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.

The time has come at last to unveil Azyr Empires.

This was a work that started back in November and is based off of a campaign system that I had incorporated from Mighty Empires back in the late 90s. Its seen a lot of action and it was fun bringing it up to speed to Age of Sigmar.

You can find the packet here at: www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrEmpires.pdf

Additionally I have brought an online Army builder for Azyr Comp
www.louisvillewargaming.com/AzyrBuilder.aspx

Azyr Comp was also updated with the latest version to work with this:
www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

The builder has a postback issue that i will eventually resolve. Both of these items are in beta. I expect bugs and will work to resolve them as I get to them.

Azyr Comp was written to facilitate this project so the two go hand in hand pretty well.

Thank you all for your patience. Remarks and comments can be directed toward me here, my email at auticus.daerk@gmail.com, or by PM.

There is talk of a campaign that goes beyond our group this summer, and a facebook group was created to discuss Empires, Azyr Comp, and that campaign.

www.facebook.com/groups/AzyrEmpires

Enjoy!

While I won't use any comp system for various reason (mainly playing exclusively in friendly environment where we don't need it to balance our games), I admire the work done and I hope it becomes a successful project!

Thanks

The comp here is to allow for resources. In a system where everything costs nothing its hard to work a resource campaign system in. That was actually the original purpose of Azyr Comp.

I had a chance to read through Azyr Empires today.

Here is a brief review.

First, lots of great work.

Second, I think this is still somewhat of a draft, and will undoubtedly continue to be revised.

The following comments are based on today's version:

1) It could use a better introduction (not everyone is familiar with Mighty Empires concepts or warhammer fantasy battle concepts, consider an introduction that would work for people only familiar with AoS) -- specific weak points from an intro perspective include wagering territories and champion advancement (the idea of 5 advancements between hero stars, etc.).

2) Ideally, you should provide alternatives. For example, how about an explanation of how you would merge these rules with the Path to Glory campaign. Or how could a group use a different comp system than Azyr comp? Or how could a group use a different injury system? Or how could a group use a different territory system, instead of territories in random realms, you can have all your territories contiguously in a realm of your choice? etc.

3) Although not really in the rules, Mighty Empires benefits from a GM to help run the campaign. I think this system would also benefit from a GM and some guidelines for a GM to follow.

4) Various charts are missing. For example, Territory Types chart item 12 on page 15 says roll on the Realm Chart to determine what this special tile does. There is no realm chart. There is a list of Realms on page 13, but that doesn't have special tiles to roll for. The descriptions of the realms list several special territories, but there doesn't appear to be a chart to roll for them. Also on page 13, the entry for Realms of Chaos mentions a Realms of Chaos chart that doesn't appear to exist.

5) On the topic of realms, why have a single empire with realms rolled on random worlds? While this may make sense for the Stormcast and the forces of Chaos that are fighting on multiple worlds, most small empires will be contiguous territories.

6) The Warrior King vs. Warlord distinction seems minimal. Maybe this needs more examples and explanation.

7) Some players might want to obtain a beast mount before they are 4 star heroes. How many battles will it take to become a 4 star hero? More info on advancement. Also, some 4 star heroes also get an ability besides going on quest. Others only get to go on quests.

8) Advancement for a Chaos Daemon seems accelerated compared to advancement for a Chaos Champion. The Daemon herald becomes a Daemon Prince at 3 stars and a greater Daemon at 4 stars. The Chaos champion only becomes a Daemon Prince at 4 stars if he accomplishes a quest.

The Azyr Comp Army Web Builder flicker issue was resolved. You can now select items without it flickering back and forth. You do have to wait a few seconds for the page to fetch your data still but it does not flicker when it does it.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AzyrBuilder.aspx

@Endur, yes this is indeed a beta (first draft) so I expect bugs and clarifications that will be needed. The facebook group formed will be focusing on that and thank you very much for your input.

2) the system wasn't really designed to be plugged into other systems. While it can be done, that would be additional work that would need done, maybe in an expansion. Azyr Comp was designed explicitly for this system, so again while its possible to plug other comps in, that would require conversion work and is outside of the scope of this project.

3) GM guidelines would be something good to add yes.

4) this was brought up this morning in another group and I have clarified it in the text and will be released this weekend with the other clean ups.

5) it can make sense for any race to be scattered across realms. The games and novels focus on realm gates. Realm gates can lead you anywhere. The idea is creating an empire that spans across realms. One could also limit the scope of the campaign and put it on a single realm, but that was not something that I wanted to do.

6) warlords don't suffer from CORE restrictions, the other classes do. The distinctions at that point go into each class and range, though warlord classes have more to do with command abilities and warriors have more to do with martial abilities, though the two are similar.

