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've been playing loads Age of sigmar now for the 2 months and for just a 4 page rule book you can do quite a bit tactically with it, the war-scroll's are a fun to work with and nothing is truly OP compared to any thing else which is great as 8th was full of unbalanced units compared to another army book.

However 8th had some thing that AoS hasn't and that's a balancing mechanism in which is asks both players to bring same points of miniatures to a game, AoS has no such restriction and you can bring what ever you like, in my opinion this only works when you have a good relationship with the person your playing with as you can have a long winded and boring conversation on what both players should bring to a game. When trying to have a pick up game tho that long and really boring conversation comes up it fails as you have no relationship with the person your playing and compromises are harder to reach than ever, in the old days we said things like lets play 1500pts and both players would get on with choosing there forces but now the small game is all but impossible as each and every one of us has a different idea of what small is and leads to unhappy war-gamers.

The amount of games i've seen and played in the conversation at the end is always the same "you brought too many hero's. you brought too many monsters, you brought too much"

You could argue that points had to go any way because GW just made the points what they wanted it to be to sell miniatures and this is true but now that they've given up; Points can enter a golden age where GW has absolutely no say on the point values assigned to models . I point you towards PPC and Azyr comp where an active community is discussing the rules for a said model and assigning a points value for it that can be easily changed by the same consensus in the future.

Points equals equal fun for all.

This is sort of like the "practice makes perfect" versus "perfect practice makes perfect" thing.

"Points equals equal fun for all"?

"Perfectly balanced points equals equal fun for all"!

I have yet to see a community based system that has a balanced points system. In all fairness, we're still very early in the product release and the community has had very little time to come up with something truly balanced.

The biggest issue I see with the various attempts at balancing through points is that there is very little accounting for force multiplier units. Khorne Bloodbound Bloodsecrators are force multipliers. Their value depends entirely on how many other Khorne models you have in your army. A Bloodsecrator in an army with no other Khorne models is more or less useless... with one other unit it's mediocre... surrounded by Bloodreavers, it's amazing. How do the community efforts handle this? From what I've seen, they either don't at all or they assume a midpoint.

The core rules allow for balance as we know inherently that a Bloodsecrator is worth more in a Khorne focused army and so can deploy accordingly. I know this is unpopular, but it works. The community efforts so far lead to situations where specific units are under- or over-costed, depending on what synergies are present in your army. They also lead to situation where specific play styles are almost impossible to field (horde style armies or armies requiring multiple, weak heroes... such as Moulder).

"You brought too much" is really just an issue for new players, and they'll learn. Two seasoned players, even strangers, following the core rules of alternating deployment WITHOUT pre-made lists will get along just fine. I'm assuming a certain amount of sportsmanship. This new system is excellent for almost immediately identifying people with low sportsmanship during the deployment phase. These people will simple have fewer and fewer willing opponents if they intentionally "bring too much".

At least, that's been my experience thus far. I've been a table top gamer for more than two decades, have worked for Games Workshop and have managed a number of gaming communities (including WFB, 40k and MtG leagues). I only mention this to let you know I'm not a neophyte fanboy. I'd love to see a balanced list building mechanism, but am not holding my breath.

Hettar wrote:
I've been playing loads Age of sigmar now for the 2 months and for just a 4 page rule book you can do quite a bit tactically with it, the war-scroll's are a fun to work with and nothing is truly OP compared to any thing else which is great as 8th was full of unbalanced units compared to another army book.

However 8th had some thing that AoS hasn't and that's a balancing mechanism in which is asks both players to bring same points of miniatures to a game, AoS has no such restriction and you can bring what ever you like, in my opinion this only works when you have a good relationship with the person your playing with as you can have a long winded and boring conversation on what both players should bring to a game. When trying to have a pick up game tho that long and really boring conversation comes up it fails as you have no relationship with the person your playing and compromises are harder to reach than ever, in the old days we said things like lets play 1500pts and both players would get on with choosing there forces but now the small game is all but impossible as each and every one of us has a different idea of what small is and leads to unhappy war-gamers.

The amount of games i've seen and played in the conversation at the end is always the same "you brought too many hero's. you brought too many monsters, you brought too much"

You could argue that points had to go any way because GW just made the points what they wanted it to be to sell miniatures and this is true but now that they've given up; Points can enter a golden age where GW has absolutely no say on the point values assigned to models . I point you towards PPC and Azyr comp where an active community is discussing the rules for a said model and assigning a points value for it that can be easily changed by the same consensus in the future.

