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.

I'm not sure which is the bigger problem with AOS, the lack of balancing mechanic or the model measuring stuff. The AOS rules would have you believe that a battle between one player with 50 elves and the other player with 60 identical elves is completely reasonable. It's not hard to see the problem there.

About the measuring stuff, it takes the terrible idea of true line of sight (say hello to modelling for advantage!) and combines it with measuring everything else from the model, not the base. That means that yes, walking onto bases is a thing by the rules as written. Your base has no game effect or presence and I need to get close to the model itself, so my guys probably will have reason to walk on your bases. That entire rule concept is laughably insane.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Scenario as in the real world situation presented, not in the terms of the game. If the player who has no way of defeating a model shows that to be the case, then saying they should step up or borrow someone else's models shouldn't be considered the option. Player A is not being ridiculed, he is being asked about a unit his opponent isn't sure about. Nowhere is there any ridicule.

Like I said, a pre defined scenario (real life or no) which was storyboarded to 'prove' predetermined conclusions without allowing for alternative input. The points I made was to illustrate that there are other narratives at play here, and alternative scenarios that make the whole thing murkier.

If player a has no way of defeating a model, please bear in mind despite your assertion that it shouldn't be considered an option, borrowing x or y is an option. Or have you never loaned a dreadnought, drop pod or warcaster your your mate for a game?

Player a new s not bring redicules in this specific scenario, but it's not hard to imagine it will lead to certain mutterings about him, 'his kind', him being tfg etc. we've already had plenty examples in aos threads along those lines of 'if he takes x, y, or z, He's a toolbag'.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

You are correct in the internet not carrying tone well, but if the game is designed to be played by people who are able to come to an agreement about how they want to play, and are willing to do so without trying to get one over on their opponent, why should cases where that can't happen be the reason the system is bad?

If you've read any of my posts, you will see that in my view, if you have this, then the type of game aos promises to cater to can be achieved. Thing is, you can do this with any game, but to answer you, yes this is fine. Never disputed this.

But let's be fair, 'why should cases where that can't happen be the reason the system is bad' answers itself, and is rather self evident. If it works for you, then great, but let's not jump on the 'got mine, don't care about yours' train. Thing is, aos requires a lot of social hoops to jump through, and a lot of trust, as well as requiring like minded players who are on the same wavelength. Any of these is lacking, and you end up with a far harder time. So yes, under these circumstances, the game is bad as it breaks down very easily.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

If I play monopoly, and my only opponent doesn't want to do anything but be the banker because that's the only part they like doing, it isn't Parker brothers fault we don't get to game together that day.

Make more friends! monopoly is no fun when it's justvyou vs the banks!

So, player B borrows a model and they play the game, still a good game. If the game breaks down so easily, why does it only seem to do so if your opponent is as uncarring as a mad max villain?

AoS asks you to do in other games to help balance things, as its primary mode of balance. The question is, why is that an issue then? If every game with.point totals and limitations and restrictions built into the system also suggests you talk to your opponent to get more enjoyment out of a game, why would AoS using that as a baseline instead be a real problem?

And if the answer for monopoly is to find more friends, why do people argue against the idea of just not playing someone you won't have fun with in age of sigmar?

 Kriswall wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?

Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.

Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.

Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.

Of course, anyone who ONLY fields 100 Clanrats to counter 50 Grave Guard is a bad player. The issue is not that the Grave Guard are outnumbered. It's that they're not outnumbered ENOUGH. The Skaven player needs to drop more units to have a fighting chance. The core rules cover this situation with no NEED for comp systems. All that is needed is that the Skaven player recognize he is outmatched and deploy additional units. If he doesn't recognize that he's outmatched, a game or two should get him up to speed.

Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.

A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.

Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.

Also, bad player? Sound awfuly competitive. Isn't the whole point to get rid of black hearted waac douche jocks that rampaged the community for years (all citation)? If it's not then what's the point of replacing points with that travesty?






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?

Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.

Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.

Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.

Did they table you? If not, what sudden death mission did they succeed in? If it ended in a minor victory, what was the difference in percentages. Also, if they are fielding heavy cavalry, why did you field medium to light infantry? There are hard counters out there, I'm sorry you ran into one.

Oh there was no game. Both armies were mine, I took what I had lying around and ready to field to a game night at my friends house but noone wanted to play (none of the guys played whfb ever btw and they all play skirmish wargames but hearing AoS rules was an instant nope, not a first band that did that when I proposed AoS btw). "Let's play Age of Sigmar" is a running joke atm so the only real chance to play might be when we get completly wasted heh. I counted the models before the game and it turned out that the stronger vampire counts side would get sudden death and deploying less was not an option for skaven side either.