7 & 8) the advancements are not all the same, or templated the same. They depended on warscrolls that existed. I knew that going in that would be one of the first things mentioned.

A chaos mortal's pinnacle is a demon prince. A chaos daemon is a daemon prince as an intermediary. The two by virtue of their models are not equal ( a greater daemon > daemon prince, but a warrior of chaos max is daemon prince so seems "unfair" - however the daemon prince that the warrior of chaos turns into should have buffed stats that put him above a generic warscroll daemon prince.

Part of the evening out process will be to look at finalized heroes and compare them.

Obtaining a beast mount before 4 stars depends on the character and the faction. That is intentional.

assorted feedback, mostly old gripes and suggestions

I've watched large skeleton units mow things down because of their extra attacks, so I definitely think that they should be charged for those extra attacks.

They are costed as much as their statline puts them at with those extra attacks. Getting them for free is not a good thing IMO. Paying for skeletons as if they had only one attack and then maxing out a blob so that they have all of their extra stuff ... for free... is broken. I personally hate units that get better with their size as a mechanic. Especially when it comes to point costing something.

A unit with Movement X, Bravery X, Save X, Wounds X with Y attacks and then getting Y Attacks + 2 should cost as much as a unit that has those same stats with the Y Attacks +2, not be given it for free.

They effectively function as the old unit only with Y + 2 attacks but cost as much as a unit with only Y attacks. Thats a bargain. And min/max bait (we saw it often last fall)

Now just costing units with the assumption that they will take the banner is not a bad idea, because honestly why would you never take the banner. And that would basically be to up the cost of the selections by +1 to take into account that they are basically bringing models back at no cost or effort; it just happens. Originally that was exactly how those units were pointed too - and then a lot of pepole were up in arms that they may not want to pay that many points and should have the option to not take the banner.

That regeneration and maxing out on that regeneration single handedly drove off a good half dozen people in a weekend when it wasn't accounted for.

Grave Guard and Tomb Guard should cost the same. That would indeed be a bug where something got missed. Thank you for pointing it out, I will correct it this evening when I get home.

Clash style summoning doesn't work for my group - there are a lot of guys very much against using a side board for summoning. If I had my way summoning would be gone altogether. They want summoning to be extra, not an alternate form of reserves. They are also the majority. Making summoning using clash comp rules would mean they would never bother summoning at all, and likely would also not play in our campaign and would just keep playing AOS RAW, which is the most popular method of playing AOS in my area.

Short answer there is that summoning has been an issue I've had to deal with since it came out in July, as are those banners that regen the unit and there have been about 15 suggestions for each and no consensus.

Thank you for the input. I will correct the TG vs GG point discrepancy.

auticus wrote:
I've watched large skeleton units mow things down because of their extra attacks, so I definitely think that they should be charged for those extra attacks.

Nobody said they shouldn't pay extra for that ability. You'll note that my suggested unit price for them was 3 for 10(2), which is significantly more than they're really worth at one attack each, even with the banner (imo). And frankly, ANY unit can wreak havoc in this edition when buffed to the nines. I've seen zombies and ghouls and spirit hosts especially do horrific things. I've seen big blocks of skeletons, without extra buffs, just bounce off enemy units with even a midway decent save. Their hit and wound rolls are low enough that the actual damage inflicted is uninspiring on average even with the extra attacks, unless you get very lucky or apply extra buffs. With their poor saves, skeletons also crumble in the face of nearly any offense, and quickly lose those extra attacks. Yes, if your opponent lets you swing first, and you roll hot, you can do a ton of damage, but that's true for pretty much any unit.

Trying to place different points values at different squad sizes results in harsh punishments discouraging fluffy use (or, really, at the points values you're putting up currently, any use at all). It overshoots your goal, a goal that your low points values with little to no wiggle room doesn't really allow you to hit, anyway, and results in a situation where you're charging more points per model of skeletons than of chaos warriors, which is just ludicrous. There is no squad size at which skeletons are worth more per model than elite infantry, let alone 2 wound, 2 attack beasts like chaos warriors with good attack, wound, and save values. Just... just run it. Just set up some test games, put a block of 15 chaos warriors out, and see how many skeletons it takes to best them, taking note of fluke rolls.

I'm guessing you had some situations where somebody underestimated skeletons, and somebody else got lucky, and then everyone got gunshy/snakebit. But the system in place is an overreaction.

Again, I'm not suggesting that they should be pointed as though that ability doesn't exist, as with the banner. Just that the current system dramatically overshoots the target, and results in a unit that's not worth taking at any squad size.

