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.

puree wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

It wasn't a question about your game being close, it was a question whether that game was balanced or not. Your emphasis of my YOUR changes nothing, you don't have a slightest idea about balance after playing a given game once. You have to take skill, luck, terrain, mission into account. If you told me that you switched armies, then table sides and armies, then with different terrain setup, repeat, I'd say sure we can start talking. If you think you can judge an impact of skill and luck after a single game that was played without balancing mechanism to begin with (and no, sudden death doesnt count lol) then you have no idea.

People coming here claiming that they had a balanced game with basic AoS rules, it's all worthless bs unless they playtested it.

You have no idea either, we must both be clueless BSers.

Whether any scenario is balanced for 2 players will quite possibly depend on who plays which side. Playing from both sides multiple times may achieve nothing more than working out that that Player A is indeed better than Player B, as they find Player B with side 1 is balanced but he gets slaughtered with side 2. If the they increase side 2 then Player B playing side 1 now gets slaughtered but finds side 2 balanced.

To take an anecdote from another system, I played Andromedans against Gorn in a local SFU campaign game in a very large (for that system) fleet battle. I was at a very noticeable disadvantage, the Gorn outpointing me by about 40-50% and with the Andromendans generally accepted as being terrible in fleet battles as opposed to small squadron fights. It was a great tense and close game (its not the sort of game where luck really plays a huge part at that scale either). If the sides had been swapped I'd have almost certainly obliterated the Andromedans. Its likely that anyone else in the campaign playing the Andromedans would have never fought that battle at all as they would have expected defeat was a given. For what ever reason that is one game I happen to be very good at, and those I play with openly accept that. Then there are games where I will get my arse handed to me without a bonus, as the other guys have their games that they are good at and I am not.

AoS is designed with the idea that you talk to the other guy to work out what will make a fun interesting balanced game. That is certainly going to be damned hard with a stranger, but with the people you regularly play with it is really not that hard. We know each other, we know playstyles, armies, and who is better or worse etc. With the people you play with regularly it is also not that hard to talk afterwards and work out how balanced it was, for the 2 players with the forces used.

So when people come here and say that yes they have had balanced games then you should probably just accept it.

They may not have a generic scenario that any other 2 players of random ability with random armies can play and get a balanced battle, but that is a different thing altogether.

Yes obviously just switching sides few times is crude and unreliable as well, but at least it would be something - luck evens out a bit, more sample to analyse etc. As I said, something to start with but I bet people posting their opinion of how they had a balanced game don't even do that.

And no, if you play the game with your well known friends using eyeballed armies without any comp, you can't reliably judge balance of entire army vs entire army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

coldgaming wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


People coming here claiming that they had a balanced game with basic AoS rules, it's all worthless bs unless they playtested it.

How does this thought process hold up with people who have never played AoS and talk about how it can't be balanced or the rules don't work?

That AoS can't be balanced with just its rules (model count in conjunction with sudden death) is basic logic.

What basic logic do you use when you claim that you had a balanced game after a single AoS game without comp?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

That AoS can't be balanced with just its rules (model count in conjunction with sudden death) is basic logic.

Thanks for this. I didn't realise that I and my friends hadn't been gaming to your exacting standards. Boy do I feel like an idiot...

No problem, always happy to enlighten.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
No problem, always happy to enlighten.

Serious question - which is more important?
A 'balanced' game, or a game that both players enjoy and have a positive experience?

Because the two are not the same thing.

No, they are not, and a game that both players enjoy is more important, but a well designed game will be balanced and fair for competitive players without hindering the more 'narrative' elements at all.

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
No problem, always happy to enlighten.

Serious question - which is more important?
A 'balanced' game, or a game that both players enjoy and have a positive experience?

Because the two are not the same thing.

They're not the same thing.... but they are often very closely related. For a large portion of people I'd say being a balanced game is a prerequisite for having a positive experience.

 Malisteen wrote:
In D&D there are no points values. There's nothing to prevent a DM from throwing five balors and a dracolich up as the first encounter against a first level party. Granted, D&D has more guidance not to do this, but the 'balance' systems in D&D (levels, hit dice, experience, encounter pools) have always been pretty much completely unbalanced.

D&D has a DM to take care of the balancing, and is a fully formed RPG.

AoS has no DM to deal with balancing, and is a competitive (there are victory conditions) wargame with essentially no RPG elements beyond getting to name your tokens.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
No problem, always happy to enlighten.

