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.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sudden Death is no worse a balancing mechanism than points.

Given that Sudden Death does absolutely nothing to balance the game, that claim seems questionable.

Sudden death gives the advantage to an army made up of 10 bloodthirsters against a 'superior' force of 20 goblins. That says it all really doesn't it?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If the requirement isn't prefect balance, then why is AoS held to a different standard?

It's not. That's the point.

The points system in WHFB was flawed, but it at least gave a rough ballpark guide to establish a fair-ish game.

AoS doesn't even provide a semblance of balance. It just tells players to put whatever they want on the table. Any balancing has to come from the players figuring out for themselves how powerful everything is.

If you can't see the difference between building a set of shelves from a flatpack with badly translated instructions, and building a set of shelves from a tree, I'm not really sure what to to tell you.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Vakathi - so points will automatically prevent curbstomp battles in 40k? How does that Possesed - Mutiliator - Defiler force of yours do on the tabletop against equal points of Imperial Knights? Fair battles every time, right?

Points systems don't solve everything, nobody is claiming they can. However, they are a major feature in solving many issues. They're usually also paired with some sort of army structure composition that limits what types of units and capabilities you can bring.

If the requirement isn't prefect balance, then why is AoS held to a different standard?

Because has literally none of the structures that games typically use. Not points, not army structures, or anything else. There's no resource management at all.

Nobody has shown any basis for explaining why the mk.1 eyeball is any worse than a points system, especially when employed by such experienced players as you all hold yourselves to be.

Veteran players looking to have a balanced game might be able to hash it out themselves. That said, not everyone has the same idea of balance even amongst veteran players, and points values and army constructs act as a mutually agreed upon 3rd party to handle this, cutting down on the argumentation. They also made it hard for people that just wanted to win at all costs, if you have to present an army list with tabulated points that an opponent can look over, it's harder to bring a force that will just curb-stomp everything.

And if we're talking newbies, or people that are just looking to get away with whatever they can, AoS does nothing to resolve these issues.

Your Chaos vs Gobbo example is a good example of the mk.1 eyeball at work. You're saying it would actually come up on the tabletop among players trying for a "fair" game? Really?

Probably not, as it was an intentionally exaggerated example, however not all *that* far fetched. Using GW's own event rules, add three dozen extra Goblins and another Shaman, replace the Knights with Warriors, and you don't really change the outcome, but it's entirely something you could run into.

There's a reason games, and really most things, try to minimize reliance on the mk1 eyeball, because its efficacy is wildly variable and highly subjective.

If a 55-45 advantage is OK in Chess (and assuming equal ratings), why isn't it OK in AoS? You're saying you have no ability to eyeball armies within 10%? Yet you just pulled that Chaos v Gobbo thing out your ass?

AoS lacks the "neutral third party" that army structure rules and points costs offer, the "GM in a box" if you will. Again, even with veteran players, perceptions and biases can vary wildly, and with newer players or those that just don't care, the lack or points and army structure open up all sorts of room for bad experiences that otherwise wouldn't need to have happened.

And, ultimately, having a points system doesn't hurt the people that don't want to use it. There's a reason every tabletop mini's game uses a points system in some form or fashion.

The WK is overpriced against fodder, and you know it. That's why you rattled off a list of superior units. And it's why the WK isn't free.

What fodder are we talking about? a hundred Grots? A bunch of naked Rhinos? Sure, in that case, ok. Against equivalent points in Tac marines? not at all. I'd take WK against 20 Tac marines. Even if we assume weenier vehicle units, like say, TLLC Razorbacks, the WK will slay through equivalent points in razorbacks far more efficiently than they will slay the WK back, even on a points comparison basis.

The units I listed were generally units that filled a similar role & purpose and that the WK might usually be expected to prioritize and that would prioritize the WK, as like to like as is possible, not fodder which would generally not be engaging the WK (and in many cases would be incapable of hurting the WK) and the WK wouldn't typically be tasked with engaging itself.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sudden Death is no worse a balancing mechanism than points.

Until AoS did away with points, there was never the vehemency with which people demanded points to be there.