Now just costing units with the assumption that they will take the banner is not a bad idea, because honestly why would you never take the banner. And that would basically be to up the cost of the selections by +1 to take into account that they are basically bringing models back at no cost or effort; it just happens. Originally that was exactly how those units were pointed too - and then a lot of pepole were up in arms that they may not want to pay that many points and should have the option to not take the banner.

If grave guard were pointed at 4 per five before, or skeletons at an insane 4 or 5 per 10, then the complainers were right, before, too. But the point is that by trying to make 'banner or no banner' a legit option, you're ending up making no-banner a bad option and banner a worse one, and leaving the faction feeling much less fluffy as a result. Command models are cool. They look cool. They're fun visually, they break up chorus line units. They're also fun mechanically, as several factions have important narrative elements conveyed via their unique command effects and that is especially the case for the Death units. If players stop fielding them, the game is poorer for it. So yes, include the banners in consideration (though, rankly, I don't think they're enough to make grave guard worth 4 points per five, or skeletons 4 per 10). Frankly, if you don't consider the banner, I feel tomb guard are closer to the right points value, while if you do consider the banner, then grave guard are in the right place where they currently are.

That regeneration and maxing out on that regeneration single handedly drove off a good half dozen people in a weekend when it wasn't accounted for.

Based on the summoning system, I would strongly suggest that that was the problem throwing off your games.

Clash style summoning doesn't work for my group - there are a lot of guys very much against using a side board for summoning. If I had my way summoning would be gone altogether. They want summoning to be extra, not an alternate form of reserves. They are also the majority. Making summoning using clash comp rules would mean they would never bother summoning at all, and likely would also not play in our campaign and would just keep playing AOS RAW, which is the most popular method of playing AOS in my area.

AoS RAW already makes summoning just an alternate form of deployment, since there are no limits on deployment so anything you summon during the game you could have just deployed at the start, anyway. Oh, sure, it also lets you game the sudden death mechanic, since you can pretend to have a smaller army than you actually have during deployment to get sudden death or avoid giving it to your opponent, then just drop a whole extra army's worth of stuff on the table in the first turn.

But the ENTIRE POINT of a points/comp system for Age of Sigmar is to PREVENT players from gaming the sudden death rules. Limiting what players can deploy one way, but letting them deploy extra stuff another way is no different from limiting how many models a player can deploy if they're painted blue, but letting them deploy extra freebie units if they're painted red.

I guess what I'm saying here is, you're either trying to balance things or not, and if you're not then it doesn't really matter if you're pricing skeleton blocks at one point or a dozen.

I'm guessing you had some situations where somebody underestimated skeletons, and somebody else got lucky, and then everyone got gunshy/snakebit. But the system in place is an overreaction.

After about 150 games over the course of six weeks it was pointed out that the cost of skeletons (originally at what they were worth at 1 attack) was way too low and everyone was fielding them in high numbers to take advantage of the +300% attacks where they are still at points for their single attack.

The system in place is a very easy math formula

Skeleton at 1 attack is worth X
Skeleton with 2 attacks is worth Y
Skeleton with 3 attacks is worth Z

Creature that is identical to skeleton with 1 attack is also X
Creature that is identical to skeleton with 2 attacks is Y
Creature that is identical to skeleton with 3 attacks is Z

Therefore skeleton with 3 attacks being worth X is broken.

Their point value is worth a creature with identical stats and attacks at the wound/rend/damage ratio. All creatures go through the same formula.

Remove the word "skeleton" from the warscroll and replace it with "creature".

Creature with skeleton stats and 3 attacks should be worth Z no matter what creature is.

Now I will say that no system is perfect, but these points have also been put through, to date, over 1000 test games so its not like they havne't been tested and that the values you see were just knee jerked in (or fired in and forgotten without testing)

Are these values perfect today? Probably not. There's stuff that gets caught all the time. Are the skeleton points obscenely wrong? I would say no because though you are paying a lot for 40 skeletons, you are paying the cost of Z, which is what Creature with skeleton stats and 3 attacks each would also pay.

But the ENTIRE POINT of a points/comp system for Age of Sigmar is to PREVENT players from gaming the sudden death rules.

I fully agree with you. However, sudden death rules are a rarity because I only really ever play scenarios, and 9 out of 10 scenarios don't use sudden death rules.

Now as far as banners being bad with none and worse with, I don't have an alternative that will go over well. I say that having spent the better part of four months having this debate. No matter the option suggested, another side of players would not like it.

The best solution for me is to say undead banners don't regenerate anything to be honest and skeletons don't get extra attacks for numbers.

That right there would bring everything even (and empire state troops would get that same rule) since you could just point cost the unit without worrying about them getting bonus attacks for size.

By default no units are costed with banners involved, but regeneration is VERY powerful and needs something.

