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.

Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I'm really sick of this cynical "GW doesn't care about you, only your wallet" argument. GW is a publicly traded company and by law, they are beholden to their shareholders - not their fans. I haven't been a GW fan for very long but I think they do care about their fans - I think it shows in a lot of the decisions they make, like the painting tutorials they put up on Warhammer TV, or their painting line with the myriad of colors broken into base/layer/highlight shades, or the high quality of sculpt and plastic they use in their - let's face it - jaw dropping models. GW wants you to have the premium tabletop experience and every decision I've seen indicates that they are willing to go to great lengths to deliver it, even to the most novice gamer.

However, this doesn't extend to how much it costs to have that experience. GW is expensive - often too expensive - but they have quality products. You have to pay for the experience, but you can tell that a lot of attention went into creating it. GW does make decisions that favor their shareholders, which they have to, but within that constraint, GW still produces the best models on the market (or some of the best models, depending on your aesthetic preferences and/or hatred of GW) and still remains the industry leader in the field.

And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GW HQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.

I'm sorry but perhaps the reason you think GW cares about their fans is exactly because you haven't been a GW fan for long. We all started out loving the company once, just like you. But you know what, there is only so much that we as fans can put up with.
"Gamesday is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the GW hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
A somewhat infamous quote now, but that is what GW's head of IP told a courtroom while on a stand. How about "We sell toys to kids." Kirby's own words, also not very encouraging. How about the fact that as an Aussie I have to pay the same stupidly higher prices even though the vale of the Aussie dollar shot up a few years back and was almost on par with the US dollar? How about the blatantly anti consumer practices of enforcing embragos so I can't buy from America, pay the shipping myself and get something cheaper? There are plenty of reasons to believe GW don't think highly of their customers.

As for the claim that GW still produces the best models on the market as some kind of justification for the price... that's highly subjective. I think Infinity's models make GW's look like toys, but I know some people argue that because GW's are multi pose they are better. If you are talking models as a whole though, and not tabletop wargaming models Tamya kits blow GWs away in every category for half the price (a third if you are using Oz prices). I'd argue that these days GW are nothing special in the modeling department, they just have a large catalog.

I also saw the Warhammer TV thing too, and I saw the jokes about 'marketing 101' and 'market research' made in the thread. You know why people make those jokes at GW's expense? Because they are frustrated with GW and want them to change for the better. Seriously, wouldn't you like to know what is coming more than a week in advance? Wouldn't you prefer GW asked you what kinds of things you wanted so they could make those?

It's not just "Haterz Hatin" that makes us think GW doesn't care. It's GW's own words and actions that do.
GW comes off even worse when compared to other companies and how they treat their fans. Corvus Belli will send people and prizes if you have a group over 30 people. PP recently asked on their forum (because they're not scared of having one) what people wanted from their magazine. A month before that they asked what people would do to improve the game. Shortly after that a massive errata was published.
GW making high quality models isn't enough to make me think they actually care. Especially not when compared to how they used to act.
And then seeing models like this make me not so sure the best models on the market thing is true.


Edit: And AOS isn't really a skirmish game. You can use less models, but the game doesn't seem to do that particularly well. Nor massive battles either. It's sweet spot seems to be in the middle, like Warmachine size.

 Bottle wrote:

Makumba wrote:

also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.

are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc

Are you talking from personal experience here? Because my last game was a 4 player and it took a minute to decide the power level.

The games was fast and fun!

Same here, although it was only two players. We played a siege scenario and the guy had the Khorne starter box models. I said "how about. I use all the models I have, and you be the defender?" He said "ok" and we played a very close game where he had two models left at the end to take the win (the point of the scenario was that he was outnumbered and simply had to avoid being tabled after six turns).

I've never had the pre-game discussion take more than a few minutes.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm sorry but perhaps the reason you think GW cares about their fans is exactly because you haven't been a GW fan for long. We all started out loving the company once, just like you. But you know what, there is only so much that we as fans can put up with.

I get that, and I've been in that situation with other companies and other games in the past. I was a Sega fan. Ask me how that went. But when I decided I couldn't take it anymore, I moved my loyalties to another company that was better able to meet my needs as a gamer. The problem is, GW players don't move on. They keep playing, but they hate GW for it. I get that too. But I don't think the solution here is to just hate GW more loudly.

