose My point was the setting made the game, at least for me. AoS is unimagined. I'm glad you have fun with it. Good for you. But for this warhammer player, the only thing gw is managing to do with AoS is boost 40k sales

 Bottle wrote:
This is getting pointless, but a single model isn't going to block much from being summoned, and won't even last long. If my army was say 10 Nagashes they could kill whatever monster it is and still have spells to summon a fleet of terrorgeists. And if my army was 10 Nagashes your army would have to be 9 models to get the first turn anyway...

It would be stupid to play like that. Point is making a list that can destroy a regular army is a simple thought exercise that takes almost no effort.

Not nine models, nine units. You alternate placing units one by one, and the first person done chooses who goes first. My single model keeps you from summoning anything within 9" of any point on its body. So if my dragon is only 6" long with a 9" wing span that means you can't summon anything in an area 24" deep and 27" wide that also has to be within 18" of the summoner.

And if the simple thought exercise is to say that someone has spent $1050 US on ten models to take advantage of said models ability to summon 120 models a turn (meaning to actually get the most from those units you would have to have over 1000 summonable models at the table with you) that can be hard countered by any fast monster, infiltrators, big units of cavalry, or other summoning lists, then I think you may be mistaken about what the word "simple" entails.

Not sure how one could spam 10 Nagash models in a tournament Bottle. Official GW Tournaments have list restrictions which are:

1 monster, 1-3 hero keywords, only 1 copy of a named character, a maximum allowance of warscrolls (usually 7-8), and not more than 2 of the same unit.

Most FLGS take some sort of these restrictions as well. All in all every tourney I've been to has been extremely balanced, not one person 'crushed' another.

Fine. Net lists are impossible to make with Age of Sigmar

 455_PWR wrote:
Official GW Tournaments have list restrictions which are:

1 monster, 1-3 hero keywords, only 1 copy of a named character, a maximum allowance of warscrolls (usually 7-8), and not more than 2 of the same unit.

Where are those?

I played a game of AoS today. Found it pretty good.

Having said that, we were both like minded players who were in it for fun.

I used a Ghal Maraz scenario (the storm one), playing in Chamon.

Was great fun, and though the scenario/realm rules really added to the fun. You do really have to pay attention to the scenario rules though - my opponent lost 2nd turn because he didn't protect his general and I sniped him with my Reaper Bolt Throwers. We played on anyway for fun

My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.

SideSwipe wrote:
I played a game of AoS today. Found it pretty good.

Having said that, we were both like minded players who were in it for fun.

I used a Ghal Maraz scenario (the storm one), playing in Chamon.

Was great fun, and though the scenario/realm rules really added to the fun. You do really have to pay attention to the scenario rules though - my opponent lost 2nd turn because he didn't protect his general and I sniped him with my Reaper Bolt Throwers. We played on anyway for fun

My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.

Ooooh I hope you'll post about said mega battle. From my experience I can't imagine it'd take longer than a large point game of 40k as long as the players are familiar with their warscrolls, but I'm interested to hear if that's true or not.

Jack Flask wrote:

SideSwipe wrote:
I played a game of AoS today. Found it pretty good.

Having said that, we were both like minded players who were in it for fun.

I used a Ghal Maraz scenario (the storm one), playing in Chamon.

Was great fun, and though the scenario/realm rules really added to the fun. You do really have to pay attention to the scenario rules though - my opponent lost 2nd turn because he didn't protect his general and I sniped him with my Reaper Bolt Throwers. We played on anyway for fun

My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.

Ooooh I hope you'll post about said mega battle. From my experience I can't imagine it'd take longer than a large point game of 40k as long as the players are familiar with their warscrolls, but I'm interested to hear if that's true or not.

I don't even know if I'll take part - I can't imagine how long a combat phase where there are more than 3 or 4 combats going on would last.

To be fair, if you look at apocalypse games you normally don't get past turn 3...

5on2 wrote:
Their is a lot going on in this thread, allot of i"ts fun!" And "it is unplayable!" I for one don't even plan on giving AoS the time of day, (well except this post). My reasons have nothing to do with cost or sigmarians or old gamer syndrome. It has everything to do with the fact that they killed my world. Warhammer fantasy, for me, had one of the most captivating fantasy settings I've ever come across. More so then middle earth, forgotten realms, dragon lance, or even the 40 millinium...and they killed it and replaced it with some lazy catchall setting, something that reminds me of a bad anime. So enjoy AoS, if you want. But I won't bother.

Hear, hear!
Well spoken words, "lazy", "Catch all"

SideSwipe wrote:
My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.

My friend and I played a "put everything on the table" game of his High Elves (194 models) versus my Tomb Kings (150 models). It was pretty tedious and I was cruising the web while he was taking his turn. Moving every single figure takes a long time. We only made it to turn 3 before I threw in the towel.

Our second game was more lively but I unfortunately surprised him with the overpowered Rippers and Kroxigor. He wasn't ready for either and tried to take big blocks like he did in 8th. It didn't go well.

KingCheops wrote:

SideSwipe wrote:
My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.

My friend and I played a "put everything on the table" game of his High Elves (194 models) versus my Tomb Kings (150 models). It was pretty tedious and I was cruising the web while he was taking his turn. Moving every single figure takes a long time. We only made it to turn 3 before I threw in the towel.

Our second game was more lively but I unfortunately surprised him with the overpowered Rippers and Kroxigor. He wasn't ready for either and tried to take big blocks like he did in 8th. It didn't go well.

If you are playing a game that size, why didn't you use your movement trays? You can even use huge ones to allow your models some wiggle room. Glad to hear your next game was more interesting though!