+1 point overall for the banner was the first step and that simply wasn't enough since people were going "cool... +1 point for the banner overall? Here's 60 skeletons, I'm getting exponentially more use out of that +1 point banner now than if I just took 10 guys". In other words, the banner is worth more the more models you have that it can regenerate.

20 skeletons is actually on average 31 or 32 skeletons for example over the course of the game with the regen in effect, whereas 10 skeletons is actually about 14 skeletons. If the banner was universally just +1, you can see that its really not very accurate and that a min / max optimizer will always take more because he's getting 2-3x more models from just doubling his initial model count (a very good investment economically speaking)

Same with the bonus attacks. The point cost given for the bonus attacks is what the model would cost assuming it always got those points. Some say thats too expensive, because "its just a skeleton", but the math formula doesn't care what the model is, its just fed stats and dumps out a tier.

A 3x attack skeleton is worth a lot more than a 1x attack skeleton hence the point increase.

A 3x attack skeleton with regen is worth even more than a 3x attack skeleton without regen is worth more than a 1x attack skeleton with regen is worth more than a 1x attack skeleton.

This is a buff you can choose in the army builder phase, and our undead players were maxing the bejeezus out of this when the exponential benefits were not being taken into account. Both Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts were at the very tip top of the bell curve of win percentage (after 500 games they were #1 & #2 at 61% and roughly 59% ish, #3 being Stormcast at 58%)

Once the increase in points came for exponential attacks and regen their win percentage fell to about 53-55% which is what I wanted to see.

Ultimate underlying question: you used chaos warrior as a base of example. Is X == Y? Is a skeleton buffed up equal to elite infantry?

I'd say resoundingly yes, a 3x attack skeleton is in the same tier / ballpark as an elite infantry model, hence their point cost.

Azyr is not a precision system, its not meant to say a model is costed 8.75 points should be the very equal of another model costed at 8.75 points. It uses tiers, which says "is this model in Tier 3 in the same ballpark as this other model in Tier 3" to which again I'd say yes a 3x attack skeleton is in the same ballpark as an elite infantry model.

Now for funsies I will go home this evening and dig out my scenarios that I wrote last September where the skeletons were compared to swordmasters, PG, chaos warriors, etc, and examine the math (the same software that had the math formula applied to it also kicks out scenarios that shows in a vacuum the odds and overall statistics of the two units fighting and what happens) and compare notes again because things can slip through, though the mathematical scenarios outputted showed that the 3x attack skeletons were producing similar damage output as those elite infantry units were and were as effective in combat as those elite units were against non elite items and other elite items.

The hair splitting comes down to what the subject deems as similar and how precise they are trying to get.

But I don't see the points being that super far off from each other as I've seen and read and analyzed over one hundred games of undead with their boosted attacks ripping through other units (yes dice are fickle but this was a consistent in most games).

Overall the balance given in this system has every army floating around 52 - 56% win/loss, the pinnacle being 50, so there are definitely flaws in Azyr but they are not as glaring as you are saying they are. If they were... I promise I would definitely adjust.

I say that because the tone of your post indicates that the points in Azyr don't really matter because nothing is balanced anyway, which I would contend is false based off of a ton of playtesting showing otherwise, but also leaving off with that there are always room for improvement and I have dedicated the past six months to making sure that where something is in error that it is corrected.

I will post a poll asking if just getting rid of units that get free attacks based on size should be struck out. That would resolve the sliding scale of value for skeletons (which was also voted in overwhelmingly last fall). The heal/regen banners I feel are right for what they are; they get more valuable the more models you have so you should pay the extra point per selection (1 pt for 10 skeletons, 2 pts for 20 skeletons etc). My preferred resolution would be to strike out regeneration banners as well but that won't go over.

auticus wrote:

I'm guessing you had some situations where somebody underestimated skeletons, and somebody else got lucky, and then everyone got gunshy/snakebit. But the system in place is an overreaction.

The system in place is a very easy math formula

Skeleton at 1 attack is worth X
Skeleton with 2 attacks is worth Y
Skeleton with 3 attacks is worth Z

Creature that is identical to skeleton with 1 attack is also X
Creature that is identical to skeleton with 2 attacks is Y
Creature that is identical to skeleton with 3 attacks is Z

The problem with this is that skeletons don't stay at 2 attacks or 3 attacks after they start taking casualties, while a creature that is identical to skeletons does. Also, I'm not convinced you are pricing skeletons identical to things with 2 attacks or 3 attacks, because skeleton to-hit and to-wound and save values are generally worse than most other things that have 2 or 3 attacks. Are 30 skeletons really worth Z, when after a singly casualty they only have the attack output of unit Y, and after 11 (and an awful lot of enemy units will put 11 wounds on a skeleton block in a single combat round) drops them to output X?