Sure I could take everything I own, buy $500 equivalent worth more, pack it all and have the game of AoS you describe with deploying counters etc, it still wouldn't be balanced ofc but would have a tiny bit of sense maybe. Is that really low entry point though? And what happened to "just take some models and play"? Because it seems awful for that. It's awful for everything tbh, I have no idea how does a perfect game of AoS is supposed to look like.

A game that relies on people figuring out how to balance it on their own is not a well written game.

How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.

They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.

Also, waspinator (awesome name btw!) Every game gets balanced by the players. Nobody is out in the world demanding the game be played strictly by the rules in order to ensure they crush their usual opponents every game. Age of sigmar skips the pregame math and goes straight to "what are you wanting to play today"

No fighting, insults, passive aggressiveness, rudeness, or crying. Just honest, straightforward, conversation then dice rolls. With pick up games for other systems, you are there with a list or two, and hoping to find someone with that point total. With AoS, you brought models and you look at what everyone else brought to see what collection you may want pitted against. Whether it's because of the balance, the attitude of your opponent, or even that you think their army would look good on the table trading punches with your own.

The game is what it is, easy to get into, and (with someone else who is willing to agree on what you both want out of a game) enjoyable to play.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.

A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.

Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.

Just a thought but maybe some of us want to play a quick game, not throw 100+ models on the table every time.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
So, player B borrows a model and they play the game, still a good game. If the game breaks down so easily, why does it only seem to do so if your opponent is as uncarring as a mad max villain?

As 'uncaring as a mad villain' eh? What was I saying earlier about ridiculing those that have a different view on the game? Social rejection and social exclusion. You're doing all that, As well as mockery and negative characterisation of those that want to play a different game or have different ideas of what's fun and fair.

eh? you don't need to be a mad villain to have the game break down, just two people who aren't like minded. Or selfish. Or self centred. Christ knows, there's plenty of gamers are pretty terribly socially adjusted people. Many are smug, celf centred and massively entitled. Even with the reasonable ones, Everyone has a different idea of what's 'fair' and 'reasonable'. Everyone has a different view on what's 'broken' or 'not'. Like I said, we recently had a thread where a poster was complaining about his friend who called his tac marines in rhinos cheese. Imagine the aos version of that. 'I'm not playing your sigmarites. They've got two wounds each. Theyre bloody broken'. How would your gsme go?

So fine walk away. Don't play him. Indeed. It's what a sensible grown up would do. Then again. we've got a small enough pool of players to begin with that when you risk isolating each other and walking away from each other, the games dry up. And communities die.

All You just need those differences to collide and you've got hassle. That's the problem with a game built on the foundations of social contract and a co-operative mindset. No 'mad villains' required, sadly.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.

They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.

So 2 months is not enough but players are going to do it on the fly? Thanks for conceding your own point.

No it's neither nonsense nor rubish because the outcome of that game would be meaningles data. Playing exactly the same match with the same terrain multiple times with switching sides would be some information though still would be far from providing exact relative worth of units ofc.

Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?

Sure that is some point than Azyr can be wrong. What are you going to use then to compare units, wounds, model count, your experience? Can you at least concede that number of models is the dumbest of those by far and that sudden death rule just doesnt work because 65 elite infantry fighting 99 peasanta shouldn't get a bonus?

Also is a worthless rule that might work only when players are self policing themselves a bad rule? Or is it again, "subjective".

Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Oh there was no game.

?

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Oh there was no game.

?

I went to have a game game but noone wanted to play. For my last planed game? Last time I went to have a game with my friends and counted the units in an attempt to asses balance but everyone refused to play on the basis of how they percieve it stupid and pointless?

Thought shortcut, bad wording maybe. Not my first language. Next

Also I never said anything about the outcome of the game but just mentioned disproportion between wound/ model count and Azyr. It's just you picking words and dodging the actual arguments.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
I'm not sure which is the bigger problem with AOS, the lack of balancing mechanic or the model measuring stuff. The AOS rules would have you believe that a battle between one player with 50 elves and the other player with 60 identical elves is completely reasonable.

It is.

Try The Trap scenario, and put the 60 model force as the Invaders.

That would be a perfectly reasonable game.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?

