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.
Interesting spread in the BOBO (192 person event. Well 191 and whatever the feth Jack Armstrong is) Results:
1. DoK 2. Skaven
3. Gloomspite Gits. (Yes. You read that correctly.)
4. Skaven
5. Beasts of Chaos
6. Sylvaneth
7. FEC 8. DoK 9. BoK
10. FEC
11-20 Has a Tzeentch, Mixed Order and Fyreslayers amongst the usual suspects. Good to see BoK getting into their stride, as well as a Duardin faction back in the top 20. No non-FEC Death Grand Alliance Armies in the top 20, and Hedonites came in at a high of 28th. No Stormcast in the top 20.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/22 03:20:55
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
Sometimes a good amount of luck combines with a very skilled player to push an otherwise mid/low-tier army to the upper rankings. A GT near me had a KO player come 5th, for another example.
Still, the majority of the top 10 is taken by the current big three--DoK, FEC, and Skaven. I am thinking LoN is getting pushed out because it can't recover fast enough against the raw offense of FEC and loses to skaven on board control. Both those armies counter LoN pretty hard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/22 03:19:28
I think Blades of Khorne have the tools to keep the top 10s interesting. I’ll see if I can track down that GG list, very keen to see what its all about.
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
Oh wow, LoN fell from grace very quickly after less than half a year of domination.
Still, looks like a fairly healthy mix. No SCE is indeed a surprise too. You would think the shooting list would be able to counter a lot of these builds.
PS: Even with the old book, BoK was able to mix it up with the big guys regularly, so it's not like they were completely impotent before. It was just very mono-build-ish.
The boy, I say, the boy is as sharp as a sack of wet mice...
nels1031 wrote: I think Blades of Khorne have the tools to keep the top 10s interesting. I’ll see if I can track down that GG list, very keen to see what its all about.
BoK reminds me a bit of 5th edition Dark Eldar. They weren't maybe winning tournaments, but they had the toolset to throw in a lot of wrenches for other armies. Their anti-spell ability along with their utility toolkit with Blood Tithes probably make them a surprise counter to a lot of setups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Bloodthirsters are still undercosted IMO, so I'm betting something based on 2-3 of them.
Surprisingly you would be wrong then.
Mark Wildman was in 9th place with a very special list. Only one Bloodthirster, but the main attraction is the Archaon.
Elmir wrote: Oh wow, LoN fell from grace very quickly after less than half a year of domination.
Still, looks like a fairly healthy mix. No SCE is indeed a surprise too. You would think the shooting list would be able to counter a lot of these builds.
PS: Even with the old book, BoK was able to mix it up with the big guys regularly, so it's not like they were completely impotent before. It was just very mono-build-ish.
I attended BOBO this year with a borrowed Stormcast army (finished 185th) and my first game was against LoN. I lost, but let me tell you, had Translocation went off, and the Stardake not suddenly died due to piss poor save rolls, I would have won a Major victory. A very major victory. It was a fantastic game and although I was not optimistic going in, by the half way point I didn’t feel like it was a hopeless situation. It actually came down to the wire.
Having said that, had they not been able to summon so many replacement troops through the four grave sites, I definitely would have had it. I’m not an expert but I think perhaps that four grave sites is a little too much. I think three is a better number; one for your own territory, one for no mans land and one for enemy territory.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/22 10:10:24
Having said that, had they not been able to summon so many replacement troops through the four grave sites, I definitely would have had it. I’m not an expert but I think perhaps that four grave sites is a little too much. I think three is a better number; one for your own territory, one for no mans land and one for enemy territory.
I agree. The problem with the gravesets becomes much more aggravating when you play smaller games as they don't seem to scale accordingly.
GW doesn't know how to scale their game. Its written for 2000 pts.
Now ... they have their new 1000 pt format coming in the GHB and that will be interesting to review how they dealt with scaling issues there, since it seems to be a clarion call to rally behind for a great many people trying to get that point cost to be the new "standard" as it means faster and more games.
They should in my mind focus on proper balance in regards to table sizes. 1000 points are usually on 4x4 with 1500 and 2000 on 4x6. The problem is that some factors in each faction tend to scale disproportionately in this regard. Take for example the free terrain. Something like the Khorne Shrine that has a 12 inch range means much less on a large table compared to a smaller one. Same goes for various Endless Spells and gravesites.