Points equals equal fun for all.

Nothing is OP....thats funny. Nagash is OP. its like playing a game of poker against somebody who always get dealt a royal flush. That's the only thing that I consider OP. On the subject of balancing, its more or less a gentlemens agreement not to be an ass. Points were just a way to justify being an ass. For instance you could say that an 8th ed flying nurgle demon prince was extremely broken, but as long as it fit within the points it was justified. I've found that basing it off wounds and not being a jerk usually works for balancing.

It seems like lots of people can't handle the 'don't be a jerk' element. Although I do thing your comment about points being a way to justify being a jerk is spot on.

 Kriswall wrote:
It seems like lots of people can't handle the 'don't be a jerk' element. Although I do thing your comment about points being a way to justify being a jerk is spot on.

And yet it is entirely possible two people can come to the table fully intending to have a fun, casual, game and put down armies that they think are balanced and end up with neither of them having fun because the armies are brutally imbalanced.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It seems like lots of people can't handle the 'don't be a jerk' element. Although I do thing your comment about points being a way to justify being a jerk is spot on.

And yet it is entirely possible two people can come to the table fully intending to have a fun, casual, game and put down armies that they think are balanced and end up with neither of them having fun because the armies are brutally imbalanced.

And that should happen no more than once or twice and be chalked up as a learning curve associated with a new game. If they continually misjudge the same units, the issue isn't with the game, it's with the players.

That happened to me. My opponent brought a 10 man block of Ironguts. We were both shocked how effective they were. The game was completely one sided. Live and learn. He doesn't bring 10 man blocks of Ironguts anymore. 3 man or so blocks are more reasonable for the games we play. Again, learning curve. If he kept bringing the big block of Ironguts and I kept bringing the same stuff and he kept winning in a landslide victory... that's not a game issue... that's a me and him issue.

its been 2 months of living and learning and i for for one am ready to stop, any example of 8th edition points to justify points not working is irrelevant as were not talking about GW's sell daemon prince points here were talking about community based points where if the daemon prince is under priced then with community feed back this will get picked up on and changed not like GW's army book set in stone points of the past.

For myself why should i have to be always in the dark about what is the equivalent to what, how many clan-rats can i bring to equal 2 mounfang cav models? and whats most important is that 2 people can crack on with a game and not be influenced by what the other guy brought and that is whats points achieve, not all this list tailoring apocalypse style gaming were getting now.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It seems like lots of people can't handle the 'don't be a jerk' element. Although I do thing your comment about points being a way to justify being a jerk is spot on.

And yet it is entirely possible two people can come to the table fully intending to have a fun, casual, game and put down armies that they think are balanced and end up with neither of them having fun because the armies are brutally imbalanced.

I agree with you, this happens regularly with all game systems, whether they are point-based or not.

Fortunately not having to worry about points gives players much more flexibility to adapt and adjust to ensure future games are fun rather than trying to determine if one side was undercosted, one was overcosted, or something in between!

It doesn't really seem like a game issue. Clearly if you keep having the same problems you and your opponents are not discussing anything after the game. And with 8th you didn't need to list tailor you just had to deathstar tailor. All you needed to do was have your deathstar unit better than the opponents and you were golden. And their was definitely list tailoring in 8th edition, so dont try to slide that one by.

That is all absurd. Of course it is the games fault if 2 players are not able to have a fair, balanced game. THE PURPOSE OF GAME RULES IS TO PROVIDE EXACTLY THAT.

If that is true, why does the "that f-ing guy" phenomenon exist at all? I guess if you generalize it so, then sure, almost every single game out there is fundamentally flawed because nearly nothing provides a perfectly fair and balanced environment.

People still like to play games though, and are able to have fun despite the game's "failings"... so I guess your point is lost on me. If the game is not perfect, we should not play it? What are you trying to say here Jonolikespie?

How many people are playing the scenarios rather than pitched battles?
In our group apart from the first couple of 'get to know you' games, we've only played scenarios and this really hasn't come up as a problem.

Yeah, we exclusively use missions too Roper. Either from one of the books, or from the tournament scene.