The skaven player just laughs and has fun with someone else. Because the fella with the ridiculous models that you listed won't get a game with anyone, and will then rage quit and complain that the game is stupid. Joke's on him, though, because he just bought a few hundred dollars of models that nobody in their right mind would play against as a set.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
A game that relies on people figuring out how to balance it on their own is not a well written game.

First, this means nothing in the context of the miniature games these games and this has already been presented in one form or another throughout the discussions. Games are more exact in some areas while being more vague in others. Virtually all depend on the players to some extent to even out the game.I can re-iterate some of the given examples in case you haven't went through the older posts, but there's the possibility that you just wanted to drop it and leave it so I'll be waiting for confirmation.

Second, the notion of a "well written" or "good" (if you find the two synonymous) game is so subjective that I doubt two players, isolated from one other, will give the same definition at length, even if they were playing the same game. This is what, I think, Sqorgar tried telling by posting:

 Sqorgar wrote:

2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?

3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?

These were ofcourse rhetorical questions. At best, the least common denominator between all given definitions will have nothing to do with the rules themselves, but with the emotional state of the player pre, during and post game. In other words a good game will make you feel better. This is maybe why there are cases when people who don't like the next iteration of a game bash it so badly - they felt so good with the last iteration that they either can't imagine feeling good again or do not get the same quantity of organic compounds as before (although they may get some, just not on the same level they're used to). Withdrawal is a highly emotional matter

Alas, the debate of what is a "good" or "well written" game is truly endless as people often stand by firmly behind their concrete definition, as it is indeed what they search in a game to make them feel good.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also, waspinator (awesome name btw!) Every game gets balanced by the players. Nobody is out in the world demanding the game be played strictly by the rules in order to ensure they crush their usual opponents every game. Age of sigmar skips the pregame math and goes straight to "what are you wanting to play today"

No fighting, insults, passive aggressiveness, rudeness, or crying. Just honest, straightforward, conversation then dice rolls.

I still say that this way of playing is not what a lot of people are looking for, as it precludes starting the coin toss with ,"my super awesome army that I created within the constraint system". In the same way most Magic players try to gain an advantage by having a good, stacked deck, a lot of wargamers enjoy starting the board with what they perceive is an advantage.

Which is ok; it just makes RAW AoS the wrong game for the person.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
With pick up games for other systems, you are there with a list or two, and hoping to find someone with that point total.

To be totally fair, it's usually not that bad. A couple of players can be cobbled together to play against one player with more models, and everyone can make small adjustments to make the points even up. Plus, in the local scene, certain game sizes are quite popular, so you only have to target your army for those army sizes.

The problem with 1850 vs 850 + 1000 is that the guy with the whole army is usually more experienced, has a much more cohesive army, and can mop the floor with the other 2 players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CoreCommander wrote:

Second, the notion of a "well written" or "good" (if you find the two synonymous) game is so subjective that I doubt two players, isolated from one other, will give the same definition at length, even if they were playing the same game. This is what, I think, Sqorgar tried telling by posting:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Spoiler:

2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?

3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?

I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience. A game does not have to be enjoyable to *everyone* to be a good. For example, lots of people have fun watching and playing baseball (or football, or golf); lots of other people think it's as boring as a bump on a log. So it's still a good game, because there are those who think it's a blast -- even though a lot of people don't see the point in it.

 Talys wrote:

I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience. A game does not have to be enjoyable to *everyone* to be a good. For example, lots of people have fun watching and playing baseball (or football, or golf); lots of other people think it's as boring as a bump on a log. So it's still a good game, because there are those who think it's a blast -- even though a lot of people don't see the point in it.

I agree with mostly of that as it is the same as "In other words a good game will make you feel better. ". Games that claim to have a target audience don't necessarily have to be enjoyed by it. The target audience will think it bad, but eventually another audience will find the game and perceive it as good. Hence the game inevitably(unless a stroke of very bad luck happens) will find its audience which considers it good and thus it will be "good". With AoS we might just be having that case .

Historicals is huge and has many shows, conventions, clubs and competitions. There are far more historical wargame mags around than SF/Fantasy.

The difference of GW is that Warhammer Fantasy/40K is so large and dominating in its market, that lots of people come into wargaming by GW and think it is the only thing.

Historicals is actually cheaper than GW by a wide margin. Table sizes needed range from small to very large. If you want to do Naval at semi-realistic scale, you need a large floor. I used to hire a community hall for a long weekend to do big naval battles like Jutland. At the smaller and of the scale, De Bellis Antiquitatis is designed to be played on a two foot square table for 15mm armies, or three foot square for 28mm.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
How dare you sir! You didn't play the game at all, and have already decided on what side would win. That is nonsense. I asked to see how bad it was, what tactics were used on the game you put forth as an example of the horrible imbalance of AoS, only to find out that your hypothetical match never occurred. Your assumption is that the azyr comp system is correct, that is rubbish.