Serious question - which is more important?
A 'balanced' game, or a game that both players enjoy and have a positive experience?

Because the two are not the same thing.

They're not the same thing.... but they are often very closely related. For a large portion of people I'd say being a balanced game is a prerequisite for having a positive experience.

That's fine, and a year ago I'd definitely have said the same thing, despite multiple experiences of WFB, 40K, WMH and other games that were absolutely zero fun for one (and in a few cases, both) party.

But AoS was my first experience of a game where players were responsible for the balance, and I had serious misgivings initially.
But I have yet to have a 'bad' game of AoS, and in only a couple of cases was the eventual winner looking obvious before turn 3.
Hand on heart, I doubt I could say *every* game has been balanced, either.

So for my view now, balance and enjoyment are completely dislocated, with the latter the most important.

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
No problem, always happy to enlighten.

Serious question - which is more important?
A 'balanced' game, or a game that both players enjoy and have a positive experience?

Because the two are not the same thing.

Neither are they mutually exclusive.

You can have a balanced game that is enjoying to play.

But yeah; fun over balance. Unfortunately, for a lot of gamers, you need some semblance of balance to get towards fun (curbstomping either way is rarely fun).

What people normally mean by a balanced game is one in which both sides have an equal chance to win, with the outcome decided by a combination of luck and skill.

The balancing mechanism can be equally powerful forces, or unequally powerful forces with a compensating factor of time, location or victory conditions that make the stronger force's task harder to achieve.

Another possible aspect of balance is to compensate for differential skill levels by handicapping the stronger player.

If the players have a good feel for a game it's often possible to get pretty good balance without specific army lists, or else well designed scenarios usually give a well balanced game. (I'm not sure GW are much good at balancing their scenarions, given they aren't much good at balancing their games.)

At any rate, if you don't know the game system and the capabilities of the units, without a designed balance system, it's easy to make mistakes in creating a balanced set-up. For instance, if you know nothing about early WW2, you might look at the German army and see that most of its tanks have only got machine-guns or 20mm cannons, 37mm at best, while the French tanks have got 37mm cannons or larger and also better armour.

This might lead you to think that the German armoured forces were much less effective than the French, and you would compensate in your scenario by giving the Germans a lot more tanks.

But of course the opposite actually was the case, due to tactical doctrine, and C3 and morale effects. Not to mention that the French tanks actually outnumbered the Germans.

That said, there are historical games ion which you get a force by random, rolling from setup tables that reflect the overall position of your nation at the time involved, and if the enemy's force is better thanks to better rolling, you just have to lump it and do the best you can. This type of game tends to be more of a simulation than a fairly balanced contest.

RoperPG wrote:
So for my view now, balance and enjoyment are completely dislocated, with the latter the most important.

It's sad you wasted so much of your time playing games you didn't think were fun, however for me I find balance a necessity for a fun game otherwise I might as well not be playing a game at all.

So you can find them completely independent concepts... I find them completely intertwined concepts. If a game system isn't balanced I won't be invested in the outcome, if I'm not invested in the outcome I'm not engaged, if I'm not engaged I'm not having fun.

I can of course have fun playing games that are intentionally unbalanced, but I much prefer the game system itself to be balanced and then I can have fun creating unbalanced scenarios to play.

"Fun over balance" is a largely alien concept to me. You don't have to have one over the other.

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
No problem, always happy to enlighten.

Serious question - which is more important?
A 'balanced' game, or a game that both players enjoy and have a positive experience?

Because the two are not the same thing.

Serious answer - depends on a person. I guess that most people would prefer a fair game but funnily enough, you would be suprised with how much fun I have playing a lost game in an unbalanced match. I just get the overwhelming last stand mood and change the objective to kill as much as I can before I'm decimated. Still like to have point system or sth to be able to have a rough estimate of how bad my chances really were though.

Anyway there's a misunderstanding here. I never said that you are wrong having fun in a game without balancing mechanism or that balance is more important than fun. I refer directly to statements about having balanced games with basic AoS rules as those, with exception of rare accident, are straight bs and deserve a comment, imo.

There is a possibility ofc that people who claim balanced games just agree to field very similar armies ie 2 basic infantry, 1 elite, 1 hero, 1 monster. That's already comp though and a poor man's FoC, anyway that's why I first asked mr. MoongooseMatt about how he decided whether his game was balanced or not.

