Balancing games without using point values..

[najo]

So, Age of Sigmar's lack of points has turned wargaming on its head. I discuss the role of points and how to play balanced games without them in this video. I like to hear everyone's feedback on the subject in general whether you play Age of Sigmar or not.

here is the link:

http://www.kingdomofgeekdom.com/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-balancing-with-no-points/

 

[Sception]

If you're holding on a single, unmoving shot, get a tripod, or just use your video editing software to add your audio track over a still image.

The comparison to MtG is relevant in another way that I feel goes against the removal of points. When I played magic, my friends didn't, as is the case with minis games now (or at least, we don't play the same games for the most part). I played at the store against acquaintances on friday. But I spent a lot of time on magic during the week, just tinkering with decks and builds, getting the decks down to 60 cards, balancing mana curves, etc. In the same way, in every other minis game, I tinker with army builds more than I actually play, and in Age of Sigmar that aspect of the game just isn't there. Without points values, the game doesn't have the structure to make list building a thing.

As for points being imperfect balance - of course they're not perfect. Breaks in a car aren't perfect - they can't stop you instantly, you can still slide or ice and snow, but we wouldn't buy a car without breaks. Going back to MtG for another analogy, mana costs aren't perfect, either. Some cards are preferred because they just seem to be costed low, while others are never taken in constructed decks because their mana cost is just higher than they're worth. Things are less often terribly priced, because Wizards actively and extensively play tests for competitive balance, but it still happens, and MtG would not be improved by removing the 'imperfect' mana cost system any more than I feel warhammer has been improved by removing the imperfect points system.

For an example of a sidebar system, look to Warmahordes tournaments, where you generally bring two or three separate armies of the same faction (which can include some of the same units, but not the same named characters), and, iirc, you select which one to play after knowing your opponent's faction, but before knowing what exact list they're using against you. It works more because the scale is smaller.

I've also been in local 40k tournies that had a similar thing, specifically a 1500 point tourney in 6th edition where every army was to consist of a single 1000 point primary detachment and two 500 point allied detachments (tyranids were allowed to ally with themselves, and to take guard as allies of convenience to represent stealer cults), and you chose which allied detachment to use after hearing your opponent's primary detachment but before seeing their list or which allied detachment hey were using. Actually worked pretty well. Don't know how it would work in 7th with all the wacky detachments and formations out there, I haven't played much 40k since 7th came out, that was around the time I vowed not to play until I had an army painted, and that's been slow going all round.

Some of the things you list as positives about Age of Sigmar I absolutely agree with - units being closer in power generally, everything being able to hurt everything, ability to use anything they want in an army without having to worry about taxes or what army its 'supposed' to go with - those are changes that didn't hinge on dropping points. I agree with removing 'categories', like core/special with minimums and maximums, I agree with removing restrictions to stick to one army, I agree with hitting and wounding on set numbers so everything can hurt everything - much as many others have railed against that in particular.

But none of that is incompatible with having a points value to serve as a short-hand starting point for quickly establishing the social contract for a game. Minis games take a long time - several hours to set up, play, and put away; dozens or even hundreds of hours of prep time assembling and painting your army. That is an awful, awful lot of time and work and effort to put into a game if you're just going to 'wing it' when you get to the table.

'no more than two of any scroll' is already effectively banning most of the formations, which are otherwise imo an interesting part of the game, since many of them require 3 of X. Both of our scrolls require 3 of a particular unit. And even outside of scrolls, narrow-themed armies will often want 3 of something. An all-ghost themed army with 3 spirit hosts, 2 hex wraiths, and multiple wraiths and banshees. The zombie horde theme with all zombies, dire wolves, corpse carts, and necromancers. etc.

I'm just skeptical of arbitrary limits in general. They don't balance this game for competitive list building, and always hit some narrative or themed army harder than they do abusive builds. It's like taking the bad part of the old points system (minimums, taxes, whatever), while missing the important, good, useful part ('hey wanna play a game', 'sure, 1500 points?', 'cool', done. we've got a game. done. not perfect balance, but fast easy benchmark to get people playing instead of debating what esoteric 3rd party patch of a system they're going to invoke to actually get to a game).