"Gamesday is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the GW hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
A somewhat infamous quote now, but that is what GW's head of IP told a courtroom while on a stand. How about "We sell toys to kids." Kirby's own words, also not very encouraging. How about the fact that as an Aussie I have to pay the same stupidly higher prices even though the vale of the Aussie dollar shot up a few years back and was almost on par with the US dollar? How about the blatantly anti consumer practices of enforcing embragos so I can't buy from America, pay the shipping myself and get something cheaper? There are plenty of reasons to believe GW don't think highly of their customers.

Some of those things are anti-consumer, and yeah, I think GW makes a lot of infuriating decisions - but I think that GW as a business is different than GW as a game creator, and I think GW as a game creator shows a lot of care and understanding for the players, even if GW as a business seems to undermine it at every turn. Seriously, if GW dropped the prices of everything 20% across the board, I think most complaints about GW would dry up over night. Yeah, the other stuff sucks, but it's the prices are where the root of the hatred really comes from.

Also, some of those things are just the low self esteem of gamers. "We sell toys to kids" Who cares?

As for the claim that GW still produces the best models on the market as some kind of justification for the price... that's highly subjective.

It absolutely is, but just like some people like Age of Sigmar, some people feel that GW's quality is worth the extra cost. I'm not sure I'm one of them. Truth be told, I'm not sure I can afford to maintain an interest in both Warmachine (where I play two armies, Khador and Cryx) and Age of Sigmar (where I play Stormcast), and when it comes down to it, I'm not sure which one I'd pick - and price is a HUGE concern. If AoS were the same price as Warmachine, it would win out easily, I think. I like the game better, the models are higher quality, and there's more variety in the types of experiences I can have with it. But I'm not going to sell a kidney to do so.

I think Infinity's models make GW's look like toys, but I know some people argue that because GW's are multi pose they are better. If you are talking models as a whole though, and not tabletop wargaming models Tamya kits blow GWs away in every category for half the price (a third if you are using Oz prices). I'd argue that these days GW are nothing special in the modeling department, they just have a large catalog.

I disagree. I think GW has some of the best models on the market. Not every model, but the really great models just floor me. I mean, I get the campaign books just to look at giant full page, glossy photos of the models they make. Nagash is jaw dropping. Even something like the Vampire Count Coven Throne with all that swirling stuff and the characters on it - I mean, holy crap. That's a fething model kit.

I also saw the Warhammer TV thing too, and I saw the jokes about 'marketing 101' and 'market research' made in the thread. You know why people make those jokes at GW's expense? Because they are frustrated with GW and want them to change for the better. Seriously, wouldn't you like to know what is coming more than a week in advance? Wouldn't you prefer GW asked you what kinds of things you wanted so they could make those?

ISure, I would love to know in advance. I tend to plan out my budget by the month, and knowing what's coming out helps me do that. But honestly, I don't need to buy them the week they come out. I have some room in my budget now, and I'm buying terrain kits that came out three months ago. And that's fine. As long as there isn't too much in the way of limited edition items that disappear after a month, I'll get them eventually. And having such a short time between having something announced and it coming out is great. It keeps the hype up, and honestly, I'll bet anything that it increases sales as you don't have much of a cooling down period between hearing about something and being able to buy it. So nah, I guess I don't really have a problem with that.

I'd like more long term goals, like what's in the future for AoS six months to a year down the line. But I've been burned by things like that in the past, where plans changed or get delayed, and it feels like I'm being strung along with a promised feature that never appears or doesn't come out to the standard I was expecting. That's half the reason I don't play MMOs anymore. I could see how such long term plans could ultimately bite GW in the ass, and if you were afraid of your fanbase, you'd be afraid to release plans that weren't 100% certain too.

As for listening to me... nah. I play GW's game, they don't make my game. I'm perfectly capable of making games myself (on computers, not necessarily miniatures), and if there's something I'd really like to see done, I'd do it. I play games from other people because I want to see their visions and experience their ideas. If every game were what I wanted, all the games would look the same eventually, and I value new ideas and variety more than conformity. I see gaming as something to explore, not comfort food. I want wild and untamed experiences. To me, a brilliant idea that doesn't quite work is more exciting that an expertly implemented, but ultimately trite one. I like Age of Sigmar so much precisely because it is wild and untamed. It won't be like this in five years, for better or worse, so right now, I'm enjoying the ride.