Balance and enjoyment obviously are not mutually exclusive. The great majority of games have fairness as a core concept, which argues that people see it as important for fun.

It's simply that some people have become so defensive of AoS that they have started to call balance and points actively bad things in a game, in reaction to so many people who criticise AoS for not including them.

Frankly the argument is a bit silly in both directions when taken to such extremes.

The problem I find with AoS isn't that you can't have fun with the game, its that its lack of (balanced) rules doesn't do anything positive for the game that an actual good rule set couldn't do, but causes negatives for some players instead. Casual and fun focused players don't need a rule set catered to them to make it fun. You are already willing to modify the rules or implement guidelines on how to build army lists (such as house ruling summoning to not be broken or agreeing not to spam only Monsters to abuse the model count win condition) but you can do the same exact thing in any other game. Nothing is stopping players from agreeing not to take Super Heavies in 40k or making up fun scenarios to pay with in WHFB. Players already have the tools to make adjustments to any game in anyway they want to make it more enjoyable (such as talking with your opponent, or self policing), AoS just makes you use those tools. But while casual players are having same fun any other game could offer them, AoS specifically detracts from competitive plays in its massive lack of balance. Competitive players only serve to lose from such a lose rule system as it leads to a long list of unforseen abuses that is practically impossible to account for every single one of them.

Basically my problem with AoS is casual players could find ways to have fun with any rule set while AoS only serve to turn away a significant part of a potential player base for no gain.

Balance is not only not exclusive with fun but also very important to it because few people can take loosing badly few times in a row. I know a self proclaimed casual who flipped the table in the end. I guess some people don't need it though and just go with immersion or sth. With historical games simulation is fun in itself for me (on pc though, never tried tt ones) maybe some have fun with just simulating fantasy.

For me, apart from game mood and visuals, enjoyment comes from depth of the rules and tactics. I have more fun from coming up with a smart manouver than from winning some by-the-numbers game. Balance is still important tough, it's much harder to judge your tactics when you don't even know what your chances were.

Ofc a deeply tactical, even match fairly won is a pinnacle of living heh.

I distinctly remember never once having an interest in playing 40k competitively, but other people in my area wanting to made me quit the game thanks to it being so poorly balanced that me bringing what I wanted to the table usually meant I would be wiped out or have to decline the game after agreeing and then seeing what my opponent puts on the table.

Casual players benefit from balanced rules every bit as much as competitive types.

I have to concur; I played 2 pick-up games of 40K at my club since I got back into the hobby. One was fairly balanced because he was using vanilla marine tactical sqauds (I had guard). I think I lost after a fairly close evening.

The 2nd game was more or less the same guard, up against Tau, with a brand-new riptide. I was tabled by the end of turn 2, and don't think I managed to inflict a single casualty.

I don't know if it was a particularly hard tournament list, but I knew that I'd need to get quite heavily into list building to take it on again, and I decided it just wasn't worth it (as I was playing FoW most weeks).

I'm definitely a casual player (I've never left the bottom quarter of the tables for any events I've been at) but the lack of balance in 40K put me right off; I just don't have the time/inclination/money to try and keep up with the meta.

Nothing about AoS alleviates that for me; if anything it makes it harder because I've got no idea how X compares to Y and I'm not likely to be able to play enough to get a good feel for it.

Herzlos wrote:
D&D has a DM to take care of the balancing, and is a fully formed RPG.

AoS has no DM to deal with balancing, and is a competitive (there are victory conditions) wargame with essentially no RPG elements beyond getting to name your tokens.

The fact that someone wins and someone loses is part of it, but it's not the entirety. Take a step back as a participant and take a step forward as a spectator.

The intent in aos is it has players that fill in the role of the dm. Rpg elements are about 'role playing' first and foremost and getting involved in the storyand having the table top 'cast' fit the story they're acting in.

CrownAxe wrote:The problem I find with AoS isn't that you can't have fun with the game, its that its lack of (balanced) rules doesn't do anything positive for the game that an actual good rule set couldn't do, but causes negatives for some players instead. Casual and fun focused players don't need a rule set catered to them to make it fun. You are already willing to modify the rules or implement guidelines on how to build army lists (such as house ruling summoning to not be broken or agreeing not to spam only Monsters to abuse the model count win condition) but you can do the same exact thing in any other game. Nothing is stopping players from agreeing not to take Super Heavies in 40k or making up fun scenarios to pay with in WHFB. Players already have the tools to make adjustments to any game in anyway they want to make it more enjoyable (such as talking with your opponent, or self policing), AoS just makes you use those tools. But while casual players are having same fun any other game could offer them, AoS specifically detracts from competitive plays in its massive lack of balance. Competitive players only serve to lose from such a lose rule system as it leads to a long list of unforseen abuses that is practically impossible to account for every single one of them.