I mean, you talk early in the video about how cool it is that AoS makes a battle between a bunch of goblins and three dragons actually work as a game, and then you propose a comp system that prevents exactly that. You say nobody wants to play against the all hero army, and yet the 'seven heroes facing down an army on their own' is exactly the sort of scenario driven game that I thought ditching points was supposed to encourage. You also mention how you don't think any of the community points or comp systems are really going to work because there's no one central authority that people are going to listen to or use, and I agree, but that applies to your system ever bit as much as to all the others. Establishing a workable (not 'perfect', not 'balanced', just 'workable') system to get the minis to make the transition from the figure case to the table in some configuration that gives a reasonable chance of creating an enjoyable game (or, at least, a game where the game itself isn't a barrier to that enjoyment) was the game designers' responsibility, because nobody else can do that while providing a system that makes it as easy to get to that same reasonably enjoyable game experience regardless of where you go to play it, whether in a basement with friends or at a game store you've never been to during a business trip.


As for your system itself, I am skeptical, but I will think about it and try and come up with some decent feedback.

 

[Draykorinee]

As a video, you're better off recording your voice and sticking one photo of your models and just having that as the background while you speak, I actually started feeling nauseous, I had to tab out, when I'm tabbed out I focus on what you're saying less. Just a bit of advice

You raised an issue with points that it can cause you to not take a model, most often its the rules/statline within that model that causes me not to take it, I don't take blood knights often because they have one wound not because they cost x amount of points. Or in my WoC I don't take chaos spawn because they are flat out terrible even though I love the model and they are one of the cheapest models in our entire army. There are occasionally things I might take something else because X costs less points. I don't think having no points stops the cannon ball issue nor does it stop a beautiful model from just plain sucking because the warscroll gives it terrible rules/statline.

I'm only up to 14 minutes, I'll try and watch more a little later. Got a night shift tonight so need to get sorted

 

[Tawg]

You raised an issue with points that it can cause you to not take a model, most often its the rules/statline within that model that causes me not to take it, I don't take blood knights often because they have one wound not because they cost x amount of points. Or in my WoC I don't take chaos spawn because they are flat out terrible even though I love the model and they are one of the cheapest models in our entire army. There are occasionally things I might take something else because X costs less points. I don't think having no points stops the cannon ball issue nor does it stop a beautiful model from just plain sucking because the warscroll gives it terrible rules/statline.

Yeah, terrible rules devalue a model. But when points are ascribed to it declaring it's value as a static, then the terrible rules prohibit taking it. With no points, the model can suck, and can be compensated for if it is truly that poor. What a general on a dragon with a stat like of 2 Attacks 6+, 6+, -, 1 damage? Just take something else along side it. Well, that's extreme example but you get the gist of it.

Likewise, the new system really normalizes the game. Anything can wound anything, and they have different To Hit or To Wound values, Damage or Attacks, but in the end, things have a chance. This is something that is both a failure and success to me. I hate how limiting it feels in the range of values. Either everything is going to eventually be the same or similar (There simply will come a point where you can't vary the numbers anymore), but special rules see to this issue by giving units their own flavors. Which means it's a bit harder for units to "suck" as much as they use to, and most of the entries on the WarScrolls seem to excite players when they look them over.

@najo I find it super funny that you prefaced it saying you hate artificial limits, and then "Hey, here's the artificial limits we devised". It's funny, and I don't want to insult you for that, I just think it's an odd bit of double-talk. But what you're looking to do is make artificial limits in the first place. We're all looking around for artificial limits that make our lives easier to throw models on the board in an PRE-AGREED upon way so we don't have to struggle to know every player we ever sit down with. We don't have to find out that he has never killed a Zombie-Dragon, which makes him think they are broken, so you taking one when you've never even gotten into combat with one due to your friends Gunline means you value it far less as a model.

It's like @Malisteen said, which I understand is the reason for point costs, that all people want is the loose contract of games. And I just posted in the thread about Jervis's article talking about how much I don't think points matter, but I do understand what people are looking for. But I think it's simpler than that with AoS.