And I guarantee that GW is listening to fans. As someone who has created things in the past, I promise you that someone is reading every comment, just like I read every review. I cheered every good review and booed every bad one, but I read every single one of them and took the things they said to heart - when I agreed with them. When a bunch of people on a popular forum like this act like petty children, that just reinforces the idea that GW's isolationist policy is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not just "Haterz Hatin" that makes us think GW doesn't care. It's GW's own words and actions that do.
GW comes off even worse when compared to other companies and how they treat their fans. Corvus Belli will send people and prizes if you have a group over 30 people. PP recently asked on their forum (because they're not scared of having one) what people wanted from their magazine. A month before that they asked what people would do to improve the game. Shortly after that a massive errata was published.

And that is a matter of scale. It is easier to talk to your fans when there are fewer out there, or where their opinions are more homogeneous. While it's not the same thing, I used to run a webcomic and its associated community. When there were just a few thousand fans, it was simple enough to listen to every one and talk to them one on one. But by the time I had about 20,000 daily readers, it became impossible to respond to every email or assuage the fears of every complainer. I'd ask my fans a question and I'd get several hundred responses - many of them contradictory, some impossible. So someone was going to be disappointed, and in the cases where I followed my own desires instead of my fans, I ended up disappointing a lot of people, some of which never forgave me for it.

So yeah, I get it. But I also understand that once you reach a certain scale, it requires exponentially more effort. I could've hired more moderators and left the public relations to someone more suited for it - I should've done that, but I didn't, because I was an "artist", not a community manager, and I wanted to pursue what I wanted to pursue and if that was against the wishes of my fans, tough titties. And I paid the price for that on several occasions. But I'd still probably do it the same way if I did it again. After all, I'm still an "artist" and I still think managing a group of unruly, ungrateful nerfherders is a poor use of my time.

GW making high quality models isn't enough to make me think they actually care. Especially not when compared to how they used to act.
And then seeing models like this make me not so sure the best models on the market thing is true.

Spoiler:

I think that model is pretty cool. It's not one of their best, but not one of their worst either. But I could cherry pick Warmachine models too. Denny2 is awful, and Zerkova1 has a horse face. And the resin/plastic models they make are awful. Some models are better than others. But I think when GW makes a great model, it is pretty much unequaled.

Edit: And AOS isn't really a skirmish game. You can use less models, but the game doesn't seem to do that particularly well. Nor massive battles either. It's sweet spot seems to be in the middle, like Warmachine size.

I think AoS is built more around a certain number of warscrolls, rather than the number of models. Each warscroll changes the game ever so slightly, and having too many extra rules bogs it down. But whether those rules apply to one figure or fifty, I don't think matters (other than the slightly longer movement phase). I think AoS could easily be a skirmish game with a few solo models or as a large scale battle and lose nothing.

Yes of course the ironic thing about AoS taking a minute to decide the power level is that is exactly what you have with points:

A: How many points do you want to play?
B: Say, 1,500?
A: Sounds cool.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes of course the ironic thing about AoS taking a minute to decide the power level is that is exactly what you have with points:

A: How many points do you want to play?
B: Say, 1,500?
A: Sounds cool.

You must be very lucky then, we have been playing AoS since day 1 and it has never been quick or easy to come up with a good quasi fair fight. We are all experience gamers in our group and have all our warscrolls printed and in 3 ring binders. but it is still a bigger pain in the rear to match it up, mostly we now just do battallion box. but the difference is, stores (especially ours) can put out X points today on the tables and everyone can show up already to play. so far AoS cannot do that without house rules. Basically other than our smallish circle, if we want to play its standing around trying to figure out what everyone even has, or just bring all our models and try to come up with something.

 Bottle wrote:

Makumba wrote:

also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.

are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc

Are you talking from personal experience here? Because my last game was a 4 player and it took a minute to decide the power level.

The games was fast and fun!

Yes 2 player games vs someone you don't know took me almost an hour to set up, and even then we had tons of arguements durning the game and back and forth starting with We didn't agree to this or that, considering that 4 people are more then 2, I could imagine it being 3-4 hours.

Wow, if you don't mind me asking, what could possibly take an hour?

Age of Sigmar has been super quick to set up games in my experience. Even for on the fly scenarios.

 Bottle wrote:
Yep. But that's not the case for every battle. The main thing to remember with Age of Sigmar is that each game is bespoke.

Okay, how do you decide what to use then?

 Bottle wrote:
If one player had been goblins for example we would have allowed them a few more units to balance.