Basically my problem with AoS is casual players could find ways to have fun with any rule set while AoS only serve to turn away a significant part of a potential player base for no gain.

You are right. People do this. Such as me. And I'd rather play infinity or flames of war in this manner than Aos. The issue is if there is a 'standard' way of play, then people will default to thst method, and will remain unaware, oblivious to or uninterested in the 'diy' approach. Ie there is a 'proper' way of playing and anything else is illegal or immoral. There are numerous anecdotes out there of folks who would only play standard missions, and didn't even know that there was more than just those missions in the book. I personally think this is a shame as a lot of people are missing out on the creative side of wargaming and it can be a lot of fun. Aos, rather ruthlessly, puts all the emphasis on the players to make their games fun and enjoyable.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Balance is not only not exclusive with fun but also very important to it because few people can take loosing badly few times in a row. I know a self proclaimed casual who flipped the table in the end.

No, not really. Unbalanced games can be fun, provided that the scenario is interesting enough to grab both players. I mean, you could do a thermopalae scenario, where one side faces off against an unending horde and 'just holding them off as long as possible' is the goal. 'Winning' is academic, because hey, all your guys died regardless but you can still build a very enjoyable scenario around it. I've played games where I've had no chance of winning, but I got into the game anyway and simply changed the focus from 'trying to win' to enjoying my doomed Saxon Lord fall against the Vikings due to his hubris and arrogance because he felt his glorious Christian warriors had gods blessing and would march right over the bloody pagans. Thor was the stronger God thst day.

AoS is not D&D there's no rp elements there's not even a detailed enough setting to attempt it.

Excuses such as "they are a model company" and their pushing players to "forge the narrative" are there to excuse the company's poor efforts and don't wash.

It's a miniature wargame the whole point is to win, same as every other game.

hobojebus wrote:
AoS is not D&D there's no rp elements there's not even a detailed enough setting to attempt it.

I'll leave here a citation from a certain hot article that has been cited over and over as "GW does not want balance and hence - points".

"For me tabletop wargaming is a wonderfully creative hobby where players can flex their imaginations and add directly to the worlds that the games evoke. It's this creative and "interactive story-telling" that really sets our games apart from most other games, with the notable exception of role-playing games like D&D. The creativity and storytelling involved in the hobby is reflected in the painting of the armies and the desire to make superb terrain, but it is most often reflected in the fact that the events in the games we play often seem to tell a story."

The above can be interpreted differently depending on the reader's point of view, but here's mine:
In the games that GW make they don't want to give you every detail of the setting, but just enough to get you going so you can add up the rest yourself and in the process of painting minis and building terrain begin a journey of making your own battlefields, back stories, heroes and battles.

Of course, one can view the cited paragraph as overly pompous and say that you can do exactly the same with other systems that give you a better rule set and more detailed representations of the small backstreets of a town.

hobojebus wrote:

Excuses such as "they are a model company" and their pushing players to "forge the narrative" are there to excuse the company's poor efforts and don't wash.

It's a miniature wargame the whole point is to win, same as every other game.

My point is that "their pushing players to "forge the narrative" " are not there " to excuse the company's poor efforts", but has been their agenda for a long time, although with various levels of success.

An overly generic and re-iterated topic, but so is your post.

hobojebus wrote:


It's a miniature wargame the whole point is to win, same as every other game.

On an unrelated topic, I need to get a new bulb for my projector. It's projecting quite hard, but it just isn't that bright.

Literally nothing about the rules themselves of AoS makes them a cooperative endeavor. D&D would not be D&D if players were competing against each other. In fact players fighting each other is considered one of, if not THE worst thing to happen in D&D.

Deadnight wrote:
...
...
...Aos, rather ruthlessly, puts all the emphasis on the players to make their games fun and enjoyable.
...

Apart from the £45 scenario books, of course.

An equally valid interpretation of the "intention" of AoS is that GW rushed out a cheap set of rules because their company policy is to sell models, not rules, and WHFB was in the doldrums and they wanted to replace it at minimum development cost.