Therefore skeleton with 3 attacks being worth X is broken.

Again, I'm not saying you should pretend the ability doesn't exist when pricing them, that's ridiculous. But it's also ridiculous to assume the ability is always functioning to full effect when it isnt. Price them somewhere around Y, maybe a little less than Y but rounding up to Y because of the banner, regardless of unit size. Then, if the undead player is clever and gets his unit into combat at full strength to attack first, they've successfully engineered an advantage on the table, but if the opponent outmaneuvers them to attack first, they can easily bring the unit down to the Y strength they paid for, and with some clever tactics or lucky rolls down to X.


I could potentially see a problem if people are literally fielding squads of 100 or 200 skeletons, but huge superunits like that really throw off this game regardless, so I'd recommend capping unit size at 30 or 40 or 50 instead.


As with the banner, I don't feel a sliding scale is appropriate regardless, since you want to encourage largish units of weedie guys, that's what their fluff is, that's the point of those horde bonuses to begin with. price them at aboutish the medium bonus, and I think you'll be right. Again, I recommend 3/10(2) (with their banner), maybe with a max unit size cap.

The best solution for me is to say undead banners don't regenerate anything to be honest and skeletons don't get extra attacks for numbers.

Your "best solution" is to kill the interesting, fluffy rules that distinguish factions? Why not play kings of war, then?

Ultimate underlying question: you used chaos warrior as a base of example. Is X == Y? Is a skeleton buffed up equal to elite infantry?

I'd say resoundingly yes, a 3x attack skeleton is in the same tier / ballpark as an elite infantry model, hence their point cost.

Let's mathhammer it. Your system says 34 skeletons with command is worth 35 chaos warriors with shields.



And that was giving the skeletons every advantage - their passive buff is nearby, the chaos warriors passive buffs aren't. The skeletons can swing with their whole unit from the start, the chaos warriors can never squeeze in more than 15 guys. The skeletons get to start with a double turn and win initiative every single round, the chaos warriors have to take attacks before they swing twice in a row while the skeletons are at their most dangerous.

Azyr is not a precision system,

I agree, and that's why I'm questioning your attempt to be so finnicky about the prices of units based on their size, command or not, etc. Your price point ranges aren't wide enough to make it work, and the incentives towards smaller, banner-less units are exactly the opposite of what should be desired if you're looking for fun, fluffy games (where skeletons are supposed to be a horde unit, and the undead banners are supposed to convey the implacability of the undead - in a system where summoning really isn't supposed to be doing that).

WHy I"m being so finnicky is simply this:

If I cost skeletons at X where X is what they would be with no sliding buffs or regen banner, then they are broken in the system when someone takes 40 of them, they are doing the output of more than 40 at 1 attack/no regen, but are only cost as if they have 1 attack / no regen.

And anyone that has at least a fifth grade math competency, which is nearly everyone I know, will max out on this (and they did max out on this until they had to pay more, then they stopped maxing out on them)

If the answer is simply: let skeletons cost what they'd cost at 1 attack no matter how many attacks they are worth, thats not correct to me.

At that point you are just as well going to RAW aos with no points because you are no longer gauging what the skeleton is worth. You are pricing it at a much less cost than what it is worth unless you are taking min size units, which virtually no one was doing because the buff was so hugely economical for the points cost.

So while I'm not trying to find a super precise value, at the same time, there has to be some accounting for these buffs at the same time. The sliding scale of attacks quite honestly sucks for this.

You missed some parts of my post - understandable as I did some editing, but please refer back.

Main point:

Skeletons at +1 or +2 attacks don't stay at +1 or +2 attacks, so they aren't equal to units that have +1 or +2 attacks all the time.

Are 30 skeletons really worth Z, when after a singly casualty they only have the attack output of unit Y, and after 11 (and an awful lot of enemy units will put 11 wounds on a skeleton block in a single combat round) drops them to output X? Obviously, no.

I also specifically math hammered the skeletons vs chaos warriors, giving skeletons every advantage, and the chaos warriors still wiped them out with half their models remaining. It looked even for the first couple rounds, then the skeletons were brought under the 3 attack threshold and it became laughably one sided.

This is a thing that actually happens in games with horde units. Regularly. And if you remove their horde bonuses, then we return to 8th edition, where you need units of 60 or 70 or 80 weenie models to be at all meaningful on the table, and ALL they're good for is holding things up. I don't think you want that.

I ran it through the scenario generator on lunch.

Chaos warriors win on average 62% of the time (equal points of either) out of 10,000 fights. It actually fights the battle and does take into considerations the skeletons start losing attacks etc.