But how many more?
Okay, if you don't mind me using a 40k example, if one guy had Sternguard Veterans and the other had Fire Warriors then it would be obvious that the second guy needs more dudes, but without points I wouldn't even be able to guess how many more...

Not trying to be anal here, I really don't follow how this works.

 Bottle wrote:
Next time I play a 4 player I plan to use the Convergence of Fate Battleplan which has no model or wound limit but allows the player with the strongest force each battle-round to be ganged up upon by the other three.

That... Doesn't remotely sound like it could work.
If they're too close in strength then the guy being ganged up would get so thoroughly pummeled that he probably wouldn't stand a chance even after it becomes someone else's turn to get ganged up on.
Too far apart and Mr Bigshot can just crush the other three forces together all by himself.
And how do you even know who's force is the strongest?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:
Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.

I call BS on that, if there's a way, there's a way. Simple as that.
If not then these people are just lucky.

I would suspect that the specific people involved are going to make a fairly massive difference.

Where players aren't too concerned about the matchup being completely fair, or are willing to just go with the flow, it will be quick and easy.

Where play is a little more competitive, or potentiality even just where players don't know each other or aren't as comfortable with each other.. . Not so much.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

But how many more?
Okay, if you don't mind me using a 40k example, if one guy had Sternguard Veterans and the other had Fire Warriors then it would be obvious that the second guy needs more dudes, but without points I wouldn't even be able to guess how many more...

Relax guy. Don't worry about it. Have fun.

You can't make a game absolutely fair, so settle for fair enough. A few extra guys won't be the deciding factor in the game, believe it or not. You can play wildly unbalanced games of AoS and still have fun, so just aim for a number of units where you don't think you are taking advantage of your opponent (and he agrees to it). Whether that is 5 models or 8 models won't make a difference.

(Note: This approach is fine for AoS, but I wouldn't use it for Warmachine. Basically, AoS is about competing goals, not competing players)

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yep. But that's not the case for every battle. The main thing to remember with Age of Sigmar is that each game is bespoke.

Okay, how do you decide what to use then?

Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.

 Bottle wrote:
If one player had been goblins for example we would have allowed them a few more units to balance.

But how many more?
Okay, if you don't mind me using a 40k example, if one guy had Sternguard Veterans and the other had Fire Warriors then it would be obvious that the second guy needs more dudes, but without points I wouldn't even be able to guess how many more...

Not trying to be anal here, I really don't follow how this works.

But being anal is exactly the reason you're not following. Just wing it. You're trying to create a fun game, not two sides exactly 50/50 in chance.

 Bottle wrote:
Next time I play a 4 player I plan to use the Convergence of Fate Battleplan which has no model or wound limit but allows the player with the strongest force each battle-round to be ganged up upon by the other three.

That... Doesn't remotely sound like it could work.
If they're too close in strength then the guy being ganged up would get so thoroughly pummeled that he probably wouldn't stand a chance even after it becomes someone else's turn to get ganged up on.
Too far apart and Mr Bigshot can just crush the other three forces together all by himself.
And how do you even know who's force is the strongest?

Go read the Battleplan, it's available from Google. It was the free one given in pamphlet format with mail orders.

It's essentially Triumph & Treachery turned into a single scenario. Players choose alliances each turn so usually whoever is deemed the strongest is picked on. If no-one is obviosuly the strongest then players are likely to not gang up but declare war on the closest threat. Lastly the game ends as soon as one player is wiped out so you don't want to do that unless you are in the winning position (having the most models within 3" of the center terrain piece).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:
Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.

I call BS on that, if there's a way, there's a way. Simple as that.
If not then these people are just lucky.

There's not one way, there's lots :-)

insaniak wrote:I would suspect that the specific people involved are going to make a fairly massive difference.

Where players aren't too concerned about the matchup being completely fair, or are willing to just go with the flow, it will be quick and easy.

Where play is a little more competitive, or potentiality even just where players don't know each other or aren't as comfortable with each other.. . Not so much.

I would agree with this.

My advice is to ask what sort of game they want to play and go with it.

If they give a non-answer, tell them what sort of game you want and go with it.

And if someone wanted to play more competitively I would suggest GW's school rules to play with.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.

I call BS on that, if there's a way, there's a way. Simple as that.
If not then these people are just lucky.

