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.

 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?

This has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of anyone I've played with. We play the core rules, straight out of the box. The only house rule we use is to measure from the base instead of from the model. This was done mainly so people won't feel the need to set bases on top of bases.

There has been no "bitter experience" learning curve. I also have yet to experience a lack of balance. There are plenty of balancing mechanisms built into the game... alternating deployment, sudden death objectives, first turn going to the smaller number of units, etc. Collectively, and combined with even rudimentary sportsmanship, these mechanisms have provided me with several dozen balanced games... the majority of which couldn't really be decided until very near the end.

My two cents on why GW didn't add a points system to begin with? They didn't want one. I'm certain this wasn't a last minute conversation where someone said, "crap... we forgot a points system! oh well, the community will figure something out." I'm certain they intentionally left it out to shake things up and hopefully attract new gamers and revitalize existing ones.

One thing is absolutely certain... releasing a "9th Edition" that was just an updated version of 8th Edition with the same tired mechanics and game play would have been a huge mistake. 8th Edition was a bad product in that people weren't buying it. The only way to save the product line was to torch the rules, build something new in their place and re-purpose the models.

Sqorgar wrote:

 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?

Yep! I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, there are disgruntled players of WHFB, too, but a lot of people who rage over AoS were NOT Fantasy Battle players.

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

I agree with you, MWH. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire player base wants the same thing, or that two players can be happy with the same game. If you look at it another way, AoS broadens the player base for the hobby by providing a different kind of game for a different kind of player, while simultaneously not appealing at all to some traditional player types. But there are plenty of games for them anyhow.

 Talys wrote:

Sqorgar wrote:

 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?

Yep! I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, there are disgruntled players of WHFB, too, but a lot of people who rage over AoS were NOT Fantasy Battle players.

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

I agree with you, MWH. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire player base wants the same thing, or that two players can be happy with the same game. If you look at it another way, AoS broadens the player base for the hobby by providing a different kind of game for a different kind of player, while simultaneously not appealing at all to some traditional player types. But there are plenty of games for them anyhow.

I have yet to run into someone who is 'raging' against AoS and wasn't a Fantasy player before. Wouldn't a new person just say "this isn't for me" and move on? They have literally nothing at stake besides maybe a box or two of models. The rules are all free and if they weren't WFB players before it's not like they have tons of models at home that they no longer feel they can play with. This would be like me buying a ~100 USD board game and finding out that I don't like it. I wouldn't 'rage' online about it.

Is anyone here that is consistently posting about how bad the rules are brand new to fantasy? In other words, no experience with WFB at all?

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

Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.

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?

No I asked you about balance because I wanted to see if you can ever admit something is bad in Age of Sigmar rules. You apparently can't ofc and won't admit that model count based balance is stupid and inherently flawed. You were told multiple times why AoS is tacticaly shallow but it's ohviously pointless because you will just post "show me one tactic that's missing" like a broken record completly ignoring the fact that it's not a 0-1 thing. No offence man I think you're ok but discussing AoS in particular with you doesn't make sense imo.

I for example can tell you right away what AoS got right - increased movement range and monsters loosing effectivness when hurt. Nothing else sadly.

Anyway, on flanking, again.

There's no flanking because units don't have flanks or rear.

The poor equivalent of flanking you talk about makes sense only when:

- there's not enough place to charge the unit you want to charge in the shortest line

- the enemy unit is formed so it has a short side and even then it has to be big enough so you can limit the number of models piling in

- the enemy unit has a business in reatreating

So it is situational and most of the time it's better to hit the unit asap instead of circling around it. It's a shallow game.

I'm also certain that you find shooting into cc without friendly fire and shooting out of combat as having positive impact on tactical depth.

Btw in the other thread some AoS advocate claimed it is good because it "mitigates skill" so maybe start there with proving the tactical depth of the game heh.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

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.

Could you re read? I'd really like to know whether it's my posts that are confusing or you juat answered without reading. Thanks.