Maybe the simplest and quickest way to start up a game of AoS would be simply to have both players present their available models, and have only one of the players select both forces. After they pick the forces, the other player picks which team they want to play. At the very least it's super easy, and super simple. Plus it runs the natural check that the selecting player doesn't want to make either force too over powered lest you choose it, and by both players doing this they both gain understanding of what is or isn't as powerful as they may have thought. You might not play with the exact models you wanted (And if you are jonesin' to play with a specific model maybe you could just let the opponent know that first), but hopefully you're there to play a game and aren't as worried about it.


As for the system you stated @najo, I don't know how I feel about it. Rather, what I would want to see is it in practice, being as abusive as possible towards the system, and not making consistently poor matches. I mean if someone lays down their three powerhouse monster-characters? Sure the system encourages you to have "cut them off" by the time they lay three down, but what guarantees that you are going to get a fair shake and be able to fight those three monsters? I mean if you lead into the match laying a big unit of something with lower movement, can you ever stop a unit with movement 15" or 20" that can do ranged attacks? I guess you could get lucky on a charge roll if you are close enough to try, but you could be entirely at their mercy. A gunline I don't think would work the best. You couldn't just lay cannons and call it good, since you would more than likely not be able to kill enough models before they closed for combat, but I think larger models or ones with special rules would really be a threat in this case. I know you suggested limiting the # of wounds per scroll or per monsters available or what ever, but.. it still feels like it's breakable. And doesn't do anything to solve the issue of summoning, which is only more powerful the lower the points cost you play. And if Undead can force matches to be played on their lowest unit count plus summons.. who's to stop that? And I'm not even suggesting Nagash, since he's in a world of his own (Almost literally in the new story).

The guide lines you present offer only the solution to creating an interesting and "tactically flexible" version of the game for a group of players that has the knowledge and wherewithal to play by that system. I am certain for you and your friends it would play beautifully. But I do not know if it is a good solution for people who are going to go to matches and potentially try to abuse it, or even just simply misunderstand. And granted for new players you have to expect them to misunderstand, and hold their hand and help them see what you see (Which hopefully is fair, rather than CRUSH MY OPPONENT). But at that point you're adjusting the rules on the fly, and making the game fair because that's the sense you have for the game, and other people may not.

Really in the end, the people who want points really want points for the sake of no-argument agreements that are established and easy to set up. I don't think @Malisteen is one of the people who is looking to abuse any sort of rules, and I understand his reservation about wanting a system to quickly resolve the "Hey want to play?" phase of the game. But I believe a large part of the people who are clamoring for points are also the ones who just want a system to say "Well I'm playing by the rules, so it's fair" because they don't want to agree on fair with opponents. Thus far I have played with 2 strangers and 1 friend, and none of the games have been very balanced (Seemingly). Although it may also have been less experience with the new rules and playing slightly poorly, and the whole "glass-cannon" theory my friend has, which seems very true at points. Many units either hit first and crush, or get crushed first, not much around that. So it is admittedly hard to balance matches so far, with little experience, and further hard because experience could mean that previously "imbalanced" games could go massively different if we had only known to play correctly. It's something that is asking a great deal of time for us to understand and come to grips with.

And while I understand people's desire for a system that governs the game more clearly, and certainly the effort to understand the balance will be only earned though much time invested. So it's fairly understandable that things are a bit off right now, I suppose. Guidance from our supreme overlords at GW would certainly lessen the burden on the players, but I feel it would create many of the same issues we have had in the past, like imbalanced systems (Where certain model types or individual units are not worth taking), and especially I hate the stagnation of games you mentioned @najo. Playing a "Cookie cutter" army is about as bland and lifeless as a game can get, and point values and comp enable that very strongly.

I dunno. I like what has come of the game personally. But I entirely understand why people would have reservations, and it's brutal how the game itself has a lot going on as far as minute choices you could have played better, but at the same time, it's hard to focus on that when you're worried if you're even getting in your fair shake.

One thing I like to try is the pre-made battalions in the back of each Compendium, where you can see general forces arrayed. That's another really easy jumping point to explore the game. But really it comes down to exploring it, and finding players willing to do so with you. But the people who understand balance the least with no points are going to be the ones who more than likely just want to min-max once they have a governing system, which forces your hand as their opponent. And that's still a situation you have to agree to or walk away from, just like we have currently.

