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.

It is based on a system I am currently calling "Bricks". What I've seen is that unit types are generally balanced against one another based on general battlefield role and footprint on the table. The categories I've seen so far are...
Heavy cavalry: mounted units and chariots with a 4+ save or better (0-2 bricks)
Medium cavalry: mounted units and chariots with a 5+ save (0-3 bricks)
Light cavalry: mounted units and chariots with a 6+ save or worse (0-5 bricks)
Scrubs: units with save of - (one free brick, any further must be purchased from the "light" rating normally)
Light infantry: units on foot with a 6+ save or worse (0+ bricks)
Medium infantry: units on foot with a 5+ save (0-7 bricks)
Heavy infantry: units on foot with a 4+ save or better (0-5 bricks)
Monsters/artillery: units that contain the monster or warmachines keywords (0-2 bricks)

One half of the units in each block category may be a hero meeting the prerequisites (round up) only one of any named character may be present.
Heroes with the engineer keyword are considered to be from the monsters/artillery blocks

Each " Brick" is based on a rectangular footprint 4" X6".
You can have as many models and units as can fit entirely within the brick without stacking bases on top of each other and without bases going over the sides of the brick. If you purchase even a single unit within a category, it counts as one of your bricks.
The tournament organizer decides ahead of time how many "Bricks" of models may be brought to choose from for their games, players then proceed to place units according to the scenarios/ core rules

My suggested size for allowing a decent number of models while not being too much to carry around is between 6-10 "Bricks". What do you think?

Edit: added extra categories to allow for greater range of abilities, and clarified some aspects.

I think you might be on to something there!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is based on a system I am currently calling "Bricks". What I've seen is that unit types are generally balanced against one another based on general battlefield role and footprint on the table. The categories I've seen so far are...
Heavy cavalry: mounted units and chariots with a 4+ save or better (0-2 bricks)
Light cavalry: mounted units and chariots with a 5+ save or worse (0-3 bricks)
Light infantry: units on foot with a 5+ save or worse (0+ bricks)
Heavy infantry: units on foot with a 4+ save or better (0-5 bricks)
Monsters/artillery: units that contain the monster or warmachines keywords (0-2 bricks)

One half of the units in each block category may be a hero meeting the prerequisites (round up)

Each " Brick" is based on a rectangular footprint 4" X6".
You can have as many models and units as can fit entirely within the brick without stacking bases on top of each other and without bases going over the sides of the brick.
The tournament organizer decides ahead of time how many "Bricks" of models may be brought to choose from for their games, players then proceed to place units according to the scenarios/ core rules

My suggested size for allowing a decent number of models while not being too much to carry around is between 6-10 "Bricks". What do you think?

So, you're penalizing people who want to use larger bases? You're creating a system where people will use the smallest base possible. Remember, there is no requirement to use the base the models came with. In fact, the overwhelming majority of pictures in the new books of the existing armies show them on bases they don't come with.

Under your brick system, I'd just pull my models off of their bases and but them on small, weighted pieces of metal so they'd be packed in like sardines without falling over.

But they would fall over, all the time.

Why would someone go through all that trouble of removing all of their bases and regluing them to new ones that take up less space, just to carry heavier piles of models in a box to a game where your opponent and yourself decide on what the battle will look like? No one in their right mind would do that just for one set of games, especially when you are still only going to get maybe 1-4 more models per brick.

That's rediculous.

Well you presented this as a "way to balance AoS" so countering his point with "your opponent and yourself decide on what the battle will look like" immediately negates the attraction of your system in the first place. Ultimately its an interesting idea, but one that will run into the exact same problems as wound-count versions plus extra issues due to varying base size.

If the minimum base size is predetermined it should be ok I guess... like infantry based on 25mm minimum for example.

The game balances itself out, as long as no player has such superior units available in their collection that the other player can't possibly counter them. With the bricks system nobody can get that guaranteed victory due to their collection being larger and full of nothing but the best unit types because they are still limited to a certain maximum footprint for each of them.

I don't believe I would need to give minimum base size because beyond internet hyperbole I don't think anyone would do what was suggested above.

Hell, even if they did, THEY are the ones who have to carry ALL of their newly weighted miniatures from table to table and to the event to begin with. How many pounds of steel washers do you think you can secure in a couple army cases? And if they limit their number of models to compensate, then they are negating the purpose for the change in the first place!

Let's be real here folks

Edit: damn autocorrect.