When you assign a couple of guys to bash out some simple derivative rules in a few weeks, they are not going to put a lot of effort into an algorithm to calculate points values, especially when their company has spent the last 30 years miscalculating points values.

Much easier to release the rules without designer notes and allow people to make their own attributions as to the why and wherefore behind things.

Of course the AoS rules are available free, allowing defenders to say they are free, but that seems like a bit of a cop-out, especially when there are plenty of other free rules available that didn't need a £120M international development company to write them.

A somewhat more ruthless way to put the emphasis on players would be not to make any rules or figures at all. One wonders why GW bothers to exist.

RoperPG wrote:

hobojebus wrote:


It's a miniature wargame the whole point is to win, same as every other game.

On an unrelated topic, I need to get a new bulb for my projector. It's projecting quite hard, but it just isn't that bright.

Your bulb does seem a bit dim.

hobojebus wrote:AoS is not D&D there's no rp elements there's not even a detailed enough setting to attempt it.

Not really true. Regarding the setting, let's be clear as well (and I really have no dog in this fight), but the Aos setting is pretty damn new. It takes years for these settings to attain the level of depth and complexity that you are saying it doesn't have. I think it's a bit unfair to demand it all straight off the bat. Other games, like for example infinity (from a tiny company) are quite bare bones in terms of derailing their setting. I wouldn't judge Corvus belli too harshly for this, considering their size, and I wouldn't necessarily judge gw too harshly either... Yet.

As to rp elements, I mean, what do you really need to tell a story? Setting? Check. And it's open enough that anything goes. Characters? Check. And with a game which has a big push on everyone having their own unique heroes and villains and fighting forces. Scenarios? Check. The materials are there. It's up to you to do something with them. You don't need rules to tell you how to make a story and bring it to life. If you do, you're not getting the point of being creative.

jonolikespie wrote:Literally nothing about the rules themselves of AoS makes them a cooperative endeavor. D&D would not be D&D if players were competing against each other. In fact players fighting each other is considered one of, if not THE worst thing to happen in D&D.

There is a difference between players 'fighting each other' and players 'playing against each other'. Some of my best rpg sessions were where there was conflict in the group and you still had to find a common ground against the big bad.

And both d&d and wargaming share so much of the same core Dna and draw on the same creativity and inspirations, and often share a lot of the same players, that what is true for one is often true for the other. You can still build a game, a world, a story and an experience together in both.

'The rules' don't define everything about this style of wargame (it's not just Aos, but diy wargames in general) and what makes it what it is. In fact it's n even about 'the rules'. It's about being creative and taking charge of your own hobby. This is the root of what wargaming was for a long time Jono - the idea of two people brewing up their own scenarios was the baseline for wargaming all through the sixties and seventies snd continues to this day. It didn't need to be written down.
Remember Jono, once the dice are rolling, then it's time to go for the throat, but up to this point, cooperation can be a huge boon.you don't need the rules to tell you to approach it in a cooperative endeavour. You just decide to do this with a like minded opponent. Show some maturity and shoulder a bit of responsibility and approach it like a grown up. And it's true for all wargames, even the competitive ones. Like I said to you before, in wargamesyou (a) agree to play an opponent, (b) in a specific game and (c) with an agreed size. right there is the 'co-operation' I'm talking about. Literally finding, and Meeting on a common ground to share a game with your mates. I'm just extending this idea of where 'co-operation' can be about. I mean, we paint our dudes, we write lore about them, why shouldn't we also decide how we're going to play with them? When we were kids, we made up games all the time. I'm just approaching wargaming in exactly the same manner. Thst you can't, or rather refuse to see this is your loss, frankly. That you refuse to look beyond 'the rules' is a bit of a shame.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Apart from the £45 scenario books, of course.

An equally valid interpretation of the "intention" of AoS is that GW rushed out a cheap set of rules because their company policy is to sell models, not rules, and WHFB was in the doldrums and they wanted to replace it at minimum development cost.

When you assign a couple of guys to bash out some simple derivative rules in a few weeks, they are not going to put a lot of effort into an algorithm to calculate points values, especially when their company has spent the last 30 years miscalculating points values.

Much easier to release the rules without designer notes and allow people to make their own attributions as to the why and wherefore behind things.