 

[Cela Shyish]

Okay, I finally got around to watching that video. Although I've only had a brief glance over the comments so far (Will read them later but I've had a long day at work, just built Nagash and really quite sleepy so I apologise if I cover anything that has already been covered by someone else earlier)

So first of all I do like the lack of points values for the reasons listed. Mostly for the fact that I see lists stagnate a lot or that if I used a Vampire Lord which was more or less an auto-include in 8th meant that I had next to no army by comparison of what I'd like, including the core requirements and necessity of units being so large meant I only had 1-2 elite units that I wanted to use. So a lot of things got left behind. I've been very happy that since the age of sigmar rules came out I have used nearly every model in my undead collection.

@najo as for your comp, I actually dislike it. I am not fond of sideboards, when I played MtG I used a 5-color deck even in tournaments with no more than 2 copies of a single card. I very much liked the randomness of having any possible card coming up at any time and also the psychological aspect when my opponent knows that I could have nearly any trick up my sleeve. So I never used sideboards, I could never find a good reason to swap cards out (My own preference I know) But still, I dislike list tailoring because that does lead to stagnation a lot as well. I can't tell you how annoyed I got during End Times when one of my friends, upon finding out he was going to face me immediately put Tyrion Incarnate of Light in his list plus Alarielle Incarnate of Life and would choose light magic on his mages. It was ALWAYS the same set-up for 50-70% of his list on those alone, then with him always using sea guard and silver helms for core meant he had basically one unit each game he would swap around. This lead to VERY boring match-ups, my list varied every time but still it always came down to redirect Tyrion and silver helms, assassinate Alarielle, KB the dragon princes then tie up the rest of his army, debuff and focus fire to eliminate units one at a time. It was so predictable, but against ANYONE else Tyrion never appeared, he threw around Imrik, Caradryan, standard prince on dragon, even a dragon mage occasionally. It was just no end of frustrating to constantly be tailored against which is probably my biggest complaint about sideboards. I think its best to just change up your lists every time for fun.

As for the deployment method proposed...once again I dislike it. I have set up lists designed around being smaller, more elite with few units to A) guarantee the choice of first turn and B) to utilise tactics that require me to be outnumbered, using both terrain and my own deployment to minimise unit contact and force my opponents to lose numerical advantages. This is a tactical decision that more or less requires my opponents to have many more units than me to get the best effect which in the proposed method cannot be done since warscrolls would be equal or there would be 1 scroll difference between the sides which limits tactical options. Likewise I have at times put focus on many small units in AoS to provide tactical flexibility where I favour open ground and using my own units rather than terrain to control the number of models in combat. This means that the idea of forcing roughly equal warscrolls is kinda limiting in my view. Likewise I wouldn't like to be forced to use only half of my planned list and I hate the idea that if my opponent has a fully cohesive list planned to work around itself that I would deny that. It would feel very cheatish to me. I relish facing fully formed tactical armies and overcoming them myself. If I can say "Nope, you can only have 3 units" then I would feel both like I cheated for victory and I would feel cheated out of a potentially interesting and difficult battle.

Onto the next point (And I'm really sleepy so I can't really remember what I was intending to say before so this may be a different thing to what I intended) I don't like wound limits on scrolls either because there are trade offs to units being large vs small so while 50 skeletons in one unit is tempting it is also more limiting being that they have A) a larger profile to be charged and B) a large chunk of your soldiers are then forced to remain together meaning you can't split your troops up to control the battlefield. Also 31 wounds is rather poor being that lose 2 guys and you lose bonuses, I'd like at least 40 if I wanted to get the bonus from 30 guys, but I wouldn't use them like that in smaller games without a good plan. With character limits, I know named characters are over the top but for generic characters I don't feel there should be a limit, they are generally very supporting and not the powerhouses they were so you need to find a balance that works well for you.

And I had some more points to make but I really can't remember them right now. I'm very very sorry but I'll finish what I was saying after work tomorrrow probably, I hope I've managed to say something productive to this discussion and good luck with your balancing everyone.

