Balancing AoS, hidden in plain sight?

[grimmas]

AoS has been out for about 6 weeks now and is creating a fair amount of controversy. A lot of it has turned out to be mere hyperbole. "No tactics" turned out to be "different tactics", basegate was just actually the bases don't matter gate and summoning far from being the easy way victory often actually makes victory harder.

However what about points and balance there's still no way beyond set scenarios? Well I think it's there it's been there all along right in front of our noses.

For the purposes of basement gaming points don't matter. If you have a group of people who play together and started the hobby together points are actually a waste of time. For example if a group of friends start together buy a few starter sets and split them up and may be one or two buy a battalion. They are all roughly the same in power terms. So everyone plays along quite happily and then one buys an extra unit. This make theirs a bit more powerful so everyone buys another unit and so on. An arms race starts until everyone spends as much as want and it all settles down. This is of course what GW wants. It does work rather well between groups of friends as they tend to be of a similar economic level which means they have a similar available spend. I do recall that is how it worked in my gaming group as a lad playing 40K yes we did use points but that was effectively a paperwork exercise as the points were always adjusted up to accommodate our full collections we really shouldn't have bothered. Of course this doesn't fully answer the question but I'd like you to keep the concept of buying the models in mind.

For organised play or where people are arriving adhoc to have a game a simple way of totalling up the relative forces is needed. In one word price. Add up the cost of the miniatures in each force and viola that is your "points". Play a £100,£200 game whatever you fancy.

Will it work though? I'm only one person with one gaming group. But yes it works for us. GW has long priced it's miniatures based on power level. It doesn't cost any more for them to produce Greatswords over Swordsmen but they do charge twice as much. It's simply a case of thinking like GW.

This works best with the new and re releases. I'm sure it hasn't escaped anyone's notice that Bloodreavers cost £35 for 20 and Liberators are £30 for 5. Coincidence? may be but it does work work out nicely. For some of the older, metal, miniatures it might not work as well but it's still pretty good and let's face it they're going the way of the Dodo.

Totalling up your cost is pretty easy as in most cases you'll be using full boxes or multiples of them. To work out the individual cost divide the box cost by the number of models in it and round up to the nearest whole pence. Use the existing cost from the GW website not Wayland Games' discount bin. The same goes for GW multi deals/battalions use the full single unit price. If you are using proxies it's no drama just use the price of the unit they are representing. The same goes for venerable units it's the current price that counts not what you bought it for. I would of course advocate using Pounds Sterling, it is The Queens Money, but it would work with colonial shekels or whatever they are using in the Euro zone after Greece's antics. Just make sure it's understood which currency is being used.

Now it's still early days for AoS and we are waiting on the individual release some of the units from the starter set so this does present a problem at the moment (though not if both sides use the models from it). Some of the units from the Warscroll compendiums may also be problematic (I certainly haven't tried them all) but this should lessen as more and more units are re released for AoS.

I'd urge you all to give this way a go. It's easy to grasp and explain. Let's face it isn't the sort of game that really lends itself to anything too intricate. I don't know if it will give enough for you hardcore balance enthusiasts but I'd argue that if you're after a minute level of balance you'd probably be better off playing a different Wargame or computer game. I feel this way does buy into the primary GW Wargame principal, it's all about buying miniatures, so why not use it?

[Mr Mystery]

Biggest balancing factor? It's now abundantly clear if you've set out to power game your way to victory.

99.999999999999% of gamers, no matter which system they play are perfectly reasonable, perfectly pleasant individuals who totally get that 'hey, we're both on downtime here, looking to pass a few hours with like minded nerds'. That is your balancing.

Seriously. Anyone who would use army lists to power game isn't going to be fun to play against. They're quite likely not a particularly pleasant person to hang around with socially either. Now? Ain't got nothing to hide behind.

[grimmas]

Tough day at work dude?

I would agree broadly with your sentiment. Still it does take time and experience to be able to set out forces so that both have a fun close match ( not that it has to be close to have fun). It just seemed like a good way two people could quickly know things were roughly equal so they could get on with the game sharpish or if someone was planning an event they could let people know what to bring. The question has been asked a few times and I thought an solution was available.

[Mr Mystery]

Ah, but that's the trick, isn't it?

The fear is that every opponent has a larger collection than you, and will drag it along to every game, and simply out deploy you to bag an easy win.

We're not seeing that.

Figuring out 'could have done with another unit or two' is as much part of the required learning curve as developing your tactics - and it's a mutual experience.