They have had maybe 2 months worth of play testing, and are still working out kinks. If you didn't play, you can't claim the match was a bad one.

So 2 months is not enough but players are going to do it on the fly? Thanks for conceding your own point.

No it's neither nonsense nor rubish because the outcome of that game would be meaningles data. Playing exactly the same match with the same terrain multiple times with switching sides would be some information though still would be far from providing exact relative worth of units ofc.

Also I don't need that example. A bloodthirster, abom, slaughterbrute, terrorgheist and Nagash led by Karl Franz on the gryph get sudden death against 10 clanrats. The example was more to show that it can get bad in situations that are less clear. Which side is stronger, clanrats with abom and warlord or necromancer with gave guard and black knights? Should the latter get sudden death? Should skaven player negotiate, concede, cry tfg? Why not put fething points on it and attempt to balance and get rid of the hassle?

Sure that is some point than Azyr can be wrong. What are you going to use then to compare units, wounds, model count, your experience? Can you at least concede that number of models is the dumbest of those by far and that sudden death rule just doesnt work because 65 elite infantry fighting 99 peasanta shouldn't get a bonus?

Also is a worthless rule that might work only when players are self policing themselves a bad rule? Or is it again, "subjective".

The game should have been played to use it as an example of how broken the system is. Period. With your other example there, when someone who isn't lying about the situation comes in here and says they brought that giant monsters list, an their opponent only had 10 clan rats they both thought it would be a good balanced game they either had a decent chance of winning. Then I will be willing to accept that as a situation where the game broke, not a joke t beforehand.

In regards to the teaming up to fight the larger army in other games, you can do that in AoS also, and if your ally happens to have the same faction (or better yet, same army) then they will actually add to your ability with the majority of bonuses granted being based on area of effect and the targets keywords. That actually makes it more fair than the presented example because the synergy is built into the units.

Now, as an answer to the hyperbole I used in describing the non-existant players people use as their example for who in the world is breaking the game so effortlessly, it was a joke. It was used to show how truly nonsensical it is to think that people will not listen to each other (not just a one sided discussion, but a true conversation) and figure out how each of them would be able to enjoy themselves at the game. I used the example given because the notion that either of these things existing is purely fantastical and only exists in the mind of Hollywood or the internet. People don't dive into wargaming hoping to never speak to people, they are either totally fine with human interaction, or already playing with their friends. In both cases they are willing to discuss how they want to play with their opponents, sometimes weeks ahead of time.

Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?

Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.

Yeah, it's fun when you re-write the whole game, with actual though in it lol. I mean, tournament like that basicly fix all the thing people complains about. And that's why people are bitching: when you buy a game, you shouldn't have to re-write it in order to have structured game lol

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Nonsense. Skaven player drops more units, vc player drops more units, ofc never exceeding 2/3. Skaven player runs out of place in the deployment zone, vc player puts down last unit to stay at 2/3 -1 model and thanks to the initial 100 clanrats gets sudden death while still being much more powerful.

A game or two? If that's how you do it then I'm in awe. Why aren't you a game designer and playtester, such talent can't go to waste and I see you rolling in money amd swimming in champagne. On the other hand it really was that every AoS player can do it then I only wonder why GW didnt balance it after all, should take few days if all it takes to being able to eyeball entire armies is 2 games lol.

Then ofc there's an issue of caring around entire collections to properly utilise that ridiculous deployment method. My proposition for comp is limiting trunk size, should go well with tbe spirit of the rules.

Also, bad player? Sound awfuly competitive. Isn't the whole point to get rid of black hearted waac douche jocks that rampaged the community for years (all citation)? If it's not then what's the point of replacing points with that travesty?

Oh, ok... so it's not just 50 Grave Guard then? Your argument seems as such...

1. 50 Grave Guard is stronger than 100 Clanrats.
2. You're taking 100 more Clanrats? Fine, I'll take 50 more Grave Guard.
3. 100 Grave Guard is stronger than 200 Clanrats.

Do the rules allow you to overpower an opponent who isn't willing to fill his entire deployment zone with powerful models by filling your own deployment zone with powerful models? Sure. In a practical, real world scenario, will you get to play very many games with people when you do this? Probably not. You'll quickly be labelled as a bully who isn't fun to play with.