 

[Sception]

This scheme also really pushes max unit sizes (or the max allowed by the scheme). You might prefer two blocks of 15 grave guard over one giant pile of 30 aesthetically, but you'd better put the giant pile instead, because otherwise deployment may end before the second 30 can be placed.

 

[Timothias]

Excellent comments so far. I am enjoying your work @najo as someone who is very excited about the future of AOS. I have yet to play with Undead (Goretide and Empire-That-Was so far).

Have you seen this set of composition guidelines? I found it quite a good suggested framework, without taking away from the freedom AOS provides.

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Looking forward to more of your videos.

 

[Draykorinee]

Does seem oddly contradictory to use the points as a negative because it restricts and then come up with restrictions.

 

[Draykorinee]

Excellent comments so far. I am enjoying your work @najo as someone who is very excited about the future of AOS. I have yet to play with Undead (Goretide and Empire-That-Was so far).

Have you seen this set of composition guidelines? I found it quite a good suggested framework, without taking away from the freedom AOS provides.

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

Looking forward to more of your videos.

A nicely presented comp. No idea if it will work, but seems solid for friendly games.

 

[wheeljack]

@najo I tried to watch your video but I ended up staring at the little wobbling models on the screen and forgot to listen to you. I think you hypnotized me I woke up in my lawn chair in the backyard with nothing but my socks on.

 

[Tawg]

Unfortunately I agree with most of what @Crystal said, most importantly about the set-up issue of trying to force equal unit deployments. That issue is most clearly illustrated by the difference between equal wound units that clearly have different damage out put and potentially saves, like Clanrats vs Stormvermin vs Rat Slaves. Each unit would count as "one unit", and could have equal woundage, but would present drastically different values of damage; This means that while the comp restricts you to at most 2 of one WarScroll, you are in no way encouraged to place a unit of Clanrats before Stormvermin, and as @Crystal said it presents the same sort of stagnation that we really want to avoid.

While the notion of "side boarding" is a very attractive idea, and in your mind it presents the ability to vary your forces to suit an evolving situation, the problem is very much like how it is in any competitive scene. There are options that are worthwhile and options that are simply not worth it, and when faced with certain units on the other team there will be binary options for what is going to be an answer. All I ever heard on the tactics forums back in 8th was about how the Terrorgiest was one of our best answers to X/Y/Z. Likewise, with the analogy of M:tG there are typically side board options, but they are used for exact situations, and often the community boils down the game to a set of a few options that are the perceived best, which then often forms a larger set of data for a Meta. Basically all the excitement you hold for the design of what you're looking at is the excitement for the potential for a strong meta to form. And that's cool, but at the same time, it will eventually cut down the chaff and eventually result in "best" builds for what to bring or completely ignore in a compendium.

I also have no idea how people have such issues watching your videos, the camera work has not bothered me yet, so I simply don't understand.

I didn't get a chance to see that AzyrComp when @Malisteen posted it, but I got a chance tonight, and honestly I like it a lot. I take back what I said in your thread Malisteen, because I had assumed they were looking to have precision point values, but the loose system of valuing units is pretty great. I really like that it takes that free-form approach to units that accounts for more than what is presented by just wounds or scrolls. The same example of the Stormvermin/Clanrats/Slaves is perfect, since anyone could tell you that 10 Stormvermin would be worth nearly 40 Slaves in killing power, and considering how easy they are to kill they'd probably die (With added bravery issues) just as quickly. Although slaves could be tempered with Inspiring Presence to hold longer against Bravery, they sill die in droves.

However I am not as big of a fan of the rules changes from that comp, as I don't believe that changing the system for shooting/such is immediately needed. Although their proposed solutions for summoning may be well served, as that is a more immediately threatening point to the balance of the game especially at lower scale games. However I do think as the games grow in size summoning becomes far less of an issue.

 

[Draykorinee]

I also have no idea how people have such issues watching your videos, the camera work has not bothered me yet, so I simply don't understand.