Automatically Appended Next Post:


In short, everything's fine with the rules because people are "reasonable" and self police. Great rules, they should tell law makers about it.

Btw I'm happy to entertain. I just love to make the world better around me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

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 peasants 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.

It would be meaningless data. Period. And not an example of anything. A guy lost, was it skill, terrain, list, matchup, luck? One game proves nothing and is worthless as assesment of balance, if you don't understand that then no wonder you don't see a problem.

The system is broken because it's based on model count and it's not checkers ffs. Basic logic.

Sudden death is basically an attempt to limit relative army size when people are playing pitched-battle style games.
Everyone knows that's on the cards, so they deploy their armies accordingly. The 'must-haves' first, and so on until you decide to stop.
Yes, it can very easily be broken and bent - and there is nothing in the rules to stop you deploying a cluster of 10+ wound models.
(I'm not going to get into the 'social contract'-type discussion around what makes for an enjoyable game)

If you're playing AoS using any of the published scenarios, sudden death is ignored in favour of yes/no victory conditions for the most part anyway.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Sqorgar wrote:

 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?

Yep! I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, there are disgruntled players of WHFB, too, but a lot of people who rage over AoS were NOT Fantasy Battle players.

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

I agree with you, MWH. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire player base wants the same thing, or that two players can be happy with the same game. If you look at it another way, AoS broadens the player base for the hobby by providing a different kind of game for a different kind of player, while simultaneously not appealing at all to some traditional player types. But there are plenty of games for them anyhow.

I have yet to run into someone who is 'raging' against AoS and wasn't a Fantasy player before. Wouldn't a new person just say "this isn't for me" and move on? They have literally nothing at stake besides maybe a box or two of models. The rules are all free and if they weren't WFB players before it's not like they have tons of models at home that they no longer feel they can play with. This would be like me buying a ~100 USD board game and finding out that I don't like it. I wouldn't 'rage' online about it.

Is anyone here that is consistently posting about how bad the rules are brand new to fantasy? In other words, no experience with WFB at all?

Who's raging? It's hilarious to watch. This is me when talking AoS

http://captiongenerator.com/48861/Age-of-Sigmar-interview

Also it's good that fantasy died. I agree with mr. Bobtheinquisitor when he said that "fantasy was spared the horror of bloodsecrators and Murderheim". It's a shame that there will be less players but rules will get better and no paying for them anymore.

And I know people who never played fantasy that are bashing and ridiculing AoS. Sorry.

 Kriswall wrote:

 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?

This has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of anyone I've played with. We play the core rules, straight out of the box. The only house rule we use is to measure from the base instead of from the model. This was done mainly so people won't feel the need to set bases on top of bases.

....

Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 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?

This has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of anyone I've played with. We play the core rules, straight out of the box. The only house rule we use is to measure from the base instead of from the model. This was done mainly so people won't feel the need to set bases on top of bases.

....

Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.

Which is sort of anecdotal based on the experiences of people who post to Dakka. Ultimately, my experience matters most for me and yours matters most for you.

[/spoiler]

There is balance. If two people are placing models to counter the percieved strengths of their opponents models, then the one who is outnumbered should be given a slight advantage. No scenario put forth as an example showed any thought in what models were being played or how they were deployed. I am certainly able to admit problems with a system, measurements and line of sight should be done based on actual body parts like 40k. There should have been at least 3 scenarios given for free with the rules to allow people to see examples of the style of game AoS is conducive to. Hell, I even have a proposed rule thread discussing a tournament balancing system for it. What I will not do is say that a friendly discussion about what you want to play is a bad way to balance the game because it is by far the best way to balance anything.

Now, who cares if flanks are not identified? People have been flanking armies, units, and groups forever without having to be told there is a reason to do so. How do you flank a unit of skirmishers? Or a block of infantry with a wall/building to either side? How about a block of spearmen on top of a hill with spears and shields facing out like a porcupine? Flanking is always situational, period. Instead of worrying about pilling on extra game mechanics for benefits for being in formations and attacking them from different angles, you have tactical options presented the limited options a unit has while engaged in regards to movement and their ability to attack to base your tactics around.

