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.

Herzlos wrote:

I've seen the occasional OP unit in a pointed game, but I've never run into a totally unbalanced game unless one of the players has brought an army that's too specialised (like tank hunters when facing an infantry company, or putting all of their points into King Tigers and bunker busters).

So is that the game's fault that it allows those kind of matchups?

Or is it down to players making decisions within the framework they were given, and sometimes those decisions are bad and require actually playing to realise that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sing your life wrote:

3 Bloodthirsters against 10 goblins, is it balanced to give the thirsters sudden death?

Of course not.
Would you want to be either of those players?

RoperPG wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

I've seen the occasional OP unit in a pointed game, but I've never run into a totally unbalanced game unless one of the players has brought an army that's too specialised (like tank hunters when facing an infantry company, or putting all of their points into King Tigers and bunker busters).

So is that the game's fault that it allows those kind of matchups?

Yes. It's only balancing mechanism is utterly terrible. I don't think I can come up with a worse one.

Or is it down to players making decisions within the framework they were given, and sometimes those decisions are bad and require actually playing to realise that?

The players are making decisions within the framework they are given; it's just the framework is more of a hinderance when it comes to balance.

Sure they'll eventually figure it out, but they could easily be put off by the first few terrible games and not bother playing it again.

If you're expecting players to do everything, why provide them with anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

3 Bloodthirsters against 10 goblins, is it balanced to give the thirsters sudden death?

Of course not.
Would you want to be either of those players?

You seem to think we're talking about players with deliberately terrible match-ups, but the examples are pretty extreme. The point is that for any random combination of armies, out of everything available, without first wasting a couple of games getting a feel for the balance, there's really no way to know what is going to produce a good game*, and if you should ignore their balancing metric.

3 Sigmarines against 10 goblins, sudden death to the sigmarines. Fair?


*I know you can play using the units they proscribe in the campaign books, but that's hardly the creative play AoS supposedly excels at.

To my reading, you're saying that no comp is better than bad comp.
Correct?

You mean the counterproductive balancing mechanism?

Then yes, GW have managed to produce a comp system that's worse than no comp.

But otherwise, comp is better than no comp. At least comp gives you some headstart.

Aos official comp < no comp < comp.

Herzlos wrote:
You mean the counterproductive balancing mechanism?

Then yes, GW have managed to produce a comp system that's worse than no comp.

But otherwise, comp is better than no comp. At least comp gives you some headstart.

Aos official comp < no comp < comp.

What is the AoS official comp?

RoperPG wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sing your life wrote:

3 Bloodthirsters against 10 goblins, is it balanced to give the thirsters sudden death?

Of course not.
Would you want to be either of those players?

Of course I wouldn't want to either player in that situation, that's why a rule giving bonuses to the force with less models, regardless of context or the models actually power in the game rules is never going to work as a practical balancing mechanic in reality.

RoperPG wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
You mean the counterproductive balancing mechanism?

Then yes, GW have managed to produce a comp system that's worse than no comp.

But otherwise, comp is better than no comp. At least comp gives you some headstart.

Aos official comp < no comp < comp.

What is the AoS official comp?

The balancing mechanisms provided in AoS (sudden death & friends).

I'll re-write:

AoS's attempt at providing balance < no comp < comp.

"Easily build a balanced list and game set up" wasn't one of the 10 Cool Things, so I don't it's on topic of this thread to criticise that it can't be done.

(Whether it can or can't be done is another argument.)

Herzlos wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
You mean the counterproductive balancing mechanism?

Then yes, GW have managed to produce a comp system that's worse than no comp.

But otherwise, comp is better than no comp. At least comp gives you some headstart.

Aos official comp < no comp < comp.

What is the AoS official comp?

The balancing mechanisms provided in AoS (sudden death & friends).

I'll re-write:

AoS's attempt at providing balance < no comp < comp.

So to you then, balance and comp are the same thing?
Because neither is a requirement or a product of the other.

And to just shut off the 3 BT/10 gobbo's bit - the BT player set up at least 1 BT after the Goblin player had deployed their only unit and already had at least 1 BT on the board.
That's all you need to know about the people involved in that game.
Which does bring us back to a recurring theme on this thread - just because you can be a turbodouche, doesn't mean you should be a turbodouche.

additional rules to try and instill balance based on some metric and a comp are trying to achieve the same thing, yes.


