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.

Funny, I didn't consider AOS until GH was announced. But now... I'm finding the drawback.

I think the fact that the GHB is easily min/maxed or nearly broken is almost a good thing:

When it is so easy and obvious to make an OP list its easier to spot them and talk with the other player to tone it back. GHB is not a good replacement for negotiating with your opponent and I think in some part it wasn't intended to be. It is, however, a great resource for newbies/casual players and still an excellent guideline for veterans. Jerks will still be jerks, and can now 'hide behind the points' but then its a case of communicating or not playing with them. This can be difficult to deal with, and is less appealing in the short term than just putting up with it (and complaining on the forums later ) but in the long term if the overall attitude changes then it will really just be a lot more enjoyable for everyone.

I think the rough start of AoS has made both the game and the company better at this point, and it seems like it improved the community as well (what was left of it). YMMV locally but I know my local group is much better than during Fantasy and remains so post-GHB (though we were already playing AoS with points for nearly a year at that point anyways, so it may be a factor).

GW gaming in the store closest to me used to be divided between Sunday (WFB) and Monday (40K), but slowed to the point that during 8th WFB was slotted into Monday as simply GW night. Now GW gaming is nonexistent to the point that Flames Of War is played on GW night. I asked if I could schedule Classichammer on Mondays and had no opposition because of how poorly gaming has been in the club. I'd love to pop in tomorrow to see if GHB has done ANYTHING to garner interest, but I really doubt it has. I'd also need to see the other two shops in town, but I don't expect much being different.

Also, what dictates min/max? It seems on here that WAAC, Min/Max, optimization, and competitiveness are synonymous. I don't think I've run anything min/max with the exception of a HS unit that will have half the unit unable to shoot at range with the rest of the unit, or costly Elites like Terminators. If I run 4x10 SM Tac squads with both optional weapons and a Vet Sgt with Power Fist, and chase it with a single character, and Devies and Termies at 5 man with max load out for them and some vehicles to taste, does that make me a min/maxxer?

I'd say that WAAC is the most egregious of optimized list building where any legal exploit or loophole is used, min/max constitutes varying degrees of taking only the best options but is not as bad as WAAC, while being competitive means a strong list that mainly just avoids options that are poor rather than specifically seeking out the best ones available. Dunno if that helps.

I just had my first AoS game yesterday, my opponent insisted we use points. Honestly, I didn't like it. Not only did it hamper my list construction (as I've stated previously, it forced me to split my unit of Ghouls into two) but I also was not able to summon units because they cost points now.

The game wasn't loathsome, but also wasn't very enjoyable for me. That could have been the basic rules alone (shooting into combat??) but I didn't find anything really exciting, and overall the attitude of the people at my GW seemed to be points or nothing, which i don't like at all.

I think sometimes the only way to accept that playing without points can work is to experience it working first hand, which often means playing against someone who plays that way and understands the right way of approaching it in order to get as much out of it as you can. Often in means both people stepping up and putting in the work themselves.

Basically, You need to play old dudes who grey up playing historicals!

I would say though, when we play historicals we are usually refighting battles whose results are already "known" so its more of a matter of "can i do better" no points in AoS more often than not for me ended up with a one sided arse whuppin either way

Points AOS games also usually end up in butt whippings lately. Mainly because 2000 pts is not 2000 pts in many cases.

But that is what inspired me to compile a list of everything and find its actual worth (which I will be publishing soon)

 auticus wrote:
Points AOS games also usually end up in butt whippings lately. Mainly because 2000 pts is not 2000 pts in many cases.

But that is what inspired me to compile a list of everything and find its actual worth (which I will be publishing soon)

You could just use PPC...

The power index I'm writing is just to show what units are actually worth taking mathematically.

Its for new people who get frustrated with guys steam rolling them and its for showing the power of one list vs another list.

