Making Lists for AoS Some What Balanced Topic

[Slayer King]

Lets hear those ideas about making those lists somewhat balanced to have some kind of relevance to game creation.

 

I get that you can take what you want and agree but lets just, for [big bad swear word]s and giggles, have some thoughtful ways to balance a game.

[pretre]

Here's a good start:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654696.page

[Threejacks]

First rule that comes to mind for me is "There can only be one"

 

That being for named characters of course,so yeah no spamming Manfred`s or Nagash`s.So if you want to use one,it may be a good idea to have a backup non named or another of a different name just in case someone plops your first choice down before you get a chance.

[Slayer King]

I agree completely with named characters. Only 1 of the same "named" character.

 

In the Dakka thread they started talking about giving everything point values, which to me is tedious and at this point not needed (not to devalue any of their ideas as), but I was just thinking about making the game, still not complicated, I mean 4 pages of rules, but somewhat easier for us to sit down and say hey lets play, and here are the parameters.

 

Someone mentioned wounds totals. Come to an agreed upon amount of wounds and play? Is this feasible and would it make it somewhat fair to both sides? First argument would be that someone would plop down only monsters or characters. Would they always whoop up on, if taking 30 wounds, lets say 20 wounds of skeletons and 1 or 2 other choices from the VC list that could boost Skeleton units? At first glance I feel that units could take down, what we saw in the old rules, better units.

 

We also could go the route to categorize them into the groups they were in in 8th, (Lord, Heros, Core, Special, Rare) and give caps for each unit, and then make it a model count.

 

Lord 0-1

Hero 0-2

Core 0-8?

Special 0-3

Rare 0-3

 

This is just an example but then you would have equal number or as close to models. I personally don't like this because it takes away from some of the themed forces that you might be able to take now. From what I see. It also does create weaknesses if I chose to only take one unit type.

 

And lastly theirs the categorize them by the new definition names GW gave them. So for example in the Dwarf War Scrolls and Chaos.

 

Characters: Hero/Lord/Named/Wizard (you could do a LORD category and a HERO one)

Units: Slayers, Hammerers, Miners, etc... , Marauders, Chaos Knights, Warriors etc...

Monster/Machines: Flame Cannon, Cannon, etc... Warshrine, Hellcannon, Chariorts (or should chariots be units?)

 

So just as an example of a game I would play with someone we would say:

 

Characters: 3

Units: 6

Monster/Machines: 4

 

Some would take two slots, like a greater daemon is a monster and a character so would take one of each. Is this a good idea or is this not fair for those types of characters. Like characters riding monsters etc...

 

My 2 bit.

 

Thanks Pretre for the link.

[Brother Glacius]

1 hero and 2 core minimum, may take up to 4 more core, another hero, 3 fast units, 3 elite units, and 3 heavy units. :)

[savion47]

The rules say "you can use as many models from your collection as you wish." So I plan to pack up my vast collection and always play with every model I have because that is what the rules say I can do.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

The rules say "you can use as many models from your collection as you wish." So I plan to pack up my vast collection and always play with every model I have because that is what the rules say I can do.

Well I have more models then you.

[Murphy'sLawyer]

Well I have more models then you.

Oh Dear God! I've just seen the pure genius of GW's plan and it is evil.

[McNathanson]

I think both armies should have the same number of teeth.  If everyone agrees then I'll come up with an auto-comp calculator that everyone can use.  TeethBuilder 10.0 (might as well sound respectable with the version number right?)

[savion47]

Well I have more models then you.

Challenge accepted!

[pretre]

I think people may be missing how bad big nasties can be taken down by core. Anyone do the math on quadruple shot Bret archers vs nagash? (Look it me talking like I know anything about fantasy.)

[Prophecy]

This isn't fantasy its age of s***. That being said, I think you are just as qualified to talk about tactics as anyone else.

[Threejacks]

I think people may be missing how bad big nasties can be taken down by core. Anyone do the math on quadruple shot Bret archers vs nagash? (Look it me talking like I know anything about fantasy.)

 

Yup

 

So far as I can tell it seems that the big named signature characters are rather toned down across the board from what they were in 8th.Spamming minor heros may be a thing though.

 

As far as mobs go,just got to turn 4 in my OnG vs UL test (im stopping for the night) but 3 Skeleton Chariots have been locked into my 40 strong blob of NG`s since turn one...ive killed the same Chariot twice but due to the special rule for the standard bearer on the chariots they can return one model lost to the unit each hero phase /rolleyes...so yeah,tarpitism is very strong in this ruleset.My NG`s have been avoiding the Shock test each turn as I made the unit champ my general and hes using his abilitie on them,so its nice to be able to solve the poor leadership issue that way otherwise they would usually be off the board after the first or second turn locked.No challenges either so I don't have to worry about the Gen getting picked off.