Table size isn't something GW can control with regards to balance.
People should damn well know by now that 4x4 isn't meant for anything in the quadruple digits, and given that these "free terrain" pieces can't be deployed within a certain range of other scenery it makes me question how barren these tables are allowing for the free terrain to be so dominant.
Barren tables seem to me to be, and have always been since 20 years ago, the common scenario.
At the very least I notice from every city I've gone and played in that tables try to emulate the tournaments, which having walked through adepticon many times, I always lamented how bare the tables were there as well.
Kanluwen wrote: Table size isn't something GW can control with regards to balance.
People should damn well know by now that 4x4 isn't meant for anything in the quadruple digits, and given that these "free terrain" pieces can't be deployed within a certain range of other scenery it makes me question how barren these tables are allowing for the free terrain to be so dominant.
1000 points on a 4x6 is a slog where people are running across the board like braindead marathon runners. They are not fun battles. 4x4 for 1000 at least allows you to attempt board control and maneuvering and it is only certain armies that seem to overpower that setup such as LoN due to how close the gravesites end up being.
Free terrain has to be at least 1 inch away from other terrain so it is not impossible to set it up unless you are playing such a cluttered table that any unit over 5 is going to get annoyed traversing over it. As much as I like putting on a lot of terrain I also accept that there is a saturation level where the board is better off as a Mordheim table than an AoS table. I mean, if you want to make a table where it is challenging to put a Khorne shrine then you are making a table where it will be challenging to deploy and move a 10 man squad, and unless that terrain is highly LOS blocking then Shootcast is going to love having their opponent's melee armies trudge through that pit of debris while they get to shoot at it. Also remember that all free faction terrain must be placed in your own zone so if your own zone is super cluttered you are going to have less than optimal experience placing your forces.
However, I would love to see some table setups from people so feel free to post some.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: Barren tables seem to me to be, and have always been since 20 years ago, the common scenario.
At the very least I notice from every city I've gone and played in that tables try to emulate the tournaments, which having walked through adepticon many times, I always lamented how bare the tables were there as well.
Well, my experience is that WHFB was always a bit barren, but that might account for the fact that you moved units on movement trays and too much debris made that a less than stellar experience.
Regarding tourneys they tend to be very standardized and limited to what the tourney organizers have at their disposal.
Personally I have always been a bit vocal about the fact that I would love for GW to release "Matched Play" maps indicating table setup, but that is perhaps more because of my background in games like StarCraft.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/22 13:16:45
My WHFB were not barren, and I took a lot of flack for that because they were not tournament standard, and terrain was horribad and made bad experience because it slowed you down and was not "fun".
Every other whfb table, yeah. Terrain might as well not be a thing. It was usually a hill or two and then some trees shoved off in a corner where they couldn't impact the battle.
AOS tables at all of my stores are also barren of terrain unless you have sylvaneth player, in which case there are 12-15 tree bases everywhere.
AOS tables at all of my stores are also barren of terrain unless you have sylvaneth player, in which case there are 12-15 tree bases everywhere.
Could be a remnant of the WHFB era in a way. Despite being a different game I would not be surprised if people held onto old WHFB thinking when it comes to playing AOS.
I have also not forgiven GW for cancelling Dreadhold. I always wanted to collect a large fortress but now I only have 2 walls, a gate, and a tower.
This could also be a bit of a problem with AoS. Its terrain has seen as much explicit love as 40k in my opinion. They've tried to remedy it, but price and accessibility has always been an issue, with their cemetery probably being the most accessible price-wise. I mean, with Dreadhold you got one measly wall(and very basic blocky plastic) for 15 pounds compared to 20 pounds giving you a decent building in the old Sector Imperialis set. Even the new set in preorder feels a bit heavy price-wise, with the Shattered Temple probably the best buy from it.
Best thing I bought was several boxes of Ruins of Osgiliath to add to my table.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/22 14:53:50
One - you don't *need* it to play. So it becomes just another thing people have to buy and paint. And getting people to buy and paint is many times a cancer.
Two - it is an extra cost that people don't want to incur. People tend to spend as little as possible. Buying terrain has a cost. Making scratch terrain takes time and effort. Neither are things people want to do.