Where I am, third party comp systems are a big no no. Azyr was used for our current campaign but only until official points came out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, what dictates min/max? It seems on here that WAAC, Min/Max, optimization, and competitiveness are synonymous

Min/max, optmization, competitiveness are to me synonymous. WAAC is not, though often WAAC players are also min/max optimizers so lazily they get lumped all together (which is wrong IMO).

That could have been the basic rules alone (shooting into combat??)

I don't like that either, but its something you just have to get used to.

The idea being you could compare the costs since they are the same scale. There are a few outlying models, but generally speaking if the cost is similar the model is average, if the cost is greater the model is sub-par, and if the cost is less than its a better choice for the points.

Of course, the rule of thumb 'monsters and characters are undercosted' also works pretty well

[edit] This might be helpful!

 thekingofkings wrote:
I would say though, when we play historicals we are usually refighting battles whose results are already "known" so its more of a matter of "can i do better" no points in AoS more often than not for me ended up with a one sided arse whuppin either way

My experiences are entirely different.

Reenactments are fun, but by no means do they represent 'all' you can do with historicals. In no different than using 40k to reenact the battle of orks drift or using flames of war to reenact Normandy - that's what we've been running lately. It's undeniably Fun, but there is so much more 'what if' or 'what could have happened'.So much of our history is a blank tapestry, and we often only know the vaguest hints of what went on. It's not unknown for example to not know where a famous battle took place, or even where/if certain kingdoms existed (fortriu in Scotland, for example) or to not know a lot of the details of the people that rules.The historical narrative is as much a blank slate as anything in the 40k-iverse. There is no end of battles you can run with my Normans versus your Anglo Saxons or my celts and your Romans 'somewhere' in the historical narrative, and no end of hooks that can be used to build your games around.

We were only a few guys playing AoS since it came out. It's simple, yet engaging with cool fantasy miniatures. We used SDK points and switched to PPC after SDK stopped updating.
A few from our 40k group picked it up after seeing us play. Since the GH dropped, nearly all 40k players picked up an AoS army, a campaign is already planned and there's talk about "the next Apocalypse game will be AoS instead of 40k". It's funny, really, what an "official" points can do for a game system, altough we will likely be sticking to using PPC.

I appreciate that GH brought people to the game (I wasn't even going to look at AoS until I saw it was bringing points) but in practice it didn't work out that well. Be careful what you wish for, and all that. The over reliance on points when it hasn't balanced much, and IMHO non-competitive games would be much better just by a bit of talking, has honestly soured me on the game again which is a shame because I thought it would be better, but on the same token at least I know now. I may give it another shot or two, maybe try out a different army (Flesh Eaters, while awesome fluffwise, seem fairly difficult to run and having to pay points for the units I summon when that's their big thing is kinda harsh) before I write it off completely.

Summoning is just one of those things in a matched environment that does not work well as it superbly unbalances the game by giving in essence free points and in some cases free points in spades.

One of the things I have started really noticing now is the power disparity. This exists no matter what format you play.

My area is super competitive and some of the lists being run on the weekends here are... well they are filthy lol and if you aren't matching the lists in power you're going to get run over like you are a lawn and they are the lawnmower.

The points don't really help that because the points aren't very accurate for balance. Yesterday while painting my battleboard I watched a stormcast game with a lot of their dragon cavalry and they totally dominated the opponent (bretonnia/free people).

It wasn't even a game. It was an exercise in removing models for the non stormcast player. And this was with matched points.

The stormcast cav are operating at roughly 25% higher than their points cost, which was one of the issues (giving the other player 25% more points would have helped "balance it")

You might want to keep giving it a try Wayne. I run very very successful Flesh Eater Courts, and only play points-matches.

It might not suit the models you happen to own, but the only "outside" element I brought in as support was a couple Screaming Skull Catapults and a Necrotect.