Okay, I'll answer as best I can by giving a specific example to try and demonstrate the thinking.
We picked scenario (which is normally on a "haven't tried this one before" or "yeah, enjoyed that one" basis), read it thoroughly, checked we both understood victory conditions etc.
We set up the table using whatever terrain generation rules are required by the scenario. If there's a passer-by we normally get them to decide what and where.
We start setting up, and I have to go first.
In this scenario, my opponent's objective is to get models off my board edge, and I have to stop him - there's a random game length in effect too. (Some scenarios are triggered by a specific condition).
So ranged damage and delaying tactics are the order of the day.
I put down a unit of xbow Judicators (should be more effective as I won't be the one advancing), bow Judicators and a couple of wizards as my ranged damage dealers.
Leaving a couple of my primes in my case, I deploy a unit of 11 Liberators with shield, and a Lord Castellant. The Liberators are deployed forward, and are intended to be the mother of all tarpits. With the Castellant and possibly the Wizards chucking defensive effects on them, I can probably rely on them to hold a unit or two up and run the clock.
I add a Celestant on foot as he has ranged damage and boosts damage output of the Liberators.
Add in a last defence of a unit of 5 Decimators and a small unit of 3 Retributors to catch any that break through my main line.

At this stage I still have plenty of minis left in my case, but I've got everything I think I'm going to need deployed on the board already, and it's at this point I really start to pay attention to what my opponent has deployed.
He has 3 Warmachines, an engineer, a big unit of longbeards(20+), a bsb, a runesmith, a lord and Bugman's rangers.
I'm not sure what else he may have but it's not looking like he's brought any gyrocopters, but I know he has other stuff in his case, so I just stick down my Lord Relictor.
Given the scenario, his lightning thingy will be useful - but it wasn't useful enough for me to decide he was essential, so he was in the 'nice if an option' bin, and he's a good placeholder to see what else my opponent's got.
My opponent sticks down a unit of normal dwarf Warriors, about 25.
At this point, I end my deployment. He may well stick down another 3 or 4 big units, but I'm confident that I've got the tools I need to win the scenario already on the board even if he does that.
My opponent adds a couple of lords, and then ends his deployment. I have no idea why he stopped, btw.

We play the game, I win a major victory, both agree it was fun but I'm forced to agree he could have done with more units - but as I finished up deployment first, this is a lesson for him, not me.

Like I said, I can't explain how we balance our games. We play with scenarios - only scenarios - and we play to win. We accept that some scenario/matchup combos may produce outrageous results first time around, but that's it.
I *could* sum it up as "take whatever, just don't take more than you need" but that's probably not any help either...

 Sqorgar wrote:
Relax guy. Don't worry about it. Have fun.

Impossible, that's the whole point.
I can't just "relax" and "have fun" when I'm desperately trying to figure out how much to bloody bring! That's not a fun time, that's an exam question from Hell!

 Sqorgar wrote:
You can't make a game absolutely fair, so settle for fair enough.

I'm talking about making it fair enough!

 Sqorgar wrote:
A few extra guys won't be the deciding factor in the game, believe it or not.

Sometimes it can be, and a lot of the time it'll be WAY MORE than "a few extra guys".

 Sqorgar wrote:
You can play wildly unbalanced games of AoS and still have fun

I call BS again, curbstomping isn't fun unless you're a WAAC jerk and getting curbstomped isn't fun period.

 Sqorgar wrote:
so just aim for a number of units where you don't think you are taking advantage of your opponent (and he agrees to it)

Thing is, without points or some other balancing mechanic I don't know what that number is, or even a ballpark

 Sqorgar wrote:
Whether that is 5 models or 8 models won't make a difference.

It absolutely will if they're anything remotely potent and random intuition isn't nearly accurate enough to give that level of error for really weak models only.

 Bottle wrote:
Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.

...Yeah, but how do you decide? That's what I really want to know.

 Bottle wrote:
But being anal is exactly the reason you're not following. Just wing it. You're trying to create a fun game, not two sides exactly 50/50 in chance.

No, not it's not. It's not me being anal, it's just me not being a Warhammer savant.
I really can't just wing it, I really have no clue what each model is capable of.
I never said it had to be exactly 50/50, just reasonably close and I can't get it reasonably close with just random guesswork.

Seriously. I can handle if one side has a mild advantage, but if someone just dumps an army and I'm told to make a list roughly balanced against it, I not only can't do it but don't see how it can be done. That's why I'm asking.