[Ben_S]

An interesting idea. It's obviously imperfect - even going by current GW website, Chaos Lords (on foot, not special characters) seem to range between £8.20 (maybe less if you count the four-pack of 'chaos champions') and £15, while HE spearmen are 16 for £20 and Dark Elves the same price for ten. I wouldn't be sure whether it accurately balances characters against units in general, but no points system is perfect and it does give a start - not obviously worse than counting models or wounds.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

It's far from perfect, but I suppose it might be better than "same number of wounds" balancing. Personally, I'm keeping an eye on Auticus' Azyr comp for solid balancing (he's already got people conflicted over whether a unit is too cheap or too pricey, which is typically a good sign!).

Figuring out 'could have done with another unit or two' is as much part of the required learning curve as developing your tactics - and it's a mutual experience.For me, that's always been the greatest benefit of a point system. Instead of trying to guesstimate how many Drop Pods a Carnifex is worth or work from hindsight, we can work with the recommendations of the developers.

In my eyes, the biggest loss of ditching the points system is that nothing was really gained - we've never been bound to a points system, and in my gaming experience we've been happy to introduce unbalanced battlefield terrain/rules, or simply given one side a points bonus, to address a perceived inequality between the forces.

[grimmas]

Well I did say it wasn't going to give a minute level of balance but it will give enough for a fair game and deal with the issues of both model and wound count.

Those cheaper Chaos champions are Exhalted Heroes so they should be cheaper, the Lords are similarly priced to each other and the 4 pack doesn't have a Warscroll so they would proxy as something else so they would use that price.

The older sets are the issue but I suspect they will be the ones replaced first, the High Elf Spearmen and Chaos Warriors being notable issues. I doubt people are going to be so beardy they going to buy boat loads of outdated models just to try and take advantage of it.

This method does have the advantage of it being readily available to all and it does acknowledge the difference between elite and common 1 wound models and the obvious problems of model count.

[daboarder]

Biggest balancing factor? It's now abundantly clear if you've set out to power game your way to victory.

99.999999999999% of gamers, no matter which system they play are perfectly reasonable, perfectly pleasant individuals who totally get that 'hey, we're both on downtime here, looking to pass a few hours with like minded nerds'. That is your balancing.

Seriously. Anyone who would use army lists to power game isn't going to be fun to play against. They're quite likely not a particularly pleasant person to hang around with socially either. Now? Ain't got nothing to hide behind.

:rolleyes:

Because theres only one way to play with toy soldiers and thats your way right

[Erik Setzer]

Just stop trying. Please. Stop trying to balance. You just make up a bunch of house rules that can only be used in your local group, which doesn't remotely solve the issue of pickup games with new people. And even then, it'd take a good bit of effort.

The game isn't meant to be balanced. It's stopped being a game, really. If you win or lose doesn't matter, because - and I'm sorry to point this out to the special snowflakes who feel good about their AoS wins - the game is too unbalanced and messy to have a fair idea of who won. You want to tell stories? Go for it. Tell your stories. Just don't brag when you win.

They tried to do an AoS tourney over the weekend, even tried to balance it. Didn't really work so well. A kid steamrolled everyone, including at least one very good player, with his Ogres. Not even trying. He had to fight hard to get a win in WFB, but now he doesn't have to work at it at all. And you know what he did after he won? Shrugged it off because it was boring. He didn't feel like bragging because it was too easy. He wasn't even making a douchebaggery list. Didn't matter. Ogres are seriously OP, and you can't balance that with any of these tricky methods.

Maybe some big tournament with more pages of balancing rules than the "game" has rules will be able to find some way to make things balanced, but I doubt it.

Treat AoS as a very, VERY rough set of guidelines for telling a structured story. Don't think of it as a game. As a story telling device, it can be fun. As a game, which involves winners and losers, it doesn't even bother trying. There's no way to fairly determine who the more skilled player is in any particular match. You can have fun with it being what it is, and I can see plenty of fun to have with that, but I'll never brag about my AoS success or feel bad about losing because I know it doesn't really matter. And that's the beauty. You don't have to feel bad about losing, because you're not fighting matched battles or anything. You're just telling a story with no winners or losers.

Which is probably a good thing, because I rarely see people actually manage to complete an AoS game at the local GW store, especially the multiplayer games. Singleplayer ends up being one-sided in one direction or the other, multiplayer becomes a bogged down mess that somehow takes longer than it did before (which just doesn't seem possible).

I wish the pro-anything-GW-does people would stop treating everyone who wants balance as being awful. And stop making bogus claims like "Now it's harder to take a beatface army!" It's not. It's a lot easier, because there's nothing to stop you, and everything to encourage you taking just the elite (not coincidentally, the more expensive) units. You can take an all-elite army and ROFLstomp someone with a "fluffy" army (except there's not really any fluff for factions or how armies are structured right now) and point out that you're actually the one at a disadvantage according to the rules because you have a smaller army.