Those, combined with Terrorgeists are hugely effective. The rest of my competitive FEC list is built around large Ghoul blobs, and then bolstered exclusively by things like Vargulf's that replenish, but not summon, those units.

 auticus wrote:
Summoning is just one of those things in a matched environment that does not work well as it superbly unbalances the game by giving in essence free points and in some cases free points in spades.

One of the things I have started really noticing now is the power disparity. This exists no matter what format you play.

My area is super competitive and some of the lists being run on the weekends here are... well they are filthy lol and if you aren't matching the lists in power you're going to get run over like you are a lawn and they are the lawnmower.

The points don't really help that because the points aren't very accurate for balance. Yesterday while painting my battleboard I watched a stormcast game with a lot of their dragon cavalry and they totally dominated the opponent (bretonnia/free people).

It wasn't even a game. It was an exercise in removing models for the non stormcast player. And this was with matched points.

The stormcast cav are operating at roughly 25% higher than their points cost, which was one of the issues (giving the other player 25% more points would have helped "balance it")

Which is part of why I feel the "points" for AoS are A) a rough guideline, not rigid adherence (i.e. you cannot use it like points in the old WHFB or in 40k, it looks the same and sounds the same, but it's not the same), and B) Are only really appropriate when you're playing in a tournament to have some rough (very rough!) idea of balancing.

I do get that summoning was OP before, just bugs me that Flesh Eaters for instance are based around being able to summon units and such, and points really screw that over (like maybe it should have been either you pay the points to get additional units, or if a unit is destroyed you can re-summon it for free, basically you get the points on that unit back and can spend it to resurrect them). Maybe I should have looked at something else instead.... Chaos is always appealing to me (always has been, always will be) and seem like they are hardier, just lack shooting and from what I can tell, shooting is insanely OP in AoS right now because there's little/no restrictions to what you can shoot.

Shooting units are indeed more powerful than straight melee units typically.

I wonder if that's intentional seeing as Stormcasts have a lot of good shooting, and Chaos has little. I wouldn't doubt it

Going to alternating initiative instead of rolling for it each round helps with the shooting issue (since there's no double-turns).

Flesh-Eaters are actually overpowered in the GHB. Forget summoning new units -- they bring dead models back into existing units better than anyone. The Ghoul Patrol battalion is an auto-take because it's so cheap and a Terrorgheist King w/ ring of coming back when he dies is a brutal general.

On the topic of GHB balance, I've said from the start that it's a guideline. Its not the same as WHFB points were and I'm pretty sure its not intended to be. For casual players its fine to balance matches but if people are trying to min-max then the players need to go back to doing some pre-game negotiating of 'hey can you tone this down a bit'.

Noticing in the current area a difference between online community based solely on sites vs. twitter or Facebooks group vs. local GW store, where the community continues to explode, can't fit in the store and has new local tournaments/events starting next month. Day of Sigmar was a victim of its own success last month so looks likes team games may be how we all fit I actually have trouble finding a 40K game when I fancy, but thats' all good. AoS has been on (warp)fire these past few months

See, in the last five posts alone we've seen FEC called super weak with points, and over-powered... To me, the implication is the local meta, player tastes/tactics, etc... and a suggestion that the game is in a better place than many of these posts suggest.

Again, from my own finite perspective, pre Handbook we had ZERO players, and post Handbook, we get 6-16 players every time we hold an AoS night. For us, that's a big win.

I am not denying that I just suck. After all:

1) I only have the "King Vlagorescu's Ghoulish Host" box, but was unable to use the battalion included due to points/not being in GH

2) It was my first game, and my first game of Warhammer in some 15 years

3) We were playing a Season of War scenario where you had a monster and your opponent won if they killed it; my opponent had Seraphon and had two monsters (a Bastilodon and a Troglodon) while I had only my King on Terrorgheist

4) I had no shooting while his Bastilodon got like 2d6 shots a turn, and I didn't know you could shoot out of combat so I tried to run my ghouls to engage him and stop him shooting me

5) My dice were awful

So it could be that FEC are good and I just need to expand (although I dislike "must takes" especially since while the Ghoul Patrol was on my list to get, I prefer Horrors/Flayers for the elite units in my fluff), or it could be that I just need to try something else to compare (I am kinda considering Chaos or even Skaven Pestilens for a change).