 Bottle wrote:
Go read the Battleplan, it's available from Google. It was the free one given in pamphlet format with mail orders.

It's essentially Triumph & Treachery turned into a single scenario. Players choose alliances each turn so usually whoever is deemed the strongest is picked on. If no-one is obviosuly the strongest then players are likely to not gang up but declare war on the closest threat. Lastly the game ends as soon as one player is wiped out so you don't want to do that unless you are in the winning position (having the most models within 3" of the center terrain piece).

Doesn't really help too much with balance then. If someone has an overwhelming force the not only could they likely roll over the other people, but teaming up against That Guy would be particularly difficult, even before factoring in people preferring to try side with him and join in with the curbstomp!

 Bottle wrote:
There's not one way, there's lots :-)

Well, you get my drift

@Roper: Since I'm not familiar with the actual examples I was mainly trying to read into the general thought process.
So basically it's plonking down a unit at a time according to what you think will be effective at the mission at hand, trying to size up how effective against the units they're putting down.
I can sort of understand the logic, but the brick wall I keep slamming into is that I don't really have a good idea how potent my unit is without a points value. I can make a guess that say, my Ravenwing Black Knights are badasses since they're fast, shooty, choppy and really really durable (basically a shooting weapon needs to have Ignores Cover AND AP3 or better to stand a good chance at hurting them) amongst other things and I can suspect they could be really handy at a particular mission but without ponts values or something similar I'm not really sure how many to plonk down.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.

...Yeah, but how do you decide? That's what I really want to know.

The same way you decide if you're going to play Kill Team or Zone Mortalis or "no superheavies". Just have a little chat with your opponent to work something out. After a few games you'll get a feel for it. For example if you have a super elite army like Stormcasts against a horde army like Night Goblins, the Sudden Death rules aren't going to work as even with 33.2% extra models the horde player is likely to have a much weaker army. The Sudden Death rules are optional, so in this instance you leave them out. Let the horde player have 33.3% extra models without hinderence.

 Bottle wrote:
But being anal is exactly the reason you're not following. Just wing it. You're trying to create a fun game, not two sides exactly 50/50 in chance.

No, not it's not. It's not me being anal, it's just me not being a Warhammer savant.
I really can't just wing it, I really have no clue what each model is capable of.
I never said it had to be exactly 50/50, just reasonably close and I can't get it reasonably close with just random guesswork.

If you're still new to the game try playing much smaller games with a few warscrolls each side. Play the IGOUGO deployment method and try and match each unit being deployed (e.g. Player 1 deploys a unit of 5 light cavalry, player 2 deploys a similar unit, player 1 deploys a war machine, player 2 does too, etc)

Seriously. I can handle if one side has a mild advantage, but if someone just dumps an army and I'm told to make a list roughly balanced against it, I not only can't do it but don't see how it can be done. That's why I'm asking.

Cook up a list with a soft counter or like minded unit for each of your opponent's.

 Bottle wrote:
Go read the Battleplan, it's available from Google. It was the free one given in pamphlet format with mail orders.

It's essentially Triumph & Treachery turned into a single scenario. Players choose alliances each turn so usually whoever is deemed the strongest is picked on. If no-one is obviosuly the strongest then players are likely to not gang up but declare war on the closest threat. Lastly the game ends as soon as one player is wiped out so you don't want to do that unless you are in the winning position (having the most models within 3" of the center terrain piece).

Doesn't really help too much with balance then. If someone has an overwhelming force the not only could they likely roll over the other people, but teaming up against That Guy would be particularly difficult, even before factoring in people preferring to try side with him and join in with the curbstomp!

Go watch this Battleplan on YouTube. It seems to work really well. I still haven't played it yet but will report how it goes when I do.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
As you seem to be a 40k player, you should get one of your friends who collects Tau to play the scenario in the latest White Dwarf with you.

The forces are 1 Ghostkeel and 5 Stealth Suits vs 6 enemy units.

6 enemy units of what? Anything.

So what do you bring? It's up to you.

Trying out this scenario and aiming for a fun game will get you in the frame of mind for AoS. :-)

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

I can't just "relax" and "have fun" when I'm desperately trying to figure out how much to bloody bring! That's not a fun time, that's an exam question from Hell!