And yes, I've been playing these types of games for near on 30 years. I can generally tell whether a match will be even and whether certain units are any good after a game or two. I would hope anyone with ~30 years of experience could do the same. Your condescending sarcasm was entertaining to read though.

Your trunk size comment was also entertaining. Completely ridiculous, but entertaining. I have yet to see anyone carting around thousands of models because they're planning on completely filling their deployment zones. Most people simply stop once they've achieved a 'reasonably' sized army. I know words like reasonable can be scary because they aren't defined in the rules. Heck, you can't even look in a dictionary to see what the word 'reasonable' has to say about army size and model count. I know this is painful and scary, but you really might have to actually talk to an opponent before each game and come up with some general guidelines. Do you want to play a big game or a small game? Oh wait... we didn't define big or small. You might need to talk to your opponent about that also. Sarcasm aside, you're not playing games against faceless and silent automatons. If you get into a silent cold war of escalation, that's on you and your opponent. That should never happen in a real world, practical scenario.

 Talys wrote:

I keep it so simple. A good game is one that its target audience can have a bunch of fun with. A bad game is one that frustrates its target audience

Perhaps the AoS hate is what happens when people think they are the target audience, but aren't, and feel that their frustration is the result of it being a bad game rather than simply a misunderstanding?

Or maybe they aren't the target audience but they want to be and try to be, and the frustration comes from the difficulty of trying to wear an unfamiliar persona, to which they blame the game?

To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.

It only took a couple of weeks for people to come up with half-decent balancing mechanisms for AoS. Why couldn't GW have just done it to start with?

I think wargames should be trying to broaden the player base, not purposely shrinking them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.

Considering it a bitter experience is a generalizing assumption. What if the players eyeballed the units to a close enough extent (the concrete to hit/wound rolls ease the process for example) and all they have to do is play a game? The above would be useful mostly in the case when players are min-maxing.

You might need to talk to your opponent about that also.

you can talk to your opponent all you want, if there are no rules to force him to do something or keep him in check, he will do what ever he wants. .

Do the rules allow you to overpower an opponent who isn't willing to fill his entire deployment zone with powerful models by filling your own deployment zone with powerful models? Sure. In a practical, real world scenario, will you get to play very many games with people when you do this? Probably not. You'll quickly be labelled as a bully who isn't fun to play with.

You play for 30 years? And you want to tell me that you see more people try to not win the game, then win. And who cares if someone is labeled a bully or anything else. He gets the wins, gets the enjoyment out of the money he spent on his army and you get what? fake feeling of superiority after lost game, by calling him names. That is not much, losing is never fun.

I used the example given because the notion that either of these things existing is purely fantastical and only exists in the mind of Hollywood or the internet. People don't dive into wargaming hoping to never speak to people, they are either totally fine with human interaction, or already playing with their friends. In both cases they are willing to discuss how they want to play with their opponents, sometimes weeks ahead of time.

Come here then, enter any shop and try to get a game in any system of your choosing and check how those "fantastical" armies are offten. I never tire of this argument for any system. But no one would take a combination of X units, because it would be "unfair" and then I see people starting armies by buying those exact units, the internt told me no one would ever use.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair, if there are levels of power in the units, then GW could easily have given all units a power rating (or points value) to indicate their relative strength, thus avoiding the necessity for players to work it out by bitter experience.

It only took a couple of weeks for people to come up with half-decent balancing mechanisms for AoS. Why couldn't GW have just done it to start with?

Reminds me of some very competitive multiplayer video games and how they changed throughout the years. The competitive community is basically impossible to satisfy with the base rules. They will always want to tweak. So why fight that battle constantly instead of just opening the tools to everyone and saying make it how you want it.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


Now, I was asked about balance as a way to steer clear of my question put forth about tactical validity. I will ask again, can you name one table top wargaming tactic that exists that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar?

Are you asking if AOS has typical wargamming stuff missing?
No bonuses for flanking.

If I am hitting a flank they are either pulling that direction or not moving. That will keep them from possibly getting the bonuses for terrain or the capture ground sudden death victory condition. If I out flank attack fro two sides they divide their attacks and have almost no chance to retreat. So there are definite bonuses to doing either of those things.

Got anything else?

So there is no difference if you attack someone from the front or back?

 MWHistorian wrote:
So there is no difference if you attack someone from the front or back?

There can be a tremendous difference, depending on how models are positioned.