This is a somewhat absurd argument, a non-sequiter "whatabout"-ism, as a "demand" for a points system was simply so fundamental to miniatures game as to just be a matter of course. The argument wasn't made because it wasn't one that needed to be made, the points system was there and fundamental to the way the game played.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.

We're talking for complete beginners here, like Crashgordon who seem unwilling to put stuff on the table top and give it a try. If that's really too much for them, then the starter set has set orders of battle for each scenario.

I think this video is pretty spot on about AoS:




8th was a Johnny/Spike game, and AoS is a Timmy game. I am a complete and utter Timmy, with a sprinkling of Johnny (I enjoy synergies and combos). My main goal is to have a fun few hours with great-looking models on great-looking terrain with a friend. Although winning is fun, it's not really a focus for me. The most important thing is that we both have fun. Whether or not points are used doesn't really matter that much, because even using points, if I know my army is disproportionately strong, which requires detailed knowledge of the ins and outs of the points system, I will deliberately and gladly handicap myself to make the game more fun for most of us (example: I run a Footdar army in 40k with the Avatar, not a jet bike or Wraith unit in sight, and my artillery uses the worst weapon option. I've never had as much fun as I do with that army). If I'm winning a game, I will sometimes play a bit worse on purpose just to make the game more exciting. I love crazy units, randomness and narrative. I am the kind of player who loves AoS. If you think I sound like a crazy person, you probably won't like AoS. I initially hated the idea of points being gone, but the more I think about it, the better it is. The competitive community was always going to do a way better job than GW, and now they have a blank canvas to realize their perfect vision of balance. To those who say "GW are just lazy, and should focus on better balancing", I say "Yes they should, but they never will. So this is the better option by far". When I am in the mood for balance, I will use one of those systems. Now having played without points, I find it to be a lot of fun. It requires a very loose attitude towards the game, a willingness to compromise and a very Timmy mindset of prioritizing the spectacle of the overall game over the competitive aspect. Obviously Johnny and Spike will hate it, and that's completely understandable, just like he says in the video. They have been hoodwinked and their game has done a complete 180. They're angry and that's fine. It's your loss and our gain, which sucks for you, but don't count on it changing any time soon. Either the Timmys of the world will unite and make AoS a success, or they won't and Warhammer Fantasy will be completely gone.

 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.

Age of Sigmar is perfect for this. It is designed for themed army collecting. The set-up rules for Age of Sigmar are bespoke to the game you are playing.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 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.
...
@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.

I'd disgree - I've played some games where I *knew* I was likely going to get curbstomped - the enjoyment came from trying to figure out avoiding it.
To really muddy the waters, another game I played recently, Stormcast V Stormcast.
My opponent had a far larger collection than me, and could have matched me exactly.
Instead, by the time we kicked off, models-wise he outnumbered me by 25%ish, wounds by about a 3rd, and warscrolls by about a fifth.
So by *any* of the current comp systems, I was generously outnumbered.
The trigger condition was 75% casualties on one side, which turned out to be his.
The scenario even mentioned that the attacking player (me) was likely to struggle.
I won, but missed out on a major victory because I misread one of the victory conditions.
This is why I find it difficult to explain my concept of 'balance', because from my own experience even a numerically greater or more powerful/elite army.doesn't guarantee anything.
I take the point of not understanding the power of units - that only comes from using them - but I've also played plenty of games where the flow of battle by the start of turn 3 didn't reflect the end result.
That's why I have no truck with comp systems - because in the games I've lost, it's not been about model count, it's been about not picking the right tools for the job.

Which is why I'm coming to the conclusion that with self-balancing games, you either can or you can't. There's no implication about intelligence, experience or ability intended by that statement, either.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
It happens in all games with points though, although I'm going to use 40K as an example.

A fully upgraded vanguard assault squad can easily be countered by a minimum sized grav-cannon devastator squad if terrain and movement are used correctly, despite points value indicating otherwise.
Similarly, against an Ogre army, my Decimators aren't even with considering if I've got Liberators I can deploy.
But if I'm facing big units of 1W infantry, they'll be the first thing I take.
If anything, points give you a measure of potency within the framework of your own force, because they can't take the opposition into account.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:

 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.