As a VC player the "gentleman's agreement" usually flies both ways with me. I usually bring my entire army with me to accommodate any size or play style this includes Nagash in all of his infamous glory. Honestly he's there as a centerpiece but as a warning "you pull cheese and I'm bringing out the big guns".

I've yet to feel the need to put him on the table and hopefully that trend keeps up as honestly I'm having fun with just my deathrattle units. That's one of the things I enjoys about AoS deployment that that there is no "SUPRISE!! Here's my list, you lose" alternate deployment lets me kinda know whats coming and atleast try and counter it.

On the flip side, VC currently have a sorta bad rap at as one of the easily abusable armies and I do my best to keep that opinion of them in the grave where it belongs.

quiestdeus wrote:
If that is true, why does the "that f-ing guy" phenomenon exist at all? I guess if you generalize it so, then sure, almost every single game out there is fundamentally flawed because nearly nothing provides a perfectly fair and balanced environment.

1) That Guy doesn't just mean someone who brought a competitive list, it also includes people who cheat, get passive aggressive (or even outright hostile) just because they are losing, people who demand to see the book every time a rule gives you an advantage. Crap like that.

2) Almost every other game out there has enough balance behind it that there are no lists/models that you can bring that make people think your That Guy just for choosing a certain model. That's a uniquely GW problem.

Hettar wrote:
were not talking about GW's sell daemon prince points here were talking about community based points

If we are talking about "community based points" (rather than ones GW publishes) then get a community together and come up with points.

Azyr was created to facilitate public campaign play, where "that guy" may show up and you need some boundaries and what not in the game.

It is indeed tweaked regularly through about 50 playtesters, and to date we have a bit over 450 playtest games with it.

It is also created to manifest a "general balanced set of sides" as opposed to trying to come up with a precise system of balance, which IMO is impossible unless you are just playing with the same one or two scenarios which campaigns do not.

Have you tried reading other armies warscrolls? Can give you a nice idea on what power-level the units are on.

http://tinyurl.com/otkv6hz (an ugly GW link to all the warscrolls)

I think that after 2 months of playing AoS, Agreeing on a set amount of Warscrolls works really quite well, so long as you make the effort to say and discuss what both players are going to bring before hand. Its a social contract which I feel makes it a more fun game to play, given you play the right people, so if it does come to me or my opponent bringing more than agreed upon, then I can gather what kind of player my opponent is, and whether or not it will be enjoyable to play with them again, if it isnt then I wont, and avoid the whole "your army is broken" or "you brought too much" arguments.

Basically discussing what both players would be comfortable with and making a compromise is the way to go in my opinion.

 Fleshrott wrote:
I think that after 2 months of playing AoS, Agreeing on a set amount of Warscrolls works really quite well, so long as you make the effort to say and discuss what both players are going to bring before hand. Its a social contract which I feel makes it a more fun game to play, given you play the right people, so if it does come to me or my opponent bringing more than agreed upon, then I can gather what kind of player my opponent is, and whether or not it will be enjoyable to play with them again, if it isnt then I wont, and avoid the whole "your army is broken" or "you brought too much" arguments.

Basically discussing what both players would be comfortable with and making a compromise is the way to go in my opinion.

If you have a set amount of warscrolls, does that mean that both players will always have the same number of units?

Not necessarily, just a maximum amount one player can deploy.

 Kriswall wrote:
It seems like lots of people can't handle the 'don't be a jerk' element. Although I do thing your comment about points being a way to justify being a jerk is spot on.

Where in the rules does it say that taking nagash is being a jerk, in fact all the material from GW points out that AoS is to be played with any models people want.

Basically discussing what both players would be comfortable with and making a compromise is the way to go in my opinion.

My opponent says, I don't like range troops and cannons, and they make 90% of my list, what am I suppose to do?

don't play that opponent.

Makumba wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
It seems like lots of people can't handle the 'don't be a jerk' element. Although I do thing your comment about points being a way to justify being a jerk is spot on.

Where in the rules does it say that taking nagash is being a jerk, in fact all the material from GW points out that AoS is to be played with any models people want.

Basically discussing what both players would be comfortable with and making a compromise is the way to go in my opinion.

My opponent says, I don't like range troops and cannons, and they make 90% of my list, what am I suppose to do?