So what I'm getting is the thread title should read:

"A way to balance Age of Sigmar that doesn't use points and instead relies upon reasonable player agreement."

Which amounts to the game as it is without any balance system. What I'm not seeing is how your idea provides the balance that you claim it does. According to your system 1 brick of plaguebearers is equal to 1 brick of skavenslaves. Yes, me and my opponent could agree that they are not equal and adjust the model count accordingly, but that's what we would be doing anyway without any balance system at all.

I'm guessing the skaven slaves are on smaller bases, (because the clanrats are) meaning you can fit 35 (7x5 models) of them per brick, as opposed to only 24 (6x4) of the plague bearers. So, you don't need to agree with those.

Like I said, footprint and similar battlefield role are where the real differences lie

Exit: derped on my math before somehow

Any more thoughts?
I have been trying to find situations where the system broke, and so far the only time it does is when two units are in the same role, but are priced different monetarily.

Like the silver helms and dragon princes of caledor. They are both heavy cavalry from the same army with the same per model footprint. But the silver helms are $35 US for 8, while the dragon princes are $33 US for 5. Meaning you get more bodies per dollar to fill that brick if you add the helms.

What else is out there?

It's still hard to figure out how gak troops are going to handle elite troops. Similar to playing with wounds.

Many players have armies with units of slaves, goblins, basic orcs, militia, beastmen etc. These will never again hit the table if they are playing against an equal amount of better troops. It certainly encourages people to keep those old models on 20mm square bases.

It's much better than just the basic "toss what you want on the table", but not as good as using something like the Azyr points system.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What else is out there?

You are asking to hear more problems with it while you have yet to address the issue already raised (that being it has the same balance issues as wound-count).

The balance in place for elite versus basic is you are allowed larger groups of basic infantry (0+) than the elites (0-5) that means you can swamp the elite guys with piles of little guys just like always. People with swarm armies will have no problem having enough bodies to do so.

Also, how does it not answer the issue of wound count? If you field glotkin, you need to use two of your bricks minimum on monsters, meaning his hugeness is taking up almost 1/5 of your maximum army size by himself. If you have an entire block of blood crushers of khorne, my block of dragon princes of caledor will equal them in combat (basically giving the advantage to whoever scored the charge, just like cavalry should) because while the blood crushers have better damage, but the dragon princes have more wounds per block

I raised a great example of the issue in plaguebearers vs skavenslaves. You responded that due to base size differences (which, as a sidenote, will vanish in the future since skaven are being repacked with 32mm round) it would be 35 slaves vs 24 plaguebearers. That is a valid point (for now), but not one that addresses the issue since 24 plaguebearers are vastly superior to 35 skavenslaves while being treated as equal using your rules. And this is only one instance, there are numerous others. Using your Glottkin example, why would I ever bring them in the first place when I could fit 8 great unclean ones in the same space? The latter is much, much, more powerful than the former yet counts as the same in your rules.

I respect what you are trying to do, but I just don't see how this will work.

I don't see them as vastly superior. When facing each other you have skaven winning with speed, they have the same save, the plague bearers have less durability (1/3 wounds being ignored gives them 34 wounds on average) the clanrats will have at least the same combat prowess in those numbers because even though they have weaker attacks, more models can get in range, and more of them can die before they start losing models that are engaged.(thus causing loss of attacks) there is also the fact that those skaven slaves are denying a HUGE area of the board because of the 1" gap between them, and the 3" bubble around them that enemy models can't simply walk through. Then you look at the inability for units to be summoned or arive from reserves within a certain distance (normally 9") and you start to see how drastic the slaves effect on the gameplay really is.

In regards to the glotkin versus the great unclean ones, glotkin doesn't take up the whole of the second brick, he just ensures that the second one needs to be purchased. So look at the glotkin with 3 great unclean ones and see where the balance lies.

If you don't fill up a brick, you have still used one. So people who pick a single heavy cavalry unit, have a brick of heavy cavalry even if they don't fill it completely.

Well 4 GUO to a single brick, so even at that the balance favors GOUs without even factoring the partial brick Glottkin covers. But at this point I have to ask, have you actually read the rules and run any numbers on this?

24 Plaguebearers:
24 attacks
12 hit
8 wound
5.33 dont save
=5.33 wounds on Skavenslaves

35 Skavenslaves:
70 attacks
11.66 hit
5.83 wound
3,88 don't save
2.59 don't make resilience roll
=2.59 wounds on Plaguebearers

The plaguebearers now need to make a bravery check that they cannot fail, while the skavenslaves need to make a +5 check against bravery 6. For every slave that flees there is a 11% chance of killing a plaguebearer.