Age of Sigmar is perfect for this. It is designed for themed army collecting. The set-up rules for Age of Sigmar are bespoke to the game you are playing.

I've actually got a fledgling idea for an 'evil forest' army. Treemen, dryads, spiders, hounds, ghosts, etc.
I can absolutely put together a cross-faction theme force, but like any army construction based on fluff rather than efficiency I'll have to bear in mind that a) my units may not interact as well because a lot of abilities are in-faction, and b) as a result of this my 'per model' effectiveness will likely be lower than an dedicated faction force, so I will generally need to take more. I'll also likely be unable to reasonably expect to win some games because I have discounted certain toolbox abilities because of my own wants.
To use a WMH example, it's be like taking a jack-heavy menoth force but no choir. You can still win with it, but you're hamstringing yourself in comparison to someone using units together well.

To me, the lack of points in AoS is fine given the game is a lightweight skirmish, quick to set up and play.

GW did not intend it to be a serious, in-depth game.

 jonolikespie wrote:


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?

Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.

After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!

Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.

The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.

So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.

Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.

I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,

In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.

So, when are we playing?

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


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?

Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.

After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!

Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.

The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.

So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.

Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.

I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,

In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.

So, when are we playing?

That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.

You need to pay for that little scenario, dude, or have someone who has already purchased the book fill you in on the scenario.

Did you forget this is GW we're talking about? tsk tsk

 jonolikespie wrote:
That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.

I was pretty inexperienced when the starter set first came out However, going through the starter set scenarios gives you a very good idea of how the Stormcast and Bloodbound balance out, and having played Aelfs just once, I know the power of their bows and what a pain Reavers are.

Honestly, once you have had a few games, this really does become second nature. I guess the core 'challenge' to this is understanding/believing/accepting that things do not have to be exact, and that a few models either way really is not going to matter (it gets less acute the bigger your force). There is no great 'inner wisdom' at work, but you will soon get into the flow if you put that shadow force together. AoS really is perfect for armies like that (one of my mates is looking at doing an all Clan Eshin force, for example - not only viable in AoS, it will - frankly - rock!).

The Trap is in the first hardback and yes, it is not part of the free rules. This is part of what I have been saying all along, the core rules are just an intro, and you are not really getting the full effect unless you bring the Battleplans and Time of War sheets into the mix as well - that is where AoS really starts to shine.

You can see that in the example I gave - we could have just set up a bunch of models up on opposite sides of the table, had a fight, and gone home. You seem like a gent, so we would have had a good time.

However, instead we played a game with a decent narrative (plucky elite defenders protecting their village against a superior force), with a scenario that fitted your force perfectly, and we would have had a great time.

That is what AoS encourages and delivers.

Put another way, this is why everyone who seems to be an AoS fanboy is telling you to give it a try - it really can be that good

MongooseMatt wrote:

You can see that in the example I gave - we could have just set up a bunch of models up on opposite sides of the table, had a fight, and gone home. You seem like a gent, so we would have had a good time.

However, instead we played a game with a decent narrative (plucky elite defenders protecting their village against a superior force), with a scenario that fitted your force perfectly, and we would have had a great time.

That is what AoS encourages and delivers.

Put another way, this is why everyone who seems to be an AoS fanboy is telling you to give it a try - it really can be that good

Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB. Yet this is heralded like the Second Coming...

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB.

You are absolutely right - but, as I said in the OP, most people did not play that way. They stuck strictly to points-based games.

The difference is in what each game encourages players to do. You can do anything you want with any game, but they tend to have 'defaults' that lead you down a certain path and the majority of players will go down that path. That is what AoS has removed/changed from WHFB.

Please note, I am not saying it is better. I still play 8e. I have just found AoS naturally leads us down areas that, in several years of 8e, we did not touch.

And that is all I am saying

I don't think it is a fear of losing, although for some players it could be. Instead, I think it is a fear of lacking control. This entire conversation of late has been about "what if the other player doesn't agree", "what if I have to make compromises", or "what if my army has no chance against this other one". People don't want to lose, obviously, but more than anything, they don't want losing to be something they can't control.