Taking Nagash doesn't make you a jerk... unless you know for a fact that your opponent isn't prepared for it and can't counter it. Taking Nagash in that scenario kind of makes you a jerk.

And to the other question... find a new opponent who does want to play you.

I've only played 4 games of AoS without using any scenarios. Just basically move across the table and kill each other. I use VC and am finding summoning to be a bit much. Put models on the table, opponent takes them out, summon them back next turn and repeat. Even other guys who use summoning find it a drag at times. Just makes it a close combat fiesta. Have any of you played scenarios where summoning may make more sense?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry if this is in the wrong thread. Fairly new to forum stuff.

With summoning, be ready for opponents to start fielding flyers and units that can come up from reserves. If they are within 9" of your summoners then that entire side of your summoner is a no go zone for summoning.

I use chariots and cavalry with my high elves for that purpose. Chariot footprint plus guaranteed run of 6" creates a pretty big null zone for my enemy. (Normally slaanesh and tzeench daemons)

Nerm86 wrote:
don't play that opponent.

Then you find out that your faction is the only one who plays mass range troops and cannons, and they are the only good thing about it, so everyone wants you to not use them, because you know your good can make them lose games, so after a few weeks you can start playing yourself or buy another army of a faction that plays like everyone elses, which no one will dare to veto, because everyone uses magic, monsters and multiple heros.

Taking Nagash doesn't make you a jerk... unless you know for a fact that your opponent isn't prepared for it and can't counter it.

How would you know that? you see his list only just before or even after the game, as there is no pre games list check, because of no points to be checked.

Makumba wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
don't play that opponent.

Then you find out that your faction is the only one who plays mass range troops and cannons, and they are the only good thing about it, so everyone wants you to not use them, because you know your good can make them lose games, so after a few weeks you can start playing yourself or buy another army of a faction that plays like everyone elses, which no one will dare to veto, because everyone uses magic, monsters and multiple heros.

Taking Nagash doesn't make you a jerk... unless you know for a fact that your opponent isn't prepared for it and can't counter it.

How would you know that? you see his list only just before or even after the game, as there is no pre games list check, because of no points to be checked.

I've found that there is this weird idea with AoS that you bring your entire collection to the table. You show up to your FLGS, you meet an opponent, he tells you he has Nagash and you are supposed to have your entire collection there to gather up your counters and keep adding units as per the RAW army building.

Makumba wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
don't play that opponent.

Then you find out that your faction is the only one who plays mass range troops and cannons, and they are the only good thing about it, so everyone wants you to not use them, because you know your good can make them lose games, so after a few weeks you can start playing yourself or buy another army of a faction that plays like everyone elses, which no one will dare to veto, because everyone uses magic, monsters and multiple heros.

Taking Nagash doesn't make you a jerk... unless you know for a fact that your opponent isn't prepared for it and can't counter it.

How would you know that? you see his list only just before or even after the game, as there is no pre games list check, because of no points to be checked.

You would know this from literally 30 seconds of conversation. Seriously. 30 seconds. OR... deploy Nagash last. If you feel you need him, deploy him. If you don't feel you need him, don't. This isn't rocket science. If you can't look at what an opponent brought to play with and know whether or not Nagash is needed, you need to build up more play experience.

 Kriswall wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Nerm86 wrote:
don't play that opponent.

Then you find out that your faction is the only one who plays mass range troops and cannons, and they are the only good thing about it, so everyone wants you to not use them, because you know your good can make them lose games, so after a few weeks you can start playing yourself or buy another army of a faction that plays like everyone elses, which no one will dare to veto, because everyone uses magic, monsters and multiple heros.

Taking Nagash doesn't make you a jerk... unless you know for a fact that your opponent isn't prepared for it and can't counter it.

How would you know that? you see his list only just before or even after the game, as there is no pre games list check, because of no points to be checked.

You would know this from literally 30 seconds of conversation. Seriously. 30 seconds. OR... deploy Nagash last. If you feel you need him, deploy him. If you don't feel you need him, don't. This isn't rocket science. If you can't look at what an opponent brought to play with and know whether or not Nagash is needed, you need to build up more play experience.

Yeah, clearly you need to play more games to .. get the experience ... to play more games...

You don't realize how dumb that sounds? It's basically the Warhammer equivalent of the old employment catch-22, where you need work experience to get a job, but you need a job to get work experience.