As for shooting into and out of combat, it is a cinematic game. Most shooting units can't compete with the damage output of dedicated melee units, especially when within 3" of someone. So, they get to continue shooting while in combat. Hell, the shots that miss are the ones being distracted, or the archers who were just killed are still trying to buy time for their buddies to put down the enemy giant. There are fluff and statistical reasons to allow it, so why not?

RoperPG wrote:

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

Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.

Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.

Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

...

Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.

Which is sort of anecdotal based on the experiences of people who post to Dakka. Ultimately, my experience matters most for me and yours matters most for you.

When you collect a mass of anecdotal evidence from different people it becomes quantifiable. That is the case on DakkaDakka. You personally have experienced X. I can look at the thousands of users and find that 75% (made up figure) say one thing and 25% say the opposite.

Ultimately of course your personal situation is the one that matters to you, but GW need to look at the overall market if they are to create games that will be commercially successful.

There is a large body of opinion that AoS needs a balancing mechanism. People have written a number them and they are being used in tournaments. The tournament that is the topic of this thread used one.

It simply is undeniable that there is a lot of demand for a balancing system in the game.

I'm really enjoying the passive aggressiveness from people trying to defend Age of Sigmar. My favourite defence so far has been those trying to attack competitive games in general, while my second favourite is the classic "it's just the internet!" fallacy.

Lythrandire

Yes you can say flank charge is situational period but there are degrees of situational. As in "never forget" in KoW vs "maybe if the planets are right" in AoS. As in "crucial" to " rarely relevant", "game deciding" to "not important in the end" etc. You will have to move to double tap, or few guys less will fight back, or you will stop some retreat in AoS when in other games you will rout/ decimate units that would otherwise stand their ground for turns.

Yes it's not absolute. You can have two gunlines in whfb never moving to circle the opponent and an odd small game in AoS where the attack to the short side will win you the game. That doesn't change the fact the fact that the former, thanks to facing and bonuses for flank and rear charges requires much more forethought in movement phase than the latter where you just freely roam the battlefield with directionoess blobs that can sometimes be micromanaged for attack efficiency.

 jonolikespie wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

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

Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.

Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.

Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.

Also in 40k "flanking" the models behind cover with shooty unit can make a big difference of 4++ vs nothing. Situational ofc and I'd love modifiers for shooting at targets in the open but much more decesive than in AoS where you're better to double tap asap. Ofc 40k is a simpleton and shallow game as well but AoS somehow managed to beat it as far as shallow goes.

 jonolikespie wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

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

Generally in wargames, the 'front' of the unit is where the characters/leaders/special weapons are.
By attacking a unit in the 'rear', you are freezing those troops out of the combat as there is no concept of 'switching' models in AoS.
So instead of a champion and a guy with a double handed weapon dealing all the damage, you're just dealing with rank and file.

Just putting it out there but that is not 'generally in wargames' to me. In 40k yes. AoS apparently. Warhammer fantasy used to reduce the number of attacks back at you and a bonus to combat res. Kings of War gives you double or triple your number of attacks. Warmachine and Hordes you get extra damage. Infinity you get an unopposed roll since you're out of your opponent's LOS when normally they could defend themselves and shoot back.

Hell, games like Dystopian Wars and Battlefleet Gothic flanking your enemy means they can't bring certain weapons to bear since you are outside their arc. Come to think of it even 40k vehicles usually have lower rear armour.

True, and in every one of those games there is some definition of facing or sight arc within the rules, so they can define a bonus for utilising that.
It is still possible to garner a 'bonus' within AoS based on manoeuvring. It's just a lot more situational, and can't be summed up as "I'm stood here so I get X".
Whether that qualifies as good/bad/tactical/whatever is personal opinion, but it's possible to do.