This is a combat assuming all models get to attack (favoring the slaves) there are no command models in each unit (again favoring the slaves), and assuming all slaves are armed with blades (their spears can't even hit because of the -1 penalty). If you want to factor in board control then yes the slaves cover more area and thus limit the number of models contacting each other in a situation in which you outnumber the opponent, thus favoring the plaguebearers. Difference in speed is easily compensated by vastly superior defense against shooting, and the plaguebearers get a 5+ resilience roll against mortal wounds to boot.

I'm just going to leave you to it now, because you aren't responding on a grounds of trying to make your idea better, you are just making posts trying to prove that it works by ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Wasn't ignoring evidence, simply misread the plague bearers rule and thought they got the cloud of flies bonus versus melee attacks at 30 models for some reason.

So, we add a middle ground unit type encompassing infantry and cavalry that have a 5+ save calling them medium infantry and cavalry respectively because most of those I've seen also include rerolls from shields or special rules that increase their durability. The 6+ save or worse will be light infantry.

I won't defend my position when given evidence to the contrary, but I will when I don't see what you are talking about.

I'm sorry for my confrontational attitude, it was my mistake.

Just off the top of my head, the plaugebearers win because they have 6 more bravery. This is huge.

I'm playing skaven right now and watching them melt away in combat all the time.

I've seen that in some of the batreps, I think they are making you pay for the ability some skaven units have to retreat and charge the same turn. Let's you really pick your battles. The "payoff" for the slaves is the chance for mortal wounds on the way out.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I've seen that in some of the batreps, I think they are making you pay for the ability some skaven units have to retreat and charge the same turn. Let's you really pick your battles. The "payoff" for the slaves is the chance for mortal wounds on the way out.

Not really. GW didn't do this rules set that way. Skaven have low Bravery. Clanrats are a 4 and Slaves are 3, stormvermin a whopping 5 Warlords get up to an amazing 6!

GW wrote the rules based on fluff. Stuff that doesn't care if it dies is bravery10. So undead and demons go to 10, and don't melt away. Ironic, since they used to crumble.

You need to kill 6 plaugebearers and have your opponent roll a 6 to see any leave. And if he rolls a 1 he gets extra!

Skaven you just need to kill 1 and you may lose a few. With how tough plaugebearers would be to wound, it's going to be a pretty lopsided fight between clanrats or slawves, and nurgly demons.

I believe the expectation is that you will have good artillery and monsters to make up for it, that and trying to flood the board. Skaven storm vermin versus plague bearers, for example the storm vermin will out number the plague bearers, meaning they will get +1 to hit, they will have save 4+ making them just as resilient to basic attacks. And they will have the bonus to bravery for the multiple of ten, making them an 8. Now look at two blocks of each meaning you now have 48 plague bearers to 70 storm vermin. There is no upper limit to unit size, so the storm vermin are now also completely immune to battle shock. The retreat and assault ability keeps them from being bogged down and allows a huge area of the table to be dominated by the vermin. You can do the same thing with clanrats, except it will cost you less money to do so (you can buy 40 clan rats for the price of 30 storm vermin) and at those numbers, their stat lines become nearly identical.

I don't really argue things from the point of view of what they cost in real dollars to field, not sure where that comes into it.

You still have the problem that if you are measuring what you can take by base size, players will always take the better models they have, rather than the worst. Some armies/factions don't have elite units of the calibre of other armies. You can't just hope the rest of the army makes up for it. Some armies were designed to be a horde army with low points and crap troops. Their stats in AOS still reflect that from 8th.

There has to be something in a system that accounts for the statline and abilities of a model, beyond wounds or size of base.

The reason cost comes into play is if you want a "brick" of heavy infantry, you can fill that brick or not. It's entirely up to you. But even if you only have a single 10 man unit of heavy infantry, you are filling a brick in regards to how many brincks you're allowed to bring to the game.

The horde players will probably already have the bodies needed to fill bricks, they will get maximum mileage out of having those bodies available. The benefit of going with horde units is normally they are exceptionally cheap per model and therefor able to be fielded in greater numbers.

In conclusion, if all you bring are your very best units in a category, you can expect to be outnumbered by someone who has a large variety of units in each category because any unit you bring automatically uses a brick to start.