Quite honestly if GW released "terrain cards" which were card cutout bases with a picture of a tree or a hill or whatever, I'd bet the farm you would see that in use often.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/22 16:26:29
Ouch to people playing AoS on barren boards. We did things pretty barren in WHFB 8th because terrain was just unfun but discovered very quickly that AoS is better loaded up with terrain. From experience I'd say 8 pieces on a 6x4 table is a good amount to aim for. Adjusting for the size of terrain in question, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Elmir wrote: Oh wow, LoN fell from grace very quickly after less than half a year of domination.
Still, looks like a fairly healthy mix. No SCE is indeed a surprise too. You would think the shooting list would be able to counter a lot of these builds.
PS: Even with the old book, BoK was able to mix it up with the big guys regularly, so it's not like they were completely impotent before. It was just very mono-build-ish.
I don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
auticus wrote:People tend to spend as little as possible.
They really don't. GW has shown with terrain release after terrain release that people want it. GW has return on capital targets they evaluate at the board of directors level and the fact they keep releasing terrain year over year (and have been expanding it) shows they are meeting their targets (likely exceeding them).
Quite honestly if GW released "terrain cards" which were card cutout bases with a picture of a tree or a hill or whatever, I'd bet the farm you would see that in use often.
When mousepad terrain proliferated in Warmachine & Hordes, it was the beginning of the end of the local community for that game. If cut outs as terrain become common for warhammers, I would cease playing with anyone who used them and really re-evaluate whether I was going to stick with AoS at all. If I'm not going to be taking advantage of being part of a larger local community, I'll just put more focus on hosting gaming dinner parties with my historicals.
The new AoS terrain shows that they are thinking about the rules implications when designing their terrain. It's of a height to block LOS to foot troops for most armies and the stairs are made so that if you stand one guy at the bottom and one guy at the top they'll still be in 1" horizontal coherency.
For a long time I've been suspicious of any attempt to generate points that are at all accurate without being able to take into account the terrain being fought over, the type of target being attacked or receiving attacks from, and (especially) the synergy between units. Now if GW is trying to encourage people to buy big stone sigmar slab hills to block LOS, how are they supposed to balance the game for such drastic differences in terrain? A mostly empty table vs a table with 3 or 4 of those pieces is going to be very different.
I think it's best to view "balance" as a pipe dream confounded by too many variables. Instead points and scenarios and all that stuff should be viewed as a tool to help set up games. This idea of two people designing half a board game on their own, showing up and arranging the board and hoping it all works out is just wishful thinking.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/22 22:05:39
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game 2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities 3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal 4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit 5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2019/05/22 23:48:13
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
Given how a couple people are whining in the forbidden power thread over a nasty combo in a game that is all about synergy, nah, I don’t think people can ever be happy about balance.
The only way to balance the game is to only allow warscrolls, no items, no traits, no endless spells, no battalions. Oh, wait; that was the release of AoS. And it sucked. I’ll stick with the “chess” it’s fleshed into; the unhappy players can go back to “checkers”.
It might sound condescending, but I’m intending it to be more of a wake up call. It’s not as doom and gloom as people make it out to be.
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.
timetowaste85 wrote: Given how a couple people are whining in the forbidden power thread over a nasty combo in a game that is all about synergy, nah, I don’t think people can ever be happy about balance.
Synergy is a choice, it's not mandatory. The way people build their armies can include as much or as little as they like. I'd advocate for the amount chosen matching your opponent's choice, or at least being in the same direction.
The only way to balance the game is to only allow warscrolls, no items, no traits, no endless spells, no battalions. Oh, wait; that was the release of AoS. And it sucked. I’ll stick with the “chess” it’s fleshed into; the unhappy players can go back to “checkers”.
That would be a type of variable reduction. Not one I want though.
It might sound condescending, but I’m intending it to be more of a wake up call. It’s not as doom and gloom as people make it out to be.
I think the idea that in matched play any combination of units in any faction should have an equal chance of winning might actually be a flawed premise. An impossibility that ignores the limitations of points systems and refuses to accept that the players need to be the source of variable reduction by finding like minded opponents who want the same power level of game as you.