We're not talking specifically about 3 BT / 10 gobbos. I used the example of 3 Stormcast / 10 gobbos.

Which does bring us back to a recurring theme on this thread - just because you can be a turbodouche, doesn't mean you should be a turbodouche.

Definitely. It's just with this game it's so easy to inadvertently become a turbodouche without meaning to or even realising it. Their balancing system can then make it worse.


Player A has 5 Stormcast Eternals (they bought a box because it was shiny) and player B has 20 Night Goblins (they bought a box because they look cool). Are they balanced from the off? Does A or B need to make any allowances? Should player A get a balancing victory condition because he's outnumbered 4 to 1?

RoperPG wrote:

Back to the topic, I do love how some individuals complain that AoS is unplayable because it has no intrinsic comp, but when a post like this comes up suggesting ideas for mix'n'match armies the stock response is always "well you could do that in system X!"

You don't need no comp to not use comp.
You can, if you don't want comp, not use comp in a game that has no no comp rules.
However, in a no comp game you can't not play no comp games without creating a comp, which is what many 'no comp' matches with comp systems were about in the first place.

In short, you can if you choose, play a game of chess with all knights against a greater number of pawns, in flagrant disregard for the rules of composition.
The rules of composition provide a framework for the game and choosing to step outside that should be a choice rather than the norm.
I shouldn't have to sit down with my opponent and reinvent chess every time I want a pickup game.

richstrach wrote:
Mongoose Matt, as far as I'm aware, runs Mongoose Publishing http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/, who publish, amongst other things, the excellent and underrated Judge Dredd miniatures game. I think he did work for GW back in the day, but is no shill!

Matt can obviously answer this better himself, but I believe he's working for GW again as he's one of the winners in the fiction writing contest they held a while back?

Unless that 'contract' and/or 'assignment' is up/was a one time deal?

Herzlos wrote:

Which does bring us back to a recurring theme on this thread - just because you can be a turbodouche, doesn't mean you should be a turbodouche.

Definitely. It's just with this game it's so easy to inadvertently become a turbodouche without meaning to or even realising it. Their balancing system can then make it worse.


Player A has 5 Stormcast Eternals (they bought a box because it was shiny) and player B has 20 Night Goblins (they bought a box because they look cool). Are they balanced from the off? Does A or B need to make any allowances? Should player A get a balancing victory condition because he's outnumbered 4 to 1?

Yes, the Stormcast Player is at a numerical disadvantage so by the rules would get an SD condition. If A or B were in a position to make any allowances it wouldn't just be 5 Stormcast up against 20 Nightgoblins, would it?
In terms of 'balance', game is roughly in the Nightgoblin's favour depending on make up of unit and movement factors.

But let's have a look at what he can pick...
Assassinate isn't an option because the Night Goblin unit doesn't have that keyword
Blunt is pointless with one unit
Endure is an option but would mean spending 6 turns running away
Seize Ground is possible but will result in the same thing Blunt does.

Besides, if you're playing with battleplans, sudden death is normally the first thing to go as a victory condition.

*edit* clarification.

Yes to what part?

As above, and for clarity, Sudden Death does not apply to all Battleplans. It is not a rule that applies to each and every game.

From memory, it's in the minority. I don't recall the last time it was in a Battleplan that we played.

Instead, it'll give you a specific bonus or automatically make you one side of the scenario if you have X less/ are X faction.

For those who insist WM/H can be played without points ... well, sure it can. Just like you can assemble a puzzle so the picture is garbled. The "picture" WM/H's rules make is competitive gaming, on a pick up game basis. When you insist that AoS must come out to the same "picture" you are severely missing the point.

richstrach wrote:
who publish, amongst other things, the excellent and underrated Judge Dredd miniatures game

Small correction: Warlord Games now publishes the Judge Dredd line for Mongoose. You can even get the core rulebook in PDF from WLG's site for free.

RoperPG wrote:
Besides, if you're playing with battleplans, sudden death is normally the first thing to go as a victory condition.