Like you could make a perfectly balanced game. Two identical sides, but at the end of round 4, you rolled a die for each surviving unit and decided the game with it. The game is completely fair (even the dice roll) and completely balanced, but I suspect such a game would drive people nuts in exactly the same manner as AoS for exactly the same reasons. In all but the most one sided games, the victory would essentially be more random than not. It's not losing that's a problem, but the lack of "justice". The better player "deserves" to win, and that being out of anybody's control makes the game frustrating and a bit scary.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a game like that, but I suspect a lot of people would.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB.

You are absolutely right - but, as I said in the OP, most people did not play that way. They stuck strictly to points-based games.

The difference is in what each game encourages players to do. You can do anything you want with any game, but they tend to have 'defaults' that lead you down a certain path and the majority of players will go down that path. That is what AoS has removed/changed from WHFB.

Please note, I am not saying it is better. I still play 8e. I have just found AoS naturally leads us down areas that, in several years of 8e, we did not touch.

And that is all I am saying

I will agree that AoS encourages exactly the opposite that 8ed (and previouseditions) did.

And do remember that people stuck to pts-based games because they desired to play it pts-based - they could just as well ignore pts and army restrictions.
However, GW finally decided this was not how they wanted their customer base to use their glorious miniatures, so they turned the tables around and shafted a good % of their customer base.

But I digress.

8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.

That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


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?

Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.

After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!

Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.

The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.

So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.

Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.

I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,

In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.

So, when are we playing?

That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.

You can purchase it as a micro transaction from the app, or buy the book suppliment it comes from.

For players really inexperienced there are the starter scenarios. I do agree that GW should do more to help players progress from those starter scenarios though. A couple of free scenarios on the webstore would go a long way, as would bringing back battle reports (maybe for Warhammer TV) to show how the game can be played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Matt, that game sounds totally awesome! I would love to have an opponent like yourself. I'm going to start playing with Battleplans in future.

auticus wrote:
8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.

That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.

Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!

With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?

Honestly, it's not difficult to make a quick battleplan out of the void (it's just a scenario, in fact ). It's not like their rules are highly novative or perfectly balanced. Any gamer with some experience with GW games can do that without difficulty.

So you don't really need to buy anything if that's really what's stopping you.

In reality, I believe that's the best way to actually balance the game; by making a scenario/battleplan in accord to the armies brought by players, this is how you have games of legends you will remember for a long time.

AoS is somewhat a "sandbox game". You should be using it as such, IMHO.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? There's no thick rulebook (well actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) and a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize.

If you aren't playing scenario X, you don't need to remember the rules to scenario X. So you don't need to memorize all of them because you don't use them all at the same time. Contrast this to Warmachine where my group, which has collectively played a thousand games of Warmachine, still needs to look up core rules in the 80 page book at least once a game.

 Bottle wrote:
I do agree that GW should do more to help players progress from those starter scenarios though.

Agree with this 100% - and I thought the first hardback would be packed full of ideas, suggestions and comments on how to approach the actual game. I get why they went the direction they did (works for me!), but Jono is obviously an experienced player but is not gelling with this direction. Perfect example right there of how/why GW should be lending this extra support. Jono wants awesome games but feels he only has half the tools thus far.

On the other hand, I have half an idea that us going through this with him, saying 'hey, you could get a really awesome game just by doing X, Y, and Z' was part of GW's plan (in that it comes better from other players than themselves). But I cannot back that up

 Bottle wrote:
as would bringing back battle reports (maybe for Warhammer TV) to show how the game can be played.

I can be pretty sure this will never happen. Many moons ago, I did one of the White Dwarf battle reports with Andy Chambers (I forget which issue, Black Templars vs. Orks, just after the Armageddon campaign), and I saw how much effort it took - there are several Man Days tied up in each and every battle report, it really is staggering. To do that on idea, with the kind of polish GW would want (compare their painting guides with others on Youtube - that extra 10% is everything and takes the most work) would take monumental resources. I don't think even GW could do that on a regular basis.