It only seems to be a doom and gloom issue for those who have some sort of ideal sense of balance rather than comparing things to real world game play by those who accept the reality of the situation. For example, the only people who seem to have a bad time at tournaments are those who end up in the middle third but believe they belong in the top third. Those having a blast at the bottom tables are doing it right despite their horrible records. As well as anyone else that can accept the reality of the event. It's all too easy though to blame the game designer though. Especially with some appeal to an ideal like all units in all factions in all possible arrangements, with all terrain set ups and all possible victory conditions could and should be accurately point costed.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/05/23 00:26:07
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
Spoiler:
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game
2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities
3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal
4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit
5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
This is a argument I have gone over before, and my past experience with people who held this position has been rather poor in terms of them being reasonable. You may be perfectly so and I don't mean to say anything in regards to you personally, it is just that prior discussions have soured me on explaining it all out again. Let's just agree to disagree.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/23 01:48:00
I don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
Well, to be fair, he did say “fairly healthy”
And compared to the last tourney results that I posted this top ten was indeed a bit more diverse. Or at least had some fresh blood up in the mix. I suspect they are outliers or one trick ponies coupled with expert players and probably don’t have the staying power of the current big three, but it was still interesting. And great to see, for the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/23 01:45:09
"Sometimes the only victory possible is to keep your opponent from winning." - The Emperor, from The Outcast Dead.
"Tell your gods we are coming for them, and that their realms will burn as ours did." -Thostos Bladestorm
I don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
Well, to be fair, he did say “fairly healthy”
And compared to the last tourney results that I posted this top ten was indeed a bit more diverse. Or at least had some fresh blood up in the mix. I suspect they are outliers or one trick ponies coupled with expert players and probably don’t have the staying power of the current big three, but it was still interesting. And great to see, for the game.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
Spoiler:
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game 2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities 3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal 4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit 5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
This is a argument I have gone over before, and my past experience with people who held this position has been rather poor in terms of them being reasonable. You may be perfectly so and I don't mean to say anything in regards to you personally, it is just that prior discussions have soured me on explaining it all out again. Let's just agree to disagree.
Do you have a link where you've dealt with these issues in the past? I totally get it if you've already dealt with the problem of multiple confounding variables in the past and don't want to go over it again.
Do you have anything to say about the bolded text? The utility of the pairing mechanism is a swiss tournament in creating balance? I highly doubt anyone who ever made the case against balance made that point before as it is a pro balance point. In fact, it may be the single most demonstrated technique for achieving balance in miniature gaming ever. If we have a proven technique for balance, maybe we should investigate it?
Or is any solution that creates balance that is not doing so with game mechanics somehow not valid? Even if the people playing are reporting having a great time at the events and finding their pairings producing great games?
"As in a Swiss tournament, all players compete in the same number of rounds against various other players. Unlike Swiss, the players do not all start with zero points, but are awarded initial points based on their rating prior to the tournament. This gives starting advantage to higher rated players, but they will play tougher opponents from the very start."
With increasing amount of data available, is it possible that we could apply the advantages of such a system more readily? For example, if ITC events used past or inter-event standings to assess the initial points for pairing purposes?
Is the limitation on this solution just the rolling out of technology to solve it? Apps for games like chess (or a variety of video games) already pair based on rankings, so perhaps with the application of some math we might get something like both players use an app when they schedule a game and based on combined player/faction standings the app will apply bonus points to the underdog or recommend a scenario that puts the better player in a tougher situation?
This will also eventually allow informed decisions to be made about game mechanics and points costs. If thousands of games are logged and GW can seee that the knight-questor has never appeared in a list of any ranking, that maybe that might be a candidate for an adjustment?
Perhaps the social approach combined with technology can eventually provide the big data needed for the non-confounded analysis needed to make points actually work?
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/05/23 03:02:44
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The "balance can never be good so give up" argument strikes again!
Spoiler:
It's possible it reoccurs so often because it's based on sound reasoning.
I think success at balance is a distribution and as you increase the variables the tails of the curve fatten and the centre of the distribution flattens. The tails in this case are an extreme likelyhood of victory or an extreme likelyhood of a loss. The centre is where each player could have won based on decisions made during the game.
The solution is not to give up though, it's to recognise the limitation and solve any problems as the individual cases happen. In game. If someone is taking an army that shoots the other off the table by the end of turn 2, add more terrain. Maybe add free cover fortifications to be placed as units dig in before the first battle round.