I think GW poorly communicate about the 4-pages of "free rules." There is basically 3 pages of basic rules that is shared between all the battle plans and 1 page that is pretty much the "free" battle plan. Many official battle plans have different victory conditions that does not include what most AoS-critics don't like about AoS - the Sudden Death parameter from the free download. I don't think GW have stated the rules and guidelines they have provided gives balance games? If GW did, then yeah horrible design of the game. I think majority of people who play/like AoS knows that the rules don't provide balance games; however, if you want a fairly balanced game to determine which player had the best tactics, you absolutely do not need a point system to do so. Point/comp system does help with pick-up games.

 akai wrote:


I think GW poorly communicate about the 4-pages of "free rules."

Agreed; they should have made a separate PDF for the initial battleplan and kept it separate.

 akai wrote:
I don't think GW have stated the rules and guidelines they have provided gives balance games?

Directly, no, they don't. On some Battleplans it will clearly advise that one side has the advantage as part of the scenario/story and to consider this when setting the game up. The army trying to do X is in a last ditch situation and as such the scenario favours the opposing force.
This applies to some Battleplans.

I still think this is off topic, but it seems to me reasonable for players to assume the rules are intended to provide a balanced game for the following reasons.

1. The Sudden Death rule clearly is meant to provide balance in situations of outnumbering.
2. The Summoning rules clearly is meant to balance the effect of some armies being able to summon 'free' units.
3. People like fair games and nearly all games are intended to be fair.
4. Owing to 3, games without a fair setup usually contain designer's notes to explain why.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People like fair games and nearly all games are intended to be fair.

Echoing your question to Matt, I know you've played wargames long enough to know that fairness is not only or always a matter of each side having an army of the same "points value," with handicap mechanics thrown in to give wiggle room, considering points-based list building is just one branch of miniatures game design. Fairness can also mean, for example, having a clear idea of what it will take to win. Or it can mean that a referee makes unbiased calls. AoS strikes me as harkening to scenario-based gaming, in which fairness is mostly a matter of the mutual consent of the players rather than a legalistic approach to rulebook referencing.

This conversation calls to mind the one we are having over in Easy E's review threads concerning Dux Bellorum and A World Aflame, where the concept of a "beginner's game" has been brought up but not really defined. One of the underlying assumptions there seems to be that explicit rules and a legalistic approach are better for beginners. I'm not sure if that is true; I think it's more likely that the assumption reflects more about the folks making it than any universal truth about wargaming. AoS is surely nothing if not a beginner's war game. But then again, what could be more natural than agreeing among the friends you play with that a given game will entail X, Y, and Z? That's how we play as kids, after all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I still think this is off topic, but it seems to me reasonable for players to assume the rules are intended to provide a balanced game for the following reasons.

1. The Sudden Death rule clearly is meant to provide balance in situations of outnumbering.
2. The Summoning rules clearly is meant to balance the effect of some armies being able to summon 'free' units.
3. People like fair games and nearly all games are intended to be fair.
4. Owing to 3, games without a fair setup usually contain designer's notes to explain why.

It is very reasonable for players to assume rules are intended to provide a balanced game. I think though, that we can agree it is a wrong assumption for AoS? If you look at the hardback books, before the sections go into the battle plans and rules, there is a page where the authors of the books basically wrote, for better or worse: the rules provide a bare bones framework for the players to fight "glorious battles of your own devising"..."limited only by your imagination."

P.S. I think the thread was already going off-topic since the first reply!

Edit (Adding another reply):

 Manchu wrote:
But then again, what could be more natural than agreeing among the friends you play with that a given game will entail X, Y, and Z? That's how we play as kids, after all.

I agree. It is something my small gaming group does and how I introduced my nephew and niece to the game - http://thefourheroes.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-i-enjoy-playing-age-of-sigmar.html

This thread is seriously off the OP's topic by now. I think it's time to put it out of misery before it becomes even more of a trainwreck.

MongooseMatt wrote:
2. Play Hero Deathmatch
Got a bunch of mates and fancy a quick, but bloody and fun game? Play hero deathmatch!

You all select a single Hero from whichever army takes your fancy, and then fight until there is only one left!