I still do not like the fact that points seems to have become the de facto standard, since they are rough guides not fast limits and people seem unwilling to really discuss things now that they don't have to.

Dude... you don't suck. :-) Its just a learning experience.

As i've said to folks I teach... AoS has loads of tactical/meaningful decisions for a player to make, but they are often SUCH different decisions than Fantasy/40k/etc... ask of you, that it takes a while to "see" the nuances.

The reason Ghoul Patrol is auto-take is because you need three Ghoul units as battleline anyway, then all you need is the 80-point courtier and the 100 pt battalion cost. This nets you outflank on all the composing units and each Ghoul unit recovers 1d6 models a turn, automatically. It's very cheap for what it does.

But that ties into the GHB balance as a whole, depending on what your opponent brought it make be more fair to not take it in order to dial back the power level somewhat. Players abusing the GHB points need to be called out on exactly that; they need to be told that they are hiding behind the points to make OP lists. For those who don't do that, it's a matter of refusing to play those opponents as long as they continue such activity. Granted that is all easier said than done, but GW has recognized they aren't going to get precision costing and have gone for rough values instead, leaving the fine-tuning to the community. This is to say that any min-maxing problem isn't going to go away on its own and it is very much down to the players to build a better community if they want it. And I think at the end of the day forcing players to be responsible for their own sportsmanship is one of the few ideas AoS got right from the beginning.

Maybe I just don't get something about the GH and points. You can still take multiple battalions, just you have to pay for them, and that doesn't preclude you from taking just plain warscrolls?

For example, if I had the points I could take Ghoul Patrol, with the Courtier, then still take Crypt Horrors and the King, and still nominate the king as my general?

WayneTheGame wrote:
Maybe I just don't get something about the GH and points. You can still take multiple battalions, just you have to pay for them, and that doesn't preclude you from taking just plain warscrolls?

For example, if I had the points I could take Ghoul Patrol, with the Courtier, then still take Crypt Horrors and the King, and still nominate the king as my general?

Yeah, it confused me for a while, too. I keep thinking in terms of 40k where every unit has to be a part of a detachment, but detachments don't exist per se in AoS. Instead, if the units in your army fit into a warscroll battalion, you can spend the points to get the battalion's special rules on those units.

You can still only have one general though, right? I think that's what bugs me, Crypt Horrors and Flayers are only Battleline if you have their courtier as the general, but fluffwise they would not overrule the Varghulf and/or the King.

Ah well. Have to see how I like the game, in any event.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can still only have one general though, right? I think that's what bugs me, Crypt Horrors and Flayers are only Battleline if you have their courtier as the general, but fluffwise they would not overrule the Varghulf and/or the King.

Ah well. Have to see how I like the game, in any event.

I king might still defer to his general in battle if the general has proven to be a better tactician, but the king still outranks the general.

This has kinda swayed away from General's Handbook (sorry!) but I have to say while I wasn't insanely thrilled with the game, it wasn't total garbage either. My issues with it stem from rules that I disagree with (e.g. shooting out of combat, as that means you have no way to stop units from shooting you to bits), and the fact the scenario was a little biased towards my opponent (which admittedly we both knew, but I said screw it as I wanted to play at least one campaign game, and since it was both of our first games of AoS ever, I didn't care if I was disadvantaged). I do think I may have had more fun with Chaos or something more sturdy, though. I can always buy the starter box though for some Khorne

I do wish my local area had more narrative campaign style approaches, maybe because that might sway some folks to not always adhering strictly to points, but the impression I got is now that GH is out, it's here to stay and is the default/only option outside of maybe demo games.