 Imposter101 wrote:
I'm really enjoying the passive aggressiveness from people trying to defend Age of Sigmar. My favourite defence so far has been those trying to attack competitive games in general, while my second favourite is the classic "it's just the internet!" fallacy.

As opposed to the active aggressiveness from some detractors? (And, to be fair, a lot of passive aggressiveness as well, the most egregious being the classic "AoS is a game for babies" or equivalent, sometimes followed by "but that's totally ok, even I enjoy a baby game now and then!" *pats head*)

 Mymearan wrote:


As opposed to the active aggressiveness from some detractors? (And, to be fair, a lot of passive aggressiveness as well, the most egregious being the classic "AoS is a game for babies" or equivalent, sometimes followed by "but that's totally ok, even I enjoy a baby game now and then!" *pats head*)

And your response is snide, nasty and inaccurate.

This is neither 'active aggression' nor is it an accurate statement (so thanks for misrepresentation, I think). Where is the post that says 'aos is a game for babies', eh? Or 'a game for babies'. And where is the head patting?

Perhaps there needs to be some rule that states any Age of Sigmar topic that reaches over two pages gets immediately locked. That seems to consistently be the point where any usefulness gets replaced by skub wars.

Saying "AoS is for kids" doesn't mean you are a kid because you play it. It makes you an adult playing kid's game. I for example truly enjoy Winnie the Pooh, does it make me a kid? Stop with the fallacy.

Also I for example would be much nicer if every advocate acted like mr. Talys or mr. Hulksmash but then comes a boor like mr. Jack Flask with his "gakshow of whining man-children" and there you go.

Again there's a difference between insulting people and insulting people's creation, understanding that simple fact would help immensly with toning down the discussion. I for example don't consider any of my disputants dumb, shallow, simple, childish etc for a single second, you just happen to be dead wrong on this particular topic guys, nothing else

I tend to agree.

Once the argument gets to active/passive aggression of the two sides, firstly you have forgotten the wide spectrum of opinion in the middle, and secondly you are straying off the substantive points in to ad hominem territory.

However I also have faith in the good sense of users to get back to the topic.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Saying "AoS is for kids" doesn't mean you are a kid because you play it. It makes you an adult playing kid's game. I for example truly enjoy Winnie the Pooh, does it make me a kid? Stop with the fallacy.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where the cannibal that murdered Pooh's family came back for Pooh because he wanted his head to complete the great pyramid of skulls he's been working on.

Stop with the condescension. Saying that AoS is a kids' game is not just factually incorrect but condescending and insulting to those who enjoy it. No amount of disclaimers change that, you may as well be saying "I'm not racist, but..."

AoS has a fairly simple ruleset. This by itself isn't a mark for or against it and nor does mean the game's for kids. You could fit the rules to Chess on even less than four pages and play the game fairly well before your teens, yet nobody considers it a kid's game. The only reason people saying it of AoS is to put it, and the people who play it, down.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Also I for example would be much nicer if every advocate acted like mr. Talys or mr. Hulksmash but then comes a boor like mr. Jack Flask with his "gakshow of whining man-children" and there you go.

Then how about setting an example yourself? The gak isn't just coming from the pro-skub side I can assure you, and if everyone discussed the game in the way Killwall and Kilkrazy did this topic would be a much more enjoyable read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tend to agree.

Once the argument gets to active/passive aggression of the two sides, firstly you have forgotten the wide spectrum of opinion in the middle, and secondly you are straying off the substantive points in to ad hominem territory.

However I also have faith in the good sense of users to get back to the topic.

Yeah I wasn't really being serious. Though this topic in particular seems to have gone past the point of no return.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Ultimately of course your personal situation is the one that matters to you, but GW need to look at the overall market if they are to create games that will be commercially successful.

To be fair, I think they have a good idea of the type of player they are aiming at. It just so happens it isn’t the hardcore element (including me, by the way) that wants clean, watertight games with intricate and detailed mechanics.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There is a large body of opinion that AoS needs a balancing mechanism. People have written a number them and they are being used in tournaments. The tournament that is the topic of this thread used one.
It simply is undeniable that there is a lot of demand for a balancing system in the game.