Consider the following:
1) there are different terrain layouts that can have a massive impact on the game
2) units have different offensive and defensive capabilities
3) units in the list can be identified as more or less efficient for a given goal
4) synergy between units can drastically increase the effectiveness of a given unit
5) different people build lists with different goals
The only way to have balance is to have a normal distribution along the spectrum of options related to each of those facts. Some sort of set expectations for terrain, some sort of average distribution of attacking and defending specialist units and generalist units, people willing to pass over the most egregiously efficient and inefficient units and taking only the more average ones, some sort of limit to combos like not taking 4+ piece combos, and generally being on the same page when it comes to a game.
Skew on any axis and things can break down rapidly. Go test it. Go build a list with 5+ part synergy combos and a list where a given unit will never be the beneficiary of more than one off-warscroll ability in a given phase. Heck, just take different goals and have one list built for power and another based on the forces present in a battle in a novel.
The designers have even said that their points formula doesn't even take into account the battletraits in the very battletome the warscrolls are published. Those adjustments are all based on what "feels right" in playtesting by a surprisingly small group of testers.
Heck they can't even make a points system that takes into account synergy. Is a lord-castellant more or less powerful if there's no viable target for his lantern?
Recognising variables isn't giving up. The solutions just happen to be specific to each actual instance of play. They need to be solved by the players on a case by case basis. The designers or some top down system of house rules simply can't account for the multiplication of variables. Unless of course, the house rules restrict variables.
Tournaments are basically these types of restrictions. 1) terrain provided by organizer 2) take units that will help you win the scenarios in the tournament pack 3) take the most efficient possible units 4) maximize synergy 5) build to win or go to the bottom tables.
Tournaments provide enjoyable balanced experiences for their participants because they rely on the participants to adjust to the specific situation. They rely on the player base to not take 90%+ of the units available to them. They rely on the players to maximize efficiency and synergy. They set the terrain and scenarios.
The solution is specific, not general. GW's designers or some house rule group on a forum can't account for the number of variables present if you don't define your goals to the same degree as a competitive event. Competitive events also have the benefit of swiss pairings sorting players. People have a great time in the last couple rounds at the bottom tables. Their win loss record sorts them into appropriate pairings.
That sorting into appropriate pairings just might be the most powerful thing possible in terms of actually achieving balance. That's why I advocate having regular opponents who are on the same page as you. The distribution of along the spectrum of options decreases by definition when the participants are doing the same sort of things in terms of army selection, terrain expectations, scenarios, power level of army builds, degree of seeking efficiency and synergy and the like.
The hunt for balance might be an attempt to find a game mechanic based solution to what is ultimately a social issue.
This is a argument I have gone over before, and my past experience with people who held this position has been rather poor in terms of them being reasonable. You may be perfectly so and I don't mean to say anything in regards to you personally, it is just that prior discussions have soured me on explaining it all out again. Let's just agree to disagree.
Do you have a link where you've dealt with these issues in the past? I totally get it if you've already dealt with the problem of multiple confounding variables in the past and don't want to go over it again.
Do you have anything to say about the bolded text? The utility of the pairing mechanism is a swiss tournament in creating balance? I highly doubt anyone who ever made the case against balance made that point before as it is a pro balance point. In fact, it may be the single most demonstrated technique for achieving balance in miniature gaming ever. If we have a proven technique for balance, maybe we should investigate it?
Or is any solution that creates balance that is not doing so with game mechanics somehow not valid? Even if the people playing are reporting having a great time at the events and finding their pairings producing great games?
"As in a Swiss tournament, all players compete in the same number of rounds against various other players. Unlike Swiss, the players do not all start with zero points, but are awarded initial points based on their rating prior to the tournament. This gives starting advantage to higher rated players, but they will play tougher opponents from the very start."
With increasing amount of data available, is it possible that we could apply the advantages of such a system more readily? For example, if ITC events used past or inter-event standings to assess the initial points for pairing purposes?
Is the limitation on this solution just the rolling out of technology to solve it? Apps for games like chess (or a variety of video games) already pair based on rankings, so perhaps with the application of some math we might get something like both players use an app when they schedule a game and based on combined player/faction standings the app will apply bonus points to the underdog or recommend a scenario that puts the better player in a tougher situation?
This will also eventually allow informed decisions to be made about game mechanics and points costs. If thousands of games are logged and GW can seee that the knight-questor has never appeared in a list of any ranking, that maybe that might be a candidate for an adjustment?
Perhaps the social approach combined with technology can eventually provide the big data needed for the non-confounded analysis needed to make points actually work?