You don't understand how a wobbly/constant zooming camera can be off putting? Let me break it down. It wobbles. It constantly Zooms in and out. It physically made me nauseous, not too much to understand :tongue: It literally felt like motion sickness I get when a passenger in a car. (I'm not bashing the video per se, its constructive criticism because I physically couldn't watch the video)

 

[Tawg]

You don't understand how a wobbly/constant zooming camera can be off putting? Let me break it down. It wobbles. It constantly Zooms in and out. It physically made me nauseous, not too much to understand :tongue: It literally felt like motion sickness I get when a passenger in a car. (I'm not bashing the video per se, its constructive criticism because I physically couldn't watch the video)

Yeah I get the concept, I just don't see how it works against you so harshly. Although I physically can't go on swings or else I become nauseous, and that is not something most people have to say. I opened the video to full zoom though, and it didn't bother me that bad, I guess I normally just tab away to read more on the forums normally, since @najo normally just talks, and when he's discussing actual moves or unit interactions the camera is basically focused on what he is showing off.

Plus I totally can't read anything in the car. As soon as I start reading any text inside a car I get vomit-worthy sick. I really don't understand that at all.

 

[Sception]

The thing about azyrcomp (if it's the one I'm thinking of, with the imposed point values) is that I really don't think it fully gets just how much closer in power most units are now than they used to be. Sure, 10 grave guard looks a lot better than 10 skellies, but 30 skellies with a death boss nearby are actually slightly tougher and killier than 30 grave guard with that same boss nearby, though the skellies do lose killing power as they lose wounds in a way that the grave guard don't. (reference)

I like the idea, but the point values themselves seem to be assigned according to impressions of the units from 8th edition, not on experience or mathhammer in AoS itself.

 

[Draykorinee]

Yeah I get the concept, I just don't see how it works against you so harshly. Although I physically can't go on swings or else I become nauseous, and that is not something most people have to say. I opened the video to full zoom though, and it didn't bother me that bad, I guess I normally just tab away to read more on the forums normally, since @najo normally just talks, and when he's discussing actual moves or unit interactions the camera is basically focused on what he is showing off.

Plus I totally can't read anything in the car. As soon as I start reading any text inside a car I get vomit-worthy sick. I really don't understand that at all.

The minute I tab out though, I start to lose focus on what I'm listening too, its like I can't just listen

 

[Tawg]

The thing about azyrcomp (if it's the one I'm thinking of, with the imposed point values) is that I really don't think it fully gets just how much closer in power most units are now than they used to be. Sure, 10 grave guard looks a lot better than 10 skellies, but 30 skellies with a death boss nearby are actually slightly tougher and killier than 30 grave guard with that same boss nearby, though the skellies do lose killing power as they lose wounds in a way that the grave guard don't. (reference)

I like the idea, but the point values themselves seem to be assigned according to impressions of the units from 8th edition, not on experience or mathhammer in AoS itself.

True true, it seems the skeletons are regarded as half as good as the TG in the Tomb King section. And that's something that needs work perhaps. I do not know if they have further special rules that would boost their value beyond the math, as you referenced.

Although if you look at bonuses that you would logically get (Because of course they are on theme and not in the least abusive), Having a Necrotech near them allows re-rolls of 1 To Wound, (Benefit to the TG, more chances to hit 6 on the wound roll) and if you use a command ability of a TK they also get +1 to hit (Benefit to the TG, more chances to hit 6 on wounds again due to more hits). That means with two simple buffs to the Tomb Guard.. from a Tomb King and Necrotech (Two units they should logically be near, guarding, Amirite?) they begin to outclass the Skeletons in a fairly noticeable way.

Spoiler: Mathhammer

It goes from 2*0.66*(0.33+[2*0.16]) = 0.888 to 2*0.83*([0.33+[2*0.16]]+[0.16*0.33+[2*0.16]]) = 1.499 Average wounds per model. Once again with the Congoline that turns into 3.000 roughly vs the Skeletons 2.25 near the same heroes and against no armor. But then the Guard still have -1 Rend making them better against anything with armor short of Lizardmen. And I suppose you could use the same buffs on a unit of skeletons, changing them to a Total 3.0822 vs the TG's 3.000. Granted that is only while the unit of skeletons is maintaining 30+ models, and against no armor. If even a save of 6+ is introduced the TG get 3.000 vs Skele's 2.558 with the buffs included. Basically, the Necrotech is the biggest factor in the TG's dominance, as they have the blades that do extra woundage on 6s, and re-rolling 1s sets them slightly above. Still fairly close, though the Skeletons lose value very quickly where the TG would not as their numbers dwindle. Dipping below 30 drops the skeletons expected wounds to 1.688, meaning that only at the benchmark of 30+ can skeletons compete, and that will often not be the case, where as 30 TG could prove far more tactically flexible by being two or three units across the board.