Which is why I'm telling you to relax. It isn't rocket science. Pick some metric - doesn't matter which - to get a rough idea of army capabilities. Wounds works. Heck, number of models works. Number of warscrolls. Whatever. Just something that you can use as a baseline. Once you have that, then you look at the two armies and decide whether one army has a distinct advantage over the other. Not a slight advantage. An obvious, glaringly huge advantage. The kind of advantage that can not be argued.

Then you suggest something that could make it more fair (half the models in this unit, add this warscroll, limit summoning to 10 models, whatever). Then your opponent either agrees and you play, or he'll offer a counter offer. Go back and forth for as long as you think it is worth your time, and if you still can't decide, you pick one option, let your opponent pick another. Either play two games and see who was right or use the Most Important Rule, and just roll to see which option is picked. If it works out, great. If not, you know better for next time (I assume you intend to play more than one game of AoS over your lifetime). And you'll probably enjoy the game, even at a disadvantage, because even the little guys have a chance of hitting the big guys, so there is always a little bit of hope that you can get lucky.

Or, if you are doing set up like in the Four Pages, when your opponent puts down a unit, you try to figure out a comparable opposite to that unit. By taking turns, you can each take the time to build your army in response to what the other player is building. If you don't feel comfortable enough with the units, start with small games, with just a few warscrolls, until you are more familiar with it. I can't speak for all groups, but I think AoS players will be willing to play smaller games because of how the game scales.

I call BS again, curbstomping isn't fun unless you're a WAAC jerk and getting curbstomped isn't fun period.

AoS isn't like Warmachine where the make up of your army is going to be the deciding factor in your victory. It will sway the game one direction or the other, but how you play is going to make a much bigger difference. Most of the really big curbstompy units, like Nagash, you'll see coming a mile away. And a few non-hero models here or there won't be the difference between potential victory and an unstoppable curbstomping.

 Bottle wrote:
If you're still new to the game try playing much smaller games with a few warscrolls each side. Play the IGOUGO deployment method and try and match each unit being deployed (e.g. Player 1 deploys a unit of 5 light cavalry, player 2 deploys a similar unit, player 1 deploys a war machine, player 2 does too, etc)

And if the two players don't have 'similar' units?

Cook up a list with a soft counter or like minded unit for each of your opponent's.

As above.

And that is going to rely on you actually being familiar enough with your opponent's units and what they can do to match them fairly. It's not a system that is at all accessible for new players.

So much of this AoS 'balancing trick' seems to rely on people bringing their entire collections and their entire collections being big enough to play this game of counter deployment.

Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work? There is a lot of shooting there, and I wouldn't bring anything else I could deploy to counter something like Nagash if he hit the table (I don't actually know if Nagash would be a hard counter here, just an example), and I have no idea if that will be too much shooting for my opponent's all melee army to ever stand a chance of reaching combat. But that is what I fluffed up, converted and lovingly painted. That is what I want to play and that is ALL I want to play, I don't want to have to throw in pheonix guard or spearmen.

Is the result that if I and my opponent didn't bring appropriate lists to play each other (or lug our entire collections to the store to build such lists) that we don't get a game?

 jonolikespie wrote:
So much of this AoS 'balancing trick' seems to rely on people bringing their entire collections and their entire collections being big enough to play this game of counter deployment.

Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work? There is a lot of shooting there, and I wouldn't bring anything else I could deploy to counter something like Nagash if he hit the table (I don't actually know if Nagash would be a hard counter here, just an example), and I have no idea if that will be too much shooting for my opponent's all melee army to ever stand a chance of reaching combat. But that is what I fluffed up, converted and lovingly painted. That is what I want to play and that is ALL I want to play, I don't want to have to throw in pheonix guard or spearmen.

Is the result that if I and my opponent didn't bring appropriate lists to play each other (or lug our entire collections to the store to build such lists) that we don't get a game?

lugging entire collections seems to work for me, but it is a pain in the _______.

While it sounds like a lot of work to bring one's collection to each AoS game, AoS is supposed to be for smaller games, so if you brought 2,500 pts of 8E, you should have adequate amounts of stuff to choose for a typical AoS game. In my case, I can fit 4,000 pts of 7E Dogs of War (& Empire) in a single 2 cu ft duffel, knowing that I'd field less than half of it.

Or, just bring an army, drop it down, and let your opponent react to it.

Not that complicated.

Ok, but bringing a whole army doesn't help if I want to field something fluffy with a specific theme. So how would plopping your army down and letting your opponent react to it actually work? Am I not putting all the pressure on him to field what he thinks will make a fair game not what he *wants* to play?