I do not have a link, I should saving my responses to common arguments to have them ready. In broad terms; even a basic mathematical analysis and/or playtesting could improve balance dramatically. Either GW is not doing it or there is a barrier somewhere in the process, because things like FEC/Skaven being disgustingly OP are immediately obvious with even a brief skim. A comparatively tiny amount of effort could dramatically improve balance. Getting the finer details down may not even be worth developing techniques required to do so because beyond a certain point the variation between unit effectiveness due to point costs becomes less than the variation due to other factors such as scenario or matchup. And I think such a circumstance is all anyone is really asking for; not perfect balance, not even great balance, just decent balance.
I think that's a very realistic position. If we take a variety of possible match ups of units and factions we want the majority of the results to be in the centre where either side could win and fewer of the results on the tails where the results are one sided. It just needs to be "good enough." So I'd like to revise my earlier statement to be that balance is only impossible if both the variables are too numerous *and* the standards are too high. Though with the caveat that enough variables (especially synergy related ones) can overwhelm even the lowest of standards. I think we can get games into the nice centre where either side could win, especially if we are willing to adjust locally on a individual game by game basis.
The barrier to a more universal sense of balance seems to be disparate goals within their own design approach. They want the game to function both with the warscrolls only (free rules + free warscrolls + your models, get playing!) and with the battle tomes. And yet they only have one points system. In the Stormcast episodes they've outright stated that their points formulas don't compensate for the rules in the battletomes not on the warscrolls. But if they did, then they'd be wrong for the free rules + warscrolls type games.
This intentional contradiction doesn't get in the way of a type of play at tournaments that the current fans of them love. It's the same thing people often love about magic card tournaments or x-wing tournaments. Many people want a small set of lists to become the dominant ones so they can make decisions about their own army in response to some meta analysis of the field of possible opponents. To many, this is a feature.
So if they have their tournaments in a state that they are well attended and growing and still loads of more casual people are buying and playing with friends, what incentive does GW have to put any more resources at all into this? All the stuff related to real data, ITC results, etc., is all done by non-GW people.
The people who suffer are those who want to do matched play but not necessarily tournament type play. Where they want to take a wider variety of units and factions than the proven lists and possible counters to those proven lists.
The people who are not suffering a lack of balance are the people who accept the limitation of variables and the filtering of appropriate pairings provided by the tournament structure on one hand. And on the other the more community and scenario minded casual players who are willing to talk about making sure the power levels of lists match up and make sense with the scenario and terrain. The matched play pick up game players seem to be the ones left in the cold while the game works well for the open, narrative and tournament crowd.
So what is the goal then? Do we actually want better game play given the current situation, or will we insist we don't do anything until GW fixes it for us? If the balance isn't good enough with their current point system, then do you shelve the army or talk to your regular opponents about maybe giving some thought to setting the games up more evenly? Even if "we shouldn't have to" it is still an option. The game is working for a lot of people, so maybe the balance answer is doing what they do? If you're competitive then join in the tournament approach and don't play a non-proven/counter list. Or if you're not stop relying on GW's points to be right if you feel they are obviously not. Set up your games like how historical gamers have been doing it for decades. Just use the points as a starting point and adjust from there. Shooting army blasting other armies off the table? Add more terrain and maybe have some fortifications/more cover granting terrain.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/05/23 05:51:21
Balance in pick up games? Two people, each with their own goals for the game, design half a board game on their own without knowing the layout of the board and hope it all works out. Good luck with that. The faster you can find like minded individuals who want the same things from the game as you, the better.
NinthMusketeer wrote: don't understand how three armies taking the majority of the top 10 is a healthy mix...
Well, you are looking at it from a glass half empty situation again. You see three armies in the majority (because there are 2 of each those 3 armies).
I see 7 different armies in a top 10 with any one faction only being there twice (and the faction that's often considered the most controversial/broken on this forum, not even getting into a top 5). I call that a fairly healthy mix, yes.
As an actual question: when would you consider it "fairly healthy mix" of armies in a top 10? When there are 8, 9 or 10 different armies in a top 10? Or is it a complete failure of game balance (at the top level, which is what I'm discussion when looking at top tables of a major event, let's not bog this down to a casual gameplay discussion) if there are any repeats.
I'm actually curious,because around this time last year, about half of the top 10 armies in serious competitive events, used to be Tzeentch.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/05/23 08:56:03
The boy, I say, the boy is as sharp as a sack of wet mice...