There is a large body of opinion from a certain section of the community. Plenty others seem to be happy enough. Let’s be clear; I don’t disagree with you. At all. I’d personally prefer a more structured game. That said; AOS has a balancing mechanism – figure it out with your opponent as to what you want to play. Be creative and design some interesting scenarios and match ups. If your opponent is a bellend, don’t play them. Don’t dismiss it Killkrazy, this approach has merit (and I say that in the context of any game). It can be fun, and opens up the game by putting you in the driving seat. Let’s also be clear; this approach is not perfect, or ‘better’, it needs certain requirements to function, has limitations and it not (nor should it be) the go-to option all the time. I just see it as a style of play that not a lot of gamers are familiar with, or exposed to.

And also, as a counter point to ‘there is a large body of opinion that AOS needs a balancing mechanism’, surely one can turn this round and argue that rather than trying to change the game, maybe it’s the players that should change; maybe the players should, or could change their attitudes, and maybe step out and try a different way of playing wargames rather than simply assuming the wargame itself is the problem, and that their way of flaying is fautless, or at least is the ‘proper’ way to play a game (because it’s what they’re familiar with maybe, or else their way is all they’ve been exposed to?), and that anything else is somehow flawed? I don’t see it as any different to travelling to a foreign country and insisting on eating McDonalds or fish ‘n’ chips; surely you should try the local cuisine and see merit in how other cultures operate? And let’s be honest – gaming cultures are a thing. They exist. Some are ‘familiar’. Some are ‘foreign’. All should be embraced, or at least, sampled. Most deserve some modicum of respect. My $0.02.

I though the OP was about people having fun in a certain tournament. You know, a tournament that made up BALANCING rules that every player requested when AoS came out.

I mean, some people need to wake up. AoS is not a ''bad'' game per say, but having points or some sort of actual balancing would make it better. Hence why every event I've saw so far, or youtube channel playing AoS, have come out with their OWN rule to BALANCE army selection.

Everybody prefer playing by the book (or use a tiny bit of houserulling) instead of playing houserule with a tiny bit of the actual rule. If AoS would have a simple balance system, I could see the game survive. Without it, it's going to be only small groups, playing here and there, without mixing into other shop and stuff because you simply can't without good rule. It's not me being a TFG, it's just human nature: We need rule to behave ourselves. If you don't think so, I don't know what to tell you... maybe you are an anarchist? If one day we have more anarchist than other people, you will be right.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

...

Your experience while not invalid per se is only anecdotal. The wider experience as evidenced by postings to DakkaDakka is that very many people want a balancing system and numerous attempts have been made to provide one.

Which is sort of anecdotal based on the experiences of people who post to Dakka. Ultimately, my experience matters most for me and yours matters most for you.

When you collect a mass of anecdotal evidence from different people it becomes quantifiable. That is the case on DakkaDakka. You personally have experienced X. I can look at the thousands of users and find that 75% (made up figure) say one thing and 25% say the opposite.

Ultimately of course your personal situation is the one that matters to you, but GW need to look at the overall market if they are to create games that will be commercially successful.

There is a large body of opinion that AoS needs a balancing mechanism. People have written a number them and they are being used in tournaments. The tournament that is the topic of this thread used one.

It simply is undeniable that there is a lot of demand for a balancing system in the game.

You do realize that the people posting to the AoS sub forums on Dakka represent a vocal minority so far as GW is concerned, right? People vote with their wallets. GW fundamentally changed the way balancing works in their Fantasy line and sales increased. The larger anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that people are just fine with the changes.

I'll grant you that there is some demand for a points or force org based balancing system in Age of Sigmar. Is it a lot? That's very hard to tell when you're only hearing from vocal minorities. It's very possible that the majority of players (who don't post regularly on Dakka about AoS) are just fine with how the new rules are setup.