No, I think the favor is still in TG's hands, as their bonuses are fairly decent. It is questionable however if the internal balance between Hand Weapon's 3+/4+ is better than a 4+/3+ Halberd that seemingly does the same thing, while slightly dropping the rate of hitting 6 on wound rolls due to less volume of hits. Perhaps buffs from other units or newly introduced models in the future will shed more like on that difference, but I can rest fairly sure any TG is better than a Skeleton when not examined in a vacuum.

At cursory glance, I would bet the main internal balance issue between TG's weapons not having the 2" reach would be to not out class Grave Guard on our side of the undead. Both have nearly identical stats, with one representing the "Crypt Shield" and the other "Tower Shield"s. However with 2 attacks in their base line, the TG would, with 2" reach, out class the GG with the double handed weapons by a long shot (A slight bit under double the effectiveness). While all their other stats remain generally similar. Both armies offer similar bonuses, and at the very least can cross-purchase their bonuses from heroes, with Vampires generally offering more attacks rather than re-rolls, but to a fairly similar effect to either unit.

So yeah, I think Guards are worth more than Skeletons, and I think GW does too. Taking into account their performance at lower model counts especially puts Guard units far above Skeletons, while buffs often benefit Guard slightly more than their Skeleton counterparts. Though it is very much closer than one may imagine from previous incarnations of the game.

All said, I still really like the AzyrComp, and while some things may end up being discovered to be slightly off from their in game value, I think it's one of the best jumping points for players.

 

[Sception]

Worth more, sure. But worth double? Certainly not (let alone something like witch elves, priced triple). It's a problem with having the default value initialized at 1. It just doesn't leave enough granularity to reflect the reduced gap in power between weenies and elites in age of sigmar.

 

[najo]

Sorry I haven't had a chance to reply here yet. I've been slammed and I want to give good replies. I will get to it in a couple days.

 

[Infernal Skull]

The thing about azyrcomp (if it's the one I'm thinking of, with the imposed point values) is that I really don't think it fully gets just how much closer in power most units are now than they used to be. Sure, 10 grave guard looks a lot better than 10 skellies, but 30 skellies with a death boss nearby are actually slightly tougher and killier than 30 grave guard with that same boss nearby, though the skellies do lose killing power as they lose wounds in a way that the grave guard don't. (reference)

I like the idea, but the point values themselves seem to be assigned according to impressions of the units from 8th edition, not on experience or mathhammer in AoS itself.

Good point. The skeletons' unit banner also regenerate losses more quickly. D6 skeletons per turn rather than D3 grave guard.

 

[Sception]

That's a key part of how they're 'tougher', although losing strength with numbers, which means 30 wights can be split into 2 or 3 effective units while 30 skeletons can't, really, is a big deal. Wights are stronger. It's just, again, not twice as strong, like they used to be. But if you price skittles at 1 point per base unit of 10, then you can't make grave guard more expensive without making them twice as expensive.

 

[Tawg]

Well to be fair, with the Dark Elves, they took that into consideration and the Witches are priced at 1.5 per "base" unit (They just stated it as 3 per 10).

Although certainly you could "Scale" the number system up, and value units with more definition, but the more the scale you have the larger chance for mis-price on a scale that forces that "Must play, too good" type units that are under costed, or the units that no longer see play because they have been obsoleted via priceyness.

As I said though, it's a good jumping point, and I will probably use it for a few matches when I can get a chance, to see how it plays out.

 

[Oppenheimer]

I agree. I think the AzyrComp is pretty good starting point. I think I'll try it out. @Timothias thanks for posting it.