[Caitsidhe]

What the last guy said. The outcome of AOS games is entirely random, or entirely predetermined (in the case of just bringing enough to roll the opponent). There is no middle ground. Your personal input and skill are really unimportant.

[grimmas]

You can both find yourselves a bridge to hide under and harass goats. Be on topic or don't bother.

[Caitsidhe]

You can both find yourselves a bridge to hide under and harass goats. Be on topic or don't bother.

That's cute. I am on topic. The question is whether or not balancing AOS is hidden in plain sight. It isn't. Don't think I haven't tried.

[40kGamer]

I don't see this mechanic working any better than the 101 other ways people are tossing about. The 'game' as it exists today is as beer and pretzels as it gets.

[Erik Setzer]

You can both find yourselves a bridge to hide under and harass goats. Be on topic or don't bother.

I was on topic, and if you want to claim I'm not just because I wasn't raving about AoS, then *you* are the one trolling here.

I might have been a bit harsh in my commentary, and I was actually coming back to the topic to say that, but thank you for demonstrating why I'm harsher toward AoS in my words than actions. (And by actions, I mean the fact I have two armies specifically for AoS, the limited edition first book, and the regular edition of the second book, and have even tried to convince a friend that it's not as bad as people at the GW store make it look... as long as he doesn't play with those specific people.) The game has flaws, but anyone who points that out is immediately beset upon by people who think only praise of the Almighty Games Workshop can be allowed, and that level of trolling is really grating and annoying.

This topic is about balancing AoS. It is *perfectly* on-topic to remind you that the game isn't intended to be balanced and isn't really intended as a game in the traditional sense (being that it's hard to fairly determine winner or loser when there's no way to know your forces are at least meant to be balanced). You're trying to fundamentally change the game.

If you mean to suggest this topic is limited specifically to the idea of balance through money - and I'd wonder why, in addition to his other comments, you aren't calling Mr. Mystery a troll as well, given he went "off topic" - then I'll just note that it's a bad idea. You can't match things up by price. A 10 man unit of Empire State Troops costs about the same as a basic artillery piece. A Stormcast Eternals character with a pet costs as much as a unit of six Ogres. Monsters range in price from $58 to $116, and I'm not sure it's a fair fight to sic two Arachnarok Spiders on a single lone Bloodthirster. Even more so with Thundertusks. Ten Witch Elves are $60, are they more effective than a Dreadlord on a Black Dragon?

You might be genuinely trying to correct the biggest problem with Age of Sigmar through a simple means, and I applaud you for at least trying to put some effort in, but the pricing schemes mean that solution just doesn't work. The core concept that price goes up as effectiveness goes up is a sound concept for most units, but falls apart completely when you start looking into characters, or different materials. Even within the same unit types, it has some issues. Unfortunately, there's no way to make simple tweaks to that system to make it effective. (And it also assumes no one will use non-GW models, unless you're just basing it on what the GW equivalent of a model would cost, which I suppose would clear that hurdle.)

It's not a criticism of you personally that the idea doesn't work, but, well, it doesn't.

[grimmas]

You pair of clowns Are you seriously trying to argue with the bloke who wrote the thread what it's about I'm staggered by your arrogance. You haven't even really read it have you? Because you seem to be asking questions that it answers. No Casithde that's not really the topic it's a head line. You're not going to like it though or even try what I suggest. So why bother? No need to reply it's rehtorical ( also I won't see it).


40Kgamer I think my use of the term balance has been a little misleading I was thinking more of a quick and easy way to get the forces roughly aligned to streamline things and allow for people to be able to plan a little in advance so that they could all turn up with the same sort of stuff. A sort of case of "everyone trun up with £200 worth and we can all have a few games" rather than serious tournament stuff. I think it also adds a bit more scope than wound or model count would without getting to bogged down. Let's face it 40K has points and they don't really balance that either they just give an indication that both forces are roughly at the right level. I'm still talking beer and pretzels as you like to say just with a little control to make life easier.

[Mr Mystery]

What the last guy said. The outcome of AOS games is entirely random, or entirely predetermined (in the case of just bringing enough to roll the opponent). There is no middle ground. Your personal input and skill are really unimportant.

Utter nonsense.

I've got a mere handful of games under my belt, and I'm rather enjoying figuring the new system out. To say the outcome is pre-determined or completely random kind of shows you've not played the game, and if you have, it was an exercise in propping up your pre-judged opinion.