Ultimately, you can't make all of the people happy all of the time. So long as sales increase, I would expect GW to keep on trucking and ignoring the tournament scene.

My criticism of AOS isn't that it's simple. X-Wing is simple and its a fantastic game.
The problem I see with AOS is that it's shallow. X-Wing, while simple, has a lot of complexity and a lot of tactical depth. By tactical depth I mean there is a lot of different things you can do. Working hard to get behind an opponent is very rewarding and small changes in ships and pilots make big differences. (Just to name a few)
AOS, while simple, doesn't reward (as much) tactical maneuvers and the differences between units aren't that big. Which leads units and battle strategy to be homogeneous despite the large variety of units.

Simple games can be awesome. I love simple games.
Silly games can be awesome. I love Munchikin.
But somehow AOS seems to do both of those in the wrong way.
In other words, its not the concept of AOS, but the execution.


Oh, and they need a balancing mechanism to be viable in the long term.

Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?

More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Plumbumbarum, those wargames mentioned where flanking matters also only allow you to fight in formations. Why would every army fight in the exact same way? Why wouldn't they shield out every side when an enemy approaches?

More importantly, why should a game which so severely limits the tactical options available for troop placement (which then creates an excessively severe penalty that is only applicable when dealing with said limitation) considered more tactically deep than one with a general ruleset that allows for any kind of formation you want, and give tactical reasons to use them based on terrain layout, weapons loadout, and personal preference while still granting tactical and statistical bonuses for smart play?

Warmachine, Infinity and Malifaux reward maneuvering and don't have every or any units in formations.
Boom.

The problem with a close game of AOS is that that just means the loser would have probably won if they had put a few more guys down at the start.

We have no idea of the sales stats on AoS so that line of argument is impossible to follow up until the half-year report in January.

Certainly GW gave up on tournaments several years ago. Previously they had enthusiastically supported tournaments since the 1980s.

 MWHistorian wrote:
My criticism of AOS isn't that it's simple. X-Wing is simple and its a fantastic game.
The problem I see with AOS is that it's shallow. X-Wing, while simple, has a lot of complexity and a lot of tactical depth. By tactical depth I mean there is a lot of different things you can do. Working hard to get behind an opponent is very rewarding and small changes in ships and pilots make big differences. (Just to name a few)
AOS, while simple, doesn't reward (as much) tactical maneuvers and the differences between units aren't that big. Which leads units and battle strategy to be homogeneous despite the large variety of units.

I partially agree. X-Wing is a game where movement is one of the most important decisions you make on a per turn basis. Movement is simply less important in AoS. You're comparing apples and oranges.

By contrast, unit synergies are far more important and complex in AoS than they are in X-Wing. I can take a Lothern Sea Helm and give a Highborn unit re-rolls to hit, wound and armor at the expense of having to remain stationary. I might be wrong as I don't know all the units in X-Wing, but I believe ship upgrades primarily impact just the upgraded ship and that you don't get much cross over. I.e., taking Vader doesn't give any bonuses to other Tie Fighters in your list.

Also, I'd challenge your assertion that differences between units aren't that big. Nagash versus a swarm of 50 Night Goblins versus a Dwarf Cannon? These units aren't very similar at all. In X-Wing you tend to have... ships... that move and shoot? Sure, they have different equipment, weapons and abilities, but so do the AoS units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We have no idea of the sales stats on AoS so that line of argument is impossible to follow up until the half-year report in January.

Certainly GW gave up on tournaments several years ago. Previously they had enthusiastically supported tournaments since the 1980s.

We also have no idea what the average player thinks about AoS in regards to balancing mechanisms. I guess we'll have to wait until a comprehensive third party survey is done using an appropriate sample of GW's customer base.

Until then, I'm willing to allow you to use your anecdotal evidence from forum posters and tournament goers that some people would prefer a points system if you're willing to allow me to use my anecdotal evidence from retailers that the fantasy line is selling better.