If you are boring (!), you may stipulate a limit (say, 5 Wounds maximum) but if there are a few of you present, try playing with no limits. Sure, someone may bring Archaon or Nagash, but you will find everyone else quickly gangs up against him, making for a more level playing field. And just imagine the glory if your hero is the one to bring Archaon down!

A variant of this is to play King of the Hill, where you place a tall piece of scenery and make the victory condition to be the lone hero standing at the top of it after a certain time (whether you make it a number of minutes or number of rounds, doesn’t really matter which).

This kind of deathmatch game is really quick to play, plus it allows you to pull out heroes you might not use too often (just how good would Festus the Leechlord be, eh?). It is also very fast-paced, a lot of fun, doesn’t take long, and there are always backstabbing shenanigans as players make alliances with one another, then break them just as quickly!

This is something I've been considering recently. Perhaps a Realmgate at either end of the board where Heroes respawn (but miss a turn). Then have objectives and units too. Something resembling a MOBA videogame map/mission.

Did you see the AoS news thread?

There's an early version of an official Battleplan that is similar to this.

I'm going to get some friends and try it at our next gaming day.

 sing your life wrote:
This thread is seriously off the OP's topic by now. I think it's time to put it out of misery before it becomes even more of a trainwreck.

It's hard to condone locking a thread because people who don't like AoS pile in to undermine the premise of the OP such that answering their criticisms is suddenly off-topic. If we locked every thread in which this happened, I wonder how many AoS threads would remain unlocked.

 ShaneTB wrote:
Did you see the AoS news thread?

There's an early version of an official Battleplan that is similar to this.

Here it is:

 akai wrote:
http://thefourheroes.blogspot.com/2015/11/how-i-enjoy-playing-age-of-sigmar.html

Nice post!

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShaneTB wrote:
Did you see the AoS news thread?

There's an early version of an official Battleplan that is similar to this.

Here it is:

Spoiler:

Thanks. The missing word in one of the early sentences drives me mad.

I thought i would just point out for those that say that the game is scenario based you can't really point to the game having "free rules" as a positive because the scenarios are locked behind a paywall =p . But i do think AOS moving to online rules and having an app for them is the greatest strength of AOS.

When it comes to the balancing of a game argument this is where i feel AOS made a big mistake. Easier rules was a great idea to lure in new players but a complete lack of a balance structure (as pointed out above the sudden death by army size is just terrible) was a huge mistake. I have two brothers and when we all got into Warhammer we were young. We never agreed on anything so of course whoever won a game took a "broken" or "unbalanced" unit. One of the strengths of warhammer 40k and fantasy was that one of us could say to the other "we agreed on 1000 points and thats what i took".Trying to self balance a game would have been a nightmare at that age and even currently i could image arguments over what is "fair". I have never been a power gamer (i run an all goblin themed list) but its important for me that a game have drawn up boundaries that we can all agree are fair aka a points value. We have done no points and special scenarios but its an exception that everyone agrees on. Trying to figure out whats fair with a large group of people is a huge reason why my gaming group quickly gave up on AOS.

I agree with Manchu's point and it's one I've often made myself, that games can be made fair (balanced) by methods such as unequal forces with unequal victory conditions, not just by equal forces (equal points values.)

It also seems to me that AoS is intended to be fair (balanced) in some sense, has a starter set that is fairly well balanced, and contains rules to push the setup and conduct of games in that direction.

However, as this point is off the topic (as I mentioned earlier,) let's drop it and discuss the actual 10 things in the original post.

/steps blinking into the sunlight/
I think the freedom to do as you want force-wise is one of the strengths of the game. If you can dream it, you can build it, etc. etc.

What I've found particularly interesting is the number of people who have obviously had similar ideas for some time but only now have felt able to go after their haunted/Chaos forest dwellers, Seraphon Dinosaur herds, etc. and one case I've actually seen with my own eyes, a Grand Alliance: Order air force...

I have plenty of ideas of thematic forces too*, but am awaiting more reboxing of older stock so I know where I am (plus 20% off helps).


*Fimir, monsters, trolls - Things from the Misty Swamps of Ghylth!

So, two questions at this point. Is this thread and undercover advert for AoS? And is or is not MongooseMatt under the employ of GW at this time. Sorry if Im derailing here but I feel these two questions have yet to be answered.