 

I don't see a point system working for this game,I believe that the WS restriction system would be more in tune with how its designed.The reason I feel this way is it appears each army can field at least one or two WS`s that can be comparable to other armies in any given category ,we just need to keep people from bringing MSU spam of elite WS`s or character WS`s.Sure,you can really go all out with just one WS like taking a block of 300 zombies or something,but keep in mind the space that takes up and the fact that it may take several turns to surround an elite opponent in order to even get close to the number of attacks you could put out with a unit that large.

Which brings me to another issue I think needs more attention,that being how long should a game last...either a turn limit or even a Time limit needs to be determined.As it stands now,the 6 turn limit I think would be appropriate then just add up losses and determine victory level from that.

[MexicanNinja]

I think people may be missing how bad big nasties can be taken down by core. Anyone do the math on quadruple shot Bret archers vs nagash? (Look it me talking like I know anything about fantasy.)

Screw that. I'm taking 5 slanns and 5 units of chameleons. Chameleons come up where you want, shoot things dead and slanns make more units of chameleons!

[MexicanNinja]

Back on topic. My example, before the scrolls popped up, was something along the lines of:

 

1-5 scrolls

1-50 models

 

The above is just an example of course. Locking down heroes choices to 1 seems silly because you could get hero spamming with a points system. I'm sure that once people are testing the game out we will see a bunch of self comp suggestions.

[rudra34]

You are all missing the point here.  Skaven can take only clan eshin units and be viable.  Well, assuming we know what limits in the game mean and amount to. 

 

 

I just need some kind of freaking framework for making lists, if that existed this game might actually be fun.  Without it...how the f*** are people supposed to play?

[indytims]

You are all missing the point here.  Skaven can take only clan eshin units and be viable.  Well, assuming we know what limits in the game mean and amount to. 

 

 

I just need some kind of freaking framework for making lists, if that existed this game might actually be fun.  Without it...how the f*** are people supposed to play?

 

I think pretty much you play with people who you know won't cheese-out on you, and bring forces that look like they would be a fair fight for each other. Other than that... no idea right now.

[savion47]

I think pretty much you play with people who you know won't cheese-out on you, and bring forces that look like they would be a fair fight for each other. Other than that... no idea right now.

See here is the thing that is really angering me about GW. They used to provide a framework about what they thought a balanced list would look like. This came in the form of point costs for models, percent restrictions and requirements in 8th, Force Org. chart in 40k. Maximum numbers of specials and rares, etc. This allowed people to very quickly set up games with someone they have never met or even between friends by simply saying lets play X points. The Warscroll system we have right now seems beyond inadequate. 

 

Now GW so far is saying, hey you guys figure it out. I keep hearing people say (not the person quoted above), "well, just don't play someone who is a dick", as if everything else will work itself out. 

 

I apologize for not being constructive in this thread trying to address the problem GW has created for us. I just feel that when I was playing former versions of WFB I could have good games with the vast majority of players. Now that GW is passing the buck to its players to figure things out, they have created a system that actually requires me to narrow the number of people I can play. Sorry for the rant and I really hope some good ideas come out of this thread.

[Grom20]

See here is the thing that is really angering me about GW. They used to provide a framework about what they thought a balanced list would look like. This came in the form of point costs for models, percent restrictions and requirements in 8th, Force Org. chart in 40k. Maximum numbers of specials and rares, etc. This allowed people to very quickly set up games with someone they have never met or even between friends by simply saying lets play X points. The Warscroll system we have right now seems beyond inadequate. 

 

Now GW so far is saying, hey you guys figure it out. I keep hearing people say (not the person quoted above), "well, just don't play someone who is a dick", as if everything else will work itself out. 

 

I apologize for not being constructive in this thread trying to address the problem GW has created for us. I just feel that when I was playing former versions of WFB I could have good games with the vast majority of players. Now that GW is passing the buck to its players to figure things out, they have created a system that actually requires me to narrow the number of people I can play. Sorry for the rant and I really hope some good ideas come out of this thread.

I agree with you here. I can't for the life of me understand GW either. People love playing games and just want to know if I play AofS against someone I don't know down at the local hobby store my army (models I have spent hours and hours putting together and painting) have a good chance to win a game and not just get romped off the table. This is no fun...we all love a great back and forth game of throwing dice. So I can't for the life of me understand a game with "no" restrictions! I can only come to the conclusion that maybe this is what GW wants us (our local gaming group) to do...come up with our own "balanced" game so that we are not always complaining to them of what we like don't like??? 