Yes, I was hoping the big books would be akin to the Dungeon Masters Guide for D&D with tons of neat ideas and guides for campaigns and games. Maybe GW will address this in the future.

Maybe published battle reports that come free in the Warhammer app? Haha

This is going off topic, but I do think GW have lost lots of the guiding materials new players used to have. Mainly White Dwarf, which used to show players what they could aspire to in every aspect (collecting, painting and gaming).

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

auticus wrote:
8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.

That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.

Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!

With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?

I find that having to have the book open to the scenario we're on is easy. Having to memorize 120 or so pages of rules, some of which are contradictory, was a chore. Added to the issue is that I had 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th in my brain so was constantly crossing wires!

Multiple scenarios I don't think is that way because when you're playing you're just playing one of those scenarios, and you just have to read a page or two and then keep the book on that page during game as opposed to flipping back and forth in the big rulebook trying to find some obscure rule you know exists that you read the other night but cannot find because its in the corner of page 46 in an area not logical to where it should be

auticus wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

auticus wrote:
8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.

That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.

Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!

With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?

I find that having to have the book open to the scenario we're on is easy. Having to memorize 120 or so pages of rules, some of which are contradictory, was a chore. Added to the issue is that I had 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th in my brain so was constantly crossing wires!

Multiple scenarios I don't think is that way because when you're playing you're just playing one of those scenarios, and you just have to read a page or two and then keep the book on that page during game as opposed to flipping back and forth in the big rulebook trying to find some obscure rule you know exists that you read the other night but cannot find because its in the corner of page 46 in an area not logical to where it should be

Well then, if you're choosing not to memorize... definitely you won't have to memorize more! More power to you

I had heard people are going by total wound count for models before. Did that ever pan out to anything resembling balance?

Wound count for balance is really not good.

You need to take into consideration movement, armor, weapon damage etc. as well.

There are a lot of examples of models with the same wounds as other models that are vastly inferior due to the above considerations which are not counted.

Wound count is fast and easy which is why I feel its used so often, but as a proper balancing mechanism it is quite poor.

Bottle wrote:
This is going off topic, but I do think GW have lost lots of the guiding materials new players used to have. Mainly White Dwarf, which used to show players what they could aspire to in every aspect (collecting, painting and gaming).

I think part of the grand experiment with AoS is that GW is purposely not making declarations on how to play it. I think they are leaving it up to the community to decide the best way to use the tools they provide. I know this irritates some people to no end, but the fact is, it does appear to be working to some extent. Slowly.

I think GW just takes pictures of their models in exciting scenes, daring the player to figure out how to recreate them in game.

auticus wrote:
Wound count is fast and easy which is why I feel its used so often, but as a proper balancing mechanism it is quite poor.

I think that if you move away from the idea of "balance" and instead aim for creating experiences, picking a good thematic scenario and similar wound counts is enough.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Bottle wrote:
This is going off topic, but I do think GW have lost lots of the guiding materials new players used to have. Mainly White Dwarf, which used to show players what they could aspire to in every aspect (collecting, painting and gaming).

I think part of the grand experiment with AoS is that GW is purposely not making declarations on how to play it. I think they are leaving it up to the community to decide the best way to use the tools they provide. I know this irritates some people to no end, but the fact is, it does appear to be working to some extent. Slowly.

I think GW just takes pictures of their models in exciting scenes, daring the player to figure out how to recreate them in game.

auticus wrote:
Wound count is fast and easy which is why I feel its used so often, but as a proper balancing mechanism it is quite poor.

I think that if you move away from the idea of "balance" and instead aim for creating experiences, picking a good thematic scenario and similar wound counts is enough.

I did just see a post Azyr Comp program, so it does look like the community is trying to make some balance. I have not seen the program myself, but it does look like players are trying and taking feedback.

I think that if you move away from the idea of "balance" and instead aim for creating experiences, picking a good thematic scenario and similar wound counts is enough.

While certainly valid, I know speaking just for me that if I'm going to play a game I want to know that I haven't lost or won the game before it even began.

I don't like playing games that are very one sided or stacked for one side to win/lose before the game even begins, and thats where lack of balance comes into play.