 

[Infernal Skull]

One of my biggest gripes with Azyr comp is that is doesn't allow you to build an army as intended by the rules: That is, units like Blood Knights are point-priced in increments of 5, but the unit can be "five or more" models. That means seven, or nine models could be included in the unit, but the comp doesn't make allowances for that.

It also creates new rules and disallows rules like shooting into or out of combat, but doesn't seem to address the units that have specific rules, bonuses, or penalties for those situations– Are elf units cheaper point-wise, since they aren't getting some of the rules they were written with? How about the Necromancer? Does his "look out" rule get to kick in after he fails the "Asyr Look out Sir?" Does he not get a Look out Sir because he already has his own rule? If not, then how come other characters get better "jump in the way" saves?

 

[Tawg]

One of my biggest gripes with Azyr comp is that is doesn't allow you to build an army as intended by the rules: That is, units like Blood Knights are point-priced in increments of 5, but the unit can be "five or more" models. That means seven, or nine models could be included in the unit, but the comp doesn't make allowances for that.

It also creates new rules and disallows rules like shooting into or out of combat, but doesn't seem to address the units that have specific rules, bonuses, or penalties for those situations– Are elf units cheaper point-wise, since they aren't getting some of the rules they were written with? How about the Necromancer? Does his "look out" rule get to kick in after he fails the "Asyr Look out Sir?" Does he not get a Look out Sir because he already has his own rule? If not, then how come other characters get better "jump in the way" saves?

"Doesn't allow" is a pretty loose interpretation for a loose set of rules. Sure it doesn't explicitly say you are able to take other quantities, but you can do some math. If I have 8 blood knight models, I can just ask my opponent to count it as a single "grouping" by the Azyr Comp's guidelines. Or I could round up and count it as two and just take the hit (When in doubt do what's beneficial for your opponent, then they can't gripe and perhaps they'll do the same for you). That is an issue like AoS balance is an issue though, only if you pretend written rules must exist to allow things.

It doesn't disallow shooting into or out of combat. It strictly allows it, just that if you're a non-participating unit in the combat that you randomize the hits between units in the combat, in a rather simple way might I add, half and half (Target get's extras).

But certainly, house rules will have to contend with interpretation. That'll always happen. But I prefer rules-light to trying to explain every single caveat of possible out comes resulting in far too much extra stuff to know, like in the case with the Necro + Look out Sirs.


This is not related to @Infernal Skull 's post, but do you guys think it is a better or worse thing for heroes to be singled out like they are in the normal rules for AoS? Is it really a bad thing they can simply be shot dead if they are visible enough to a warmachine (Or not in the case of Rock Thrower-types). Is "Look out Sir!" needed? Or can we bank on keeping our units away from the ranged units for the sake of survival, which rather makes sense. If a General charged head-on to an enemy gun-line or heavy weapons, it seems them getting killed would be the natural result often enough. And when they don't die they are heroes.. like their name sake.

An alternative to Look Out Sir! type rules would be simply limiting range of weapons by like 6-12" of Warmachines vs Heroes. There, now heroes can't simply be sniped, but they still need to keep their distance or they will suffer. Far less rules/rolling as well. Achieves the same effect anyways, that heroes farther away have a hard time being picked out potentially, but closer they are potentially vulnerable.

 

[Sception]

Considering this is a 'heroic fantasy' game, we want the heroes to be 'leading the charge' for the sake of narrative and rule of cool and rule of epic. 'the important leadery guys need to stay in a tent far away from the front lines' may be more realistic, but it's also not the tone this game seems to be going for.

I think picking out the heroes is well enough in close combat, where you have to be reasonably close to the hero to do so, so you're unlikely to have entire units attacking them, especially if you keep them near other friendly models.

For shooting, though, things start to fall apart. A cannon or two wipes out most infantry-scale heroes with contemptuous ease. So yeah, I really do think there needs to be some sort of way to reduce incoming attacks on at least non-monstrous heroes in the shooting phase, whether it's a look-out-sir rule, or the ability to 'join' units, or something like that. The necro's ability would still be relevant in close combat at least, and I don't think necromancers are actually hurting for gameplay quality regardless. Summoning is very strong, and so is Van Hels.

As for the shotting into and out of combat, I still haven't formed an opinion on whether or to what degree it's a problem.