 

With that said I think that I agree here with pretre that big bad monsters aren't so hard to take down in this new addition. All models hit on "this" and wound on "this" so if they throw attacks at big nastiest then eventually they will go down...right? I like the idea of trying to balance the game a bit some how with wounds and 0-1, 0-2,0-3 choices from characters/monsters/war-machines. Will that limit armies like Orcs & Goblins, and Skaven who have poor fighting but want huge numbers?

 

 I do also love the idea that you can now take an all "clan eshin" or "slayer" army and it is now a viable option and wouldn't want to limit those restrictions. So maybe there is not a way to do this? I love that you can now take anything and it seems like it will help you win a game (fluff wise)...how to balance this out??? Many of us are going to start play testing so when you guys do let us know what seems to be a good way of doing this...what works doesn't work (some of you have already started good work Rcnjack)!! 

[Threejacks]

As far as a point system goes,it seems the only reference we have to go by right now is to just use the base line costs of 8th edition,Add on if the model has a signature item equipped and go from there.

 

Side note on movement trays,ill still be using them on the units with 10 or more models.At least until they make their first contact.Its actually kinda cool how a large mob starts to pile in on a much smaller enemy unit,a bit more "realistic" unlike having a 8x8 block sitting there with the last 5 ranks picking their noses,waiting their turns(my NG`s still pick their noses as they pile in though,hehe).Now I know theres some spells out there that have a radius of effect when used so it may not be a good idea to use trays in every instance.

[Grom20]

1 hero and 2 core minimum, may take up to 4 more core, another hero, 3 fast units, 3 elite units, and 3 heavy units. :)

Not a bad idea...how do we tell what is "fast", "elite", "heavy." Are these titles already listed on the WS or this is what we get to come up with? But I also think there has to be a limit on total wounds of army...or else I take 3 heavy and you take three heavy but I have 30 more models then you...is that a balanced game? Maybe it is because I can't get all my 30 models in combat with your 10 but wouldn't I just win out of attrition? 

[pretre]

As far as mobs go,just got to turn 4 in my OnG vs UL test (im stopping for the night) but 3 Skeleton Chariots have been locked into my 40 strong blob of NG`s since turn one...ive killed the same Chariot twice but due to the special rule for the standard bearer on the chariots they can return one model lost to the unit each hero phase /rolleyes...so yeah,tarpitism is very strong in this ruleset.My NG`s have been avoiding the Shock test each turn as I made the unit champ my general and hes using his abilitie on them,so its nice to be able to solve the poor leadership issue that way otherwise they would usually be off the board after the first or second turn locked.No challenges either so I don't have to worry about the Gen getting picked off.

 

You could retreat the 40 blob and charge with something else to tarpit the tarpit.

[bkieft]

I don't think restrictions or structure will work for this game, it will lead to differences from player to player, player to club, club to club, club to region, region to region, and onward.  

 

Maybe eventually a structure will prevail but we have had this issue in earlier editions and it never worked itself out for multiple years in a single edition of the rules.

 

In the meantime, when you set up your games...don't be a wiener. 

[indytims]

I don't think restrictions or structure will work for this game, it will lead to differences from player to player, player to club, club to club, club to region, region to region, and onward.  

 

Maybe eventually a structure will prevail but we have had this issue in earlier editions and it never worked itself out for multiple years in a single edition of the rules.

 

In the meantime, when you set up your games...don't be a wiener. 

 

I am thinking that -some- sort of 'agreement' before hand will at least lessen the impact of over-the-top lists. If you and your opponent agree to '10 scrolls, 50 wounds max', at -least- that would put your lists in the same ballpark, whether than leaving it at 'bring whatever'. I could see some folks (even some on this forum who have admitted it) bringing their entire collection of 300 figs... which would make for a rather sad game against the guy who brings 20.

 

I do agree with folks that this is the most glaring hole/weakness in the system that I've read so far. Expecting players to police themselves is a pretty lame 'mechanic'. Granted, GW might have something planned for that, some sort of method to their madness, but right now it sure is looking like GW has jumped the shark with it.

 

Either way, if you're playing with friends that you're used to playing with, I think it's reasonable to assume that you and them can work something out in the meantime to make it doable. :) Like you said - don't be a wiener. If you keep the 'wiener rule' in mind, you -should- have fun! :)

[MexicanNinja]

You could get 50 wounds with less than 5 models.