So yes the chaos warriors do have an advantage based off of the scenario generator. Is it a huge advantage? I'd say no but its enough of an advantage to look at resolutions (I try to keep win/loss percentages within +/- 10 of 50)

Unfortunately at this time I dn't know what that resolution is. I *can* bump them down to 2 for 10 and just keep them there and say +1 for a banner as they used to be last fall, but then I will be getting hate mail from people who now have undead armies running their store again like last time.

It appears to be, make minor change one way, cause issues. Make minor changes the other way, cause other issues.

Is your scenario generator taking into account that half the time the skeletons will be attacking last? If you default to simultaneous attacks, that's a big boost to skeletons in your numbers, on top of what those numbers already show.

Anyway, my suggestion is still 3 for 10, with banner included, regardless of size (if the vamp player gets them in at full strength they deserve the advantage, while the opposing player typically has ample opportunity to knock a large unit of skellies down a peg before they get to swing; units that start small are discouraged, but that's in fitting with their role/narrative/aesthetic).

I also recommend a reasonable max cap on unit sizes if that's not already in your rules regardless of what you do with skeletons or other horde units, because the game doesn't work well with 100 model units whether or not they get horde bonuses.

As for people complaining about undead players running their store, that is never going to be fixed as long as the summoning system lets 8 points spent on arkhan reliably put 8 points of archai, 8 points of harbingers, 7 points of terrorgheist, and 9 points of dragon on the table by the end of turn two; plus whatever zombies his backup necromancers can add to the big zombie blob, before they all switch over to casting vanhels in turns 3+.

Punishing players for using skeletons instead of ghouls or zombies (both of which are equally powerful when supported by their own buffs, and the zombie buff even buffs summoning as well) or grave guard or spirit hosts just isn't going to fix that.


But you've been patient enough with me already. Thanks for listening to and considering my feedback so thoroughly, and I apologize if I've been pushy or annoying about it.

Is your scenario generator taking into account that half the time the skeletons will be attacking last? If you default to simultaneous attacks, that's a big boost to skeletons in your numbers, on top of what those numbers already show.

No - it randomizes initiative order like the game does. There are no simul attacks in AOS.

They used to be 3 for 10 (the median) which is another option though people were still angered by their regen and up to 3 attacks per model.

I'll run the scenarios on that tonight and see how it pans out and if the numbers fall largely within 10% of 50 then that may just be that.

I think there is an easy resolution for all armies where the troops get tougher in larger blocks

Different prices.

Skeleton warriors 1-19: price x
Skeleton warriors 20-29: price y
Skeleton warriors 30+: price z

The undead player can choose whether they want the high price z for 30+ skeleton warriors or the low price x for a unit of 15 warriors.

Endur - that was how it was with the last version. You had three levels of pricing. This is a point of contention with a lot of people though.

I think conceptually the pricing should be different (although be careful with zombies since summoned zombies can join a pre-existing group of zombies). However, maybe (like the skeletons vs. chaos warriors example), the concerned people felt that the skeleton price was too expensive. So maybe have different prices, but not as expensive.

they were priced as if they were a creature with that many attacks. Making them cheaper defeated the point of that.

The other problem is that they lose attacks as they die. So their value drops during the game.

So I have just reverted them back to their original state which was as if they only had 1 attack and then +1 for a banner.

This has as expected caused a lot of hate mail as now the undead players are back to rolling 50 skeleton blocks with regen banners and getting their super bonuses for free but I'm out of options. None are going to please everyone.

Either the opponent of the undead player is going to co mplain they are too cheap or the undead player is going to complain their stuff is too expensive.

auticus wrote:
Endur - that was how it was with the last version. You had three levels of pricing. This is a point of contention with a lot of people though.

If that was the intent, that's not how it read to me.

What I read was that if you field 40 skeletons, then you paid for all of them in the entire unit at the 'skeletons in units of 40 or more' price. Also,

Nobody ever said you should price them as though they don't have the bonus attacks at numbers ability.

Nobody ever said you should price them as though they don't have the bonus attacks at numbers ability.


Of course skeletons are worth more than 2 points for 10 (plus one for the entire unit for the banner). That's every bit as ridiculous as charging 5 points per 10, which is what you were doing for large units before!

You went from charging 20 points for a unit of 40 with command to 9 total points for the same unit! That's like responding to someone saying it's too cold in a deep freezer, so you throw them in the oven instead! :p



If a unit has d3 attacks, how many do you price them at? As for a unit with one attack, or three? Obviously, you price them at 2 attacks. Same with skeletons, sometimes they have 1 attacks, sometimes they have 2, and sometimes they have 3, so you price them as though they had 2. That's it. No confusion, no wonkiness, no punishments, you price at the middle price, it's not hard. You can't price them for the exact number they have at any time, because that amount changes during the game. It's like trying to charge the unit with d3 attacks, in advance, for the number of attacks the player will later roll during the game. It can't be done, so you charge for the medium value. As a result, sometimes the player gets a good deal, and sometimes they get a bad deal, but in the long run it evens out.