Bwahahahah! Such a cynic kilkrazy - I love it! but I don't think you are necessarily wrong. In fact, I've said the same thing myself. It can certainly be seen as a minimum effort investment (and I won't necessarily disagree with you - I think there is some truth in it) but I have heard that the design team approached management with a list of approaches for the gsme, some with points, some without, and this one was the one that management signed off on. I can't confirm this, but I do sense a shred of truth in it.

How is AoS comparable to an RPG? The only adventure is Khorneman axe's glorious journey into Sigmarine #143's face. There is no character advancement, no loot, no time for any form of meaningful roleplay and no story development. Does AoS allow for your Sigmarine to go into a town and talk to some locals? Does AoS allow your Chaos Lord to poison a duke's wine to throw his fiefdom into disarray?

No. AoS is a wargame. It represents battles and battles only. That is what it was developed for.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
How is AoS comparable to an RPG?

How is a raven like a writing desk?

The only adventure is Khorneman axe's glorious journey into Sigmarine #143's face. There is no character advancement, no loot, no time for any form of meaningful roleplay and no story development. Does AoS allow for your Sigmarine to go into a town and talk to some locals? Does AoS allow your Chaos Lord to poison a duke's wine to throw his fiefdom into disarray?

No. AoS is a wargame. It represents battles and battles only. That is what it was developed for.

I believe it is the cooperative storytelling aspect of it, where you aren't modeling a competitive game of one-upmanship so much as you are agreeing on the experience that you want to share. The point where your companion becomes your opponent happens much later in the process for AoS than other miniature games.

Edit: Also, some of the silly rules make you behave in character.

I agree with you Sqorgar. Just not with Deadnight.

And to answer your first question both start and end with a consonant, start with the same "R" sound and are commonly associated with Edgar Allen Poe.

Deadnight wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:Balance is not only not exclusive with fun but also very important to it because few people can take loosing badly few times in a row. I know a self proclaimed casual who flipped the table in the end.

No, not really. Unbalanced games can be fun, provided that the scenario is interesting enough to grab both players. I mean, you could do a thermopalae scenario, where one side faces off against an unending horde and 'just holding them off as long as possible' is the goal. 'Winning' is academic, because hey, all your guys died regardless but you can still build a very enjoyable scenario around it. I've played games where I've had no chance of winning, but I got into the game anyway and simply changed the focus from 'trying to win' to enjoying my doomed Saxon Lord fall against the Vikings due to his hubris and arrogance because he felt his glorious Christian warriors had gods blessing and would march right over the bloody pagans. Thor was the stronger God thst day.

Plumbumbarum wrote:... funnily enough, you would be suprised with how much fun I have playing a lost game in an unbalanced match. I just get the overwhelming last stand mood and change the objective to kill as much as I can before I'm decimated. Still like to have point system or sth to be able to have a rough estimate of how bad my chances really were though.

From my post a few posts back heh. Anyway, most people have hard time loosing, especially when they can do little on the table to help it, or when it turns out than one third of the fluffy army they painted for weeks is worthless in game. That an unbalanced scenario can be fun doesn't mean that balance is not important to fun in general, do you play lost games all the time?

Not to mention that the scenarios would be better playtested and with a reasonable winning condition, as in the underdog player wins if he withstands x turns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The only adventure is Khorneman axe's glorious journey into Sigmarine #143's face.

This heh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I believe it is the cooperative storytelling aspect of it, where you aren't modeling a competitive game of one-upmanship so much as you are agreeing on the experience that you want to share. The point where your companion becomes your opponent happens much later in the process for AoS than other miniature games.

But that's just good old warcuddling, the branch of wargaming. It has nothing to do with AoS, people were using the same argument for whfb and 40k being narrative wargames.

I really don't understand this idea that if I play Union versus Confederacy in an ACW battle, or Persians versus Greeks in an Ancients battle, or Soviets versus Germans in a WW2 battle, or Royal Navy versus Kriegsmarine in a WW1 naval battle, in some way I am not participating in a shared experience of an unfolding story.

Yet apparently this wonderful dream of a goal can be attained if I play Seraphon versus Chaos in AoS.

I think the fluff background of AoS could have been a lot more in depth and satisfying if GW had put some time, effort and money into development, perhaps by hiring a couple of good writers. I am sorry to say that like the rules, the fluff has the smack of having been rushed out to fulfil the need to launch the game quickly and cheaply.

Obviously this deficiency can be addressed over time, but there really is no reason why that time shouldn't have been put in before launch rather than afterwards, except for the rush job aspect.