Did that make sense, lack of sleep and a headache makes me wonder if it does...

What if the same number of cavalry is inherently better than the opposing same number of cavalry?
It's like people here are trying to reinvent the wheel. It turns out that round is actually a good shape for a wheel.

With the cost in dollars comparison, every unit I've seen that fills the same role as another in the same faction that has a significant statistical advantage is always the more expensive kit to buy.

When the two units reach the same dollar amount in regards to units purchased, their discrepancy in power evens out perfectly. Silver helms to dragon princes of caledor $35 to $33 respectively. The dragon princes have more attacks, the units have the same defenses, there are three more silver helms than there are dragon princes. Meaning the silver helms have 6 more wounds to chew through than the dragon princes do. They are balanced in that regard because if they were balanced statistically, no one would ever buy the dragon princes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
What if the same number of cavalry is inherently better than the opposing same number of cavalry?
It's like people here are trying to reinvent the wheel. It turns out that round is actually a good shape for a wheel.

If you are sure that their cavalry is better than yours, don't field your cavalry. You can counter cavalry with infantry blocking them from utilising their speed, or artillery to kill them at a distance. Or field your cavalry to give the other cavalry something to chase around while you kill them with archers.

Just because you have 10 blocks of models, doesn't mean you have to use the same ones every fight.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The reason cost comes into play is if you want a "brick" of heavy infantry, you can fill that brick or not. It's entirely up to you. But even if you only have a single 10 man unit of heavy infantry, you are filling a brick in regards to how many brincks you're allowed to bring to the game.

The horde players will probably already have the bodies needed to fill bricks, they will get maximum mileage out of having those bodies available. The benefit of going with horde units is normally they are exceptionally cheap per model and therefor able to be fielded in greater numbers.

In conclusion, if all you bring are your very best units in a category, you can expect to be outnumbered by someone who has a large variety of units in each category because any unit you bring automatically uses a brick to start.

Did that make sense, lack of sleep and a headache makes me wonder if it does...

Only makes sense if you hold to certain assumptions.

So no, it does not make any sense You're making assumptions about what people own and can bring to a game. That just does not work. False assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are sure that their cavalry is better than yours, don't field your cavalry.

What? How do you know this before the game? or before it goes on the table? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The game is balanced based on models, for the first time ever you can actually LOOK at the models they are fielding and get a rough estimate on their capabilities in regards to your own. The dragon princes of caledor versus the silver helms, for example. Looking at them side by side you can ascertain the dragon princes are significantly stronger based on their more elaborate wargear and armor. Because this is a fantasy world, where the better you are, the cooler your gear.

The other option is before you put down a unit (you know, how the core rules say to do it) you can ask to see their battlescrolls. The bricks system limits your AVAILABLE MODELS per game, it does not constitute an army list that you use at EVERY table.

what do you mean "first time ever"? You could always "look" at the models. But other than "ooh, look, fancy elves" or "hmm, orcs with better armor", you don't really get an idea of just how good they are. Most players will just look at the statlines and the warscrolls.

But...how does this help you balance? Do you truly believe each army has the same units to go out on the table? What does an orc or beastman player put out from his infantry models to match 24 Khorne marked Chaos warriors?

Sure, If I'm the chaos player I can tone my choices down to match a beastman player. But it doesn't work the other way around. And what if I don't want to match him? I painted my Khorne warriors and demons, I want to play them. It's up to him to match me if he can!!!! (Disclaimer, while I do own about 150 chaos warriors, they have a lot of dust on them. I'm playing with clanrats, beastmen, orcs, and ogres for AOS . I'd also not trounce anyone and yes would be trying to balance armies. But I expect that not everyone would do this, nor do I expect them to )


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, I'll bow out of this discussion.

I really can't fathom how this works. Too much math in my head, too many years of watching people play

My comments aren't constructive to the conversation about your project.

If you want orks to fight warriors of chaos, use black orcs, not orc warriors. You could also bring more ork infantry blocks, or bring something that counters heavy infantry, like boar boyz or the goblin artillery.

I don't want you to bow out, I prefer people who challenge the rules I put out there!

What is hard to fathom? The units in every army will have counterparts in other armies. They equal their counterparts based on the amount of space they take up on the table with the caveat that a unit that costs less to fill up that slaceslace, will be slightly less powerfull. That disparity disappears when they equal out in price.

Updated the first post with a couple new "brick" categories and some other clarifications.