Maybe an idea for the sliding number of attacks is a sliding points value. Make up to the first 19 skeletons in the unit cost X points, skeletons 20 to 29 cost X+Y points and any skeletons over 30 cost X+Z points. The points value may be near the same as what you had before, but the psychological impact of not having to pay what they see as a exorbitant price for those first skeletons may make it more palatable.

It used to be up to 20 skeletons was X (the value of a 1 attack skeleton), the value of 21-40 skeletons was Y (the value of a 2 attack skeleton) and the value of 41+ skeletons was Z (the value of a 3 attack skeleton) plus 1 pt for regen banner.

Anyway, my suggestion is still 3 for 10, with banner included, regardless of size

Of course skeletons are worth more than 2 points for 10 (plus one for the entire unit for the banner). That's every bit as ridiculous as charging 5 points per 10, which is what you were doing for large units before!

You went from charging 20 points for a unit of 40 with command to 9 total points for the same unit! That's like responding to someone saying it's too cold in a deep freezer, so you throw them in the oven instead! :p

Thats what they cost now - 3 for 10 with the banner included, regardless of size. (1 for 5 = 2 for 10 + 1 for banner is 3 for 10)

A unit of 40 with banner = 13 points.

Keep the cost of the one attack skeletons no matter how many skeletons you have and then up the cost of the two attack skeletons instead of averaging out the cost over all of the skeletons. It seems that all of the arguments against the averaged price is purely psychological (i.e. I'm paying way too many points for models that only have one attack after I lose the excess models) by removing that argument.

For example, you were using something like this:

1-10 models in the unit = 1 point per 10 models
11-20 models in the unit = 2 points per 10 models
21-30 models in the unit = 3 points per 10 models

My suggestion would be to use something like this:

1-10 models in the unit = 1 point per 10 models
11-20 models in the unit = 1 point for the first 10 models, 3 points for the second ten models
21-30 models in the unit = 1 point for the first ten models, 3 points for the second ten models and 5 points for the third ten models.

Same result, but the psychological effect is that they won't necessarily see themselves paying 3 points for the first ten models, only 1 point (but they'll probably howl at the price for the third ten models).

We did the idea with sliding points and it got shut down pretty hard for being "too confusing".

auticus wrote:
We did the idea with sliding points and it got shut down pretty hard for being "too confusing".

Can't blame an ork for tryin'

auticus wrote:
We did the idea with sliding points and it got shut down pretty hard for being "too confusing".

If you mean for the banner to add to the base cost per 5 or per 10, then you need to say that. Right now you say that the banner is one point for the unit, and that implies the same cost regardless of whether the unit is ten models or 50. Nobody else works like that, you just figure they have their command bonuses, and you work that into their cost to start, which means it's automatically multiplied out.

Frankly, I think you should assume the unit has the banner and price for that. 3 for 10 is maybe a bit too low. 2 per 5 feels too high to me, but I don't think you're going to find a perfect balance here, and it's at least less than what they were being charged.

Please note, though, that that would be valuing them equally with chaos warriors, which is still ridiculous, and chaos warriors, as 2 wound, 2 attack infantry with good saves and to hit values and access to various buffs really should be 3 for 5 regardless of armament.


Second, the system Ghaz is suggesting, and what you're presently claiming the previous system to have been was not what it was written as. At least from my reading, it wasn't "the first 20 skeletons are 2 points per ten, the next 10 are 3 points, and after that are 4 points", what you wrote was 'figure out the total number of models in the unit, and then pay that price for the entire unit. IE, if the total unit is 50 models, then you pay 5x the highest point value.

A unit of 30 then costs 9 points (three times the middle value, which I find reasonable), plus three for the banner (which strikes me as too much and discouraging), for 12 points total. Hence my original complaint that for the price of 35 chaos warriors with shields (14 points, and imo too few for this unit regardless of what you price skeletons at) you only got 34 skeletons. (the previously described 12 points, plus 4 skittles for 2 extra points).

Which apparently is what you meant by the previous system, because you didn't correct me on that? Either that, or we both were confused, which would be a pretty clear sign that the previous system actually was too confusing.


But to go from charging for skeletons as though they always had the maximum number of attacks to charging them as though they have the minimum is ridiculous. Again, if a unit sometimes has one attack and sometimes has three, you split the difference and charge them for two.