I don't have an issue with it besides that I dislike everything with my once undead Tomb Kings army.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok, but bringing a whole army doesn't help if I want to field something fluffy with a specific theme. So how would plopping your army down and letting your opponent react to it actually work? Am I not putting all the pressure on him to field what he thinks will make a fair game not what he *wants* to play?

If you are playing against someone you haven't agreed upon a baseline limitation with ahead of time, the way you balance armies is by bringing your whole collection and making compromises. Since synergies aren't as overpowering in AoS, I don't think the compromises you have to make will be quite as extreme as you are expecting. You may not be able to whip out Nagash or Celestant Prime without prior agreement, but if you have a similar number of wounds and keywords, you'll probably have a decent battle, give or take. If you want to set up something exceptional, like a really fluffy scenario and army, employ the entire Khorne dreadhold castle, or whip out the game breaking models, then you'd probably want to agree with that ahead of time.

The games you play with strangers are going to be a subset of the variety of possibilities offered by the game as a whole. The more models you have available, and the more willing you are to discuss with your opponent how you want to play, the larger that subset of possibilities gets. If you want only a few specific models and refuse to compromise with your opponent, then the subset of possibilities is going to be very small indeed (possibly an empty set).

So... if you want to do something 'exceptional' like, say, use the same army as you used in the last game, then you're going to have to renegotiate every single time you play someone new.

Yeah, that sounds like a whole barrel of fun, right there.

@Sqorgar: Brother, my view isn't cynical. It's realistic. I love capitalism. LOVE it. But I also have GW hobby addiction. They are the Phillip Morris, Nike, Apple, Google (err "Alphabet" now) of the table top world. It's not bad. It's just business. I buy their product, but lets not kid ourselves. They are a public company. And when they feel the ire of 1000 souls a day being sacrificed to the Golden Throne of Mantic....maybe theyll change. Or maybe the profits will go up? I suspect they are smarter than me, but I would make different decisions if it were me. BUT thats why Im not a CEO. Id still be manufacturing 5 1/4" floppies, or datasettes, or...7"floppies. Or tin soldiers and rubber band powered cannons.

@NAVARRO: I am still intrigued by AoS, seeing some cool bat reps where The Space marines or whoever totally curbstomped some night goblins... it looked fun, but i do play orks. I am very intrigued by KillKrazy's mention of the 9th age... googled it. Very interesting! I am looking at sniping some ebay army, but i have got to finish my dropzone, spacehulk, bloodbowl, boltaction and in coming perry miniature civilwar set.... AoS/KoW/9thA are on my radar. So i just need to get an army on the cheap.... paint er up and play all the free rules. Lol!

 insaniak wrote:
So... if you want to do something 'exceptional' like, say, use the same army as you used in the last game, then you're going to have to renegotiate every single time you play someone new.

Yeah, that sounds like a whole barrel of fun, right there.

If you want to look at it that way, then yes. AoS has no internal balancing, so any balance that you may want from the game will necessarily be an agreement between you and your opponent. That is just what exists in lieu of anything else. But the negotiation doesn't have to be painful or time consuming, and a lot of the scenarios give you a really good starting point for building a game.

I don't think Age of Sigmar is meant to be a super competitive game played exclusively against strangers, especially of the pain in the ass variety. And frankly, if you are unwilling to compromise for the sake of a better game, you are probably the pain in the ass type of player that would be better served with a more structured, cutthroat game.

I completely fail to understand the objection. Either you negotiate a "fair" game as you alternate deployments, or you trust your opponent to be fair after he sees exactly what you're bringing. Either way, at some point, you have trust your opponent.

Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...

In what way?

Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.

I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.

While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...

In what way?

I suppose you had to trust your opponent was not actively cheating by using more points than the agreed limit, but in a tourney that would be checked by the TO beforehand and it is a lot harder to accidentally miss the points limit for a casual game than it is for both players to just disagree on how many goblins a sigmarine is worth.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.

I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.

While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.

I don't see how Age of Sigmar prevents that or even hampers the process. I love Dwarf Slayers. I have 40 of them, plus a dozen or so character models.

In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.

My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.

If we started yesterday instead of years ago, we would not have to buy a single model more than we wanted to. We wouldn't need to collect a faction. We would have chosen our army and bought it, which seems to be the opposite of what your objection to Age of Sigmar is.

Sorry if I misunderstood a part of your post.