Again - the original implementation was the median (4 for 10). That was deemed to be "raping undead players" because they were "forced to take units of at least 20, what if they wanted to take 10? the system was too restrictive because you couldn't take just 10 because you were paying more points than you should have been paying" ~paraphrased from a chat session back in late September.

Then it was a sliding scale just like Ghaz mentioned in that you paid X points until you reached 20 then you paid Y points until you reached 40, but that was also "raping undead players because then they had to pay points for something that as they took casualties they'd lose. It was also deemed "too confusing and the point of azyr comp was that it was supposed to be simple"

Then it was settled on that you'd pay a flat X points for a range of models (1-20), Y points for a range of models (20-40), and Z points for a range of models (in total) (41+) where X was costed at 1 attack, Y was 2 attacks, Z was 3 attacks.

That was what it was last before I just knocked it back down to 2 for 10 + 1 for banner (3 for 10) - which is now raping everyone that is not an undead player because the undead players are taking 50-80 skeletons per unit allegedly. 4 for 10 is raping the undead player. There seems to be rape no matter what the number is.

As you can see, there is no appropriate answer.

Before I go back to edit in a more detailed response, I want to be clear that I never used that kind of language, that whoever did was way out of line and I'm sorry you were forced to deal with that, but also that I would like to ask that you please not bring it to the thread here.

auticus wrote:
Again - the original implementation was the median (4 for 10). That was deemed to be [unfair to] undead players because they were "forced to take units of at least 20, what if they wanted to take 10? the system was too restrictive because you couldn't take just 10 because you were paying more points than you should have been paying" ~paraphrased from a chat session back in late September.

My response to that player is:

"Thematically, skeletons are a unit meant to be fielded in large numbers. Their special rule exists to encourage this, and the price point is chosen to reflect the special rule and to likewise encourage larger unit sizes. All units with 'horde bonuses' get stronger, and thus are better bargains, in larger units, while 'elite units' which fight at full effectiveness regardless of unit size, are the more natural fit for small unit tactics. This seems to be a natural and deliberate part of Age of Sigmar's design, and has been embraced by this points system. Admittedly, 4 points per 10 may be a bit too much, but on the other hand 3 points per 10 likewise seems to be a bit too few. Given the limits of granularity in this points system, a judgment call needs to be made one way or another, and for the sake of the wider game health I have opted to err on the conservative side. I will, however, be monitoring feedback from events, and will take your suggestions into consideration."

Personally, as mentioned previously, my own judgment call would be rounding down to 3 per 10, but I play deathrattle-heavy undead (more grave guard than skeletons usually, but still), so admittedly I'm biased.

Then it was a sliding scale just like Ghaz mentioned in that you paid X points until you reached 20 then you paid Y points until you reached 40, but that was ... "too confusing and the point of azyr comp was that it was supposed to be simple"

Yeah, I think this is too confusing.

Then it was settled on that you'd pay a flat X points for a range of models (1-20), Y points for a range of models (20-40), and Z points for a range of models (in total) (41+) where X was costed at 1 attack, Y was 2 attacks, Z was 3 attacks.

That was what it was last before I just knocked it back down to 2 for 10 + 1 for banner (3 for 10) - which is now [unfair to] everyone that is not an undead player because the undead players are taking 50-80 skeletons per unit allegedly.

I have multiple times suggested adding a total unit size cap (somewhere between 30 and 50; probably 40 is best), regardless of what you do with skeletons, because this game does not play well with super massive units no matter what. Even if you're talking about elite units without horde bonuses, a single huge unit wrapped around multiple sources of unit-wide buffs is no fun at all.

With such a cap, I think 3 for 10 (including banner, don't even make no-banner an option) is fine. Maybe a bit under priced. 4 per ten strikes me as a bit overpriced, but in the end you have to make a judgment call, and if you err on the conservative side, I'll disagree, but that's as far as it can go, though if you price skeletons at 4 per ten, there are definitely some other units currently at that price that might need to be marked up.

As you can see, there is no appropriate answer.

There are probably multiple 'appropriate' answers. But there are certainly non that will make everyone happy. I've argued extensively (probably too extensively, and I apologize for adding to your stress levels) for why I think my suggestions are 'appropriate', but I certainly don't mean to suggest that they'd be universally enjoyed.

Heck, I've argued even more strongly elsewhere that summoning should be nothing more than an alternative deployment strategy, that the game is dramatically more healthy that way and breaks down horribly whenever you try to run it another way, which is a position many undead players hate, so even my own people don't always like my suggestions.

Thats the common language that I deal with on a day to day basis. Those are all paraphrased responses.

auticus wrote:
As you can see, there is no appropriate answer.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place I would go with the option that you've found to provide the most balanced results. The best you can hope for is that some of them come around after a while.

Good luck. I'm glad I'm not in your position