[40kGamer]

40Kgamer I think my use of the term balance has been a little misleading I was thinking more of a quick and easy way to get the forces roughly aligned to streamline things and allow for people to be able to plan a little in advance so that they could all turn up with the same sort of stuff. A sort of case of "everyone trun up with £200 worth and we can all have a few games" rather than serious tournament stuff. I think it also adds a bit more scope than wound or model count would without getting to bogged down. Let's face it 40K has points and they don't really balance that either they just give an indication that both forces are roughly at the right level. I'm still talking beer and pretzels as you like to say just with a little control to make life easier.

Got it! Anything that let's a person plan ahead is a step in the right direction in my mind. I agree that 40k points have become more cumbersome than meaningful over the years. Points have never been perfect but they've always been a nice little option for pick up games. No clear way to even rough out a game is my biggest gripe with the new system. ;)

[grimmas]

To develop this idea further and to pick up on a point Ben_S made. One which I haven't experienced as we've all just used balanced forces in my group. It's still valid though and it's the point that characters and units have never really been rated on a level, it springs to mind that this would also be the case with monsters and warmachines.

To solve this I going to suggest borrowing form 8th ed and you could use a force organisation of sorts. This is of course complicating things up a little but give it a go and let me know.

It will look like this

Warscrolls with the listed key word can only make up the listed percentage of the total spend

HERO - 25%
WARMACHINE/MONSTER 50%

If a Warscroll possesses both of the above keywords you may choose which allowance it come from.

The usual caveat applies this isnt going to produce minute levels of balance. just enough to allow for pick up play.

[daboarder]

Utter nonsense.

I've got a mere handful of games under my belt, and I'm rather enjoying figuring the new system out. To say the outcome is pre-determined or completely random kind of shows you've not played the game, and if you have, it was an exercise in propping up your pre-judged opinion.

anecdotes do not equal fact (for either of you) so maybe dont act like your opinion is fact and try not attack other posters for a change Mystery

[Mr Mystery]

His statement was that in AoS, games are either entirely predetermined through poor sportsmanship, or else utterly random with no player skill involved.

And you don't consider that to be a nonsense statement?

Okay. Here's a little more flavour to the dish.

Soon as the AoS leaks/previews came out, Caitsidhe had written it off, claiming it was going to bomb, and nobody was interested in it. All before he'd even played a single game. Hence my comment about a pre-judged position seeking confirmation biased support.

The situation Caitsidhe described is not my experience of the game - nor have I heard or read anyone else claiming such a baseless position.

Yes, there are those still concerned about what someone determined to abuse the open nature of force selection could do. Yes, there are ongoing (entirely laudable) efforts to come up with some kind of shared points based system. Neither of those, nor anything else offers even a shred of support to the game being either pre-determined or completely random.

It's the unsubstantiated opinion of someone who has an axe to grind, and is determined to shriek at a whale about it. It's not even an anecdote. Anecdotes tend to be story based - comments such as 'I played a game, and X happened. This is worrying to me'. What Caitsidhe has offered up is a baseless statement. It's not substantiated, and it's not plausible.

But by all means, continue to only drop into threads when you have something snarky to say. I'm sure you enjoy it immensely.

[Caitsidhe]

His statement was that in AoS, games are either entirely predetermined through poor sportsmanship, or else utterly random with no player skill involved.

And having played the game frequently now (I'm betting far more than you) I stand by that statement. The reason we are not seeing a lot of posts about AOS tactics, strategy, or even battle reports is almost every single game is the same. The mechanics lend themselves to largely random outcomes if the armies are roughly matched (skill has nothing to do with it) and predetermined results when one side has simply brought more (or bigger) things. The outcome can be calculated with the Bell Curve with remarkable accuracy if one side has chosen to roll the other. When they have not, you literally could flip a coin to see who is going to win.


And you don't consider that to be a nonsense statement?

I'm biased of course, but no.


Okay. Here's a little more flavour to the dish.

Soon as the AoS leaks/previews came out, Caitsidhe had written it off, claiming it was going to bomb, and nobody was interested in it. All before he'd even played a single game. Hence my comment about a pre-judged position seeking confirmation biased support.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are conflating me with someone else. I didn't give my critique of the game's mechanics until I had played over ten games. Please post some links to the comments you are speaking of? I will gladly look at the dates and statements to see if you are correct. I suspect it would be easy to lump everyone who doesn't like AOS into the same group and confuse our statements (and when they were made) together.


The situation Caitsidhe described is not my experience of the game - nor have I heard or read anyone else claiming such a baseless position.

Actually, I'm not the only person making this statement. There are lots of people who are coming to this conclusion. :D Be that as it may, please give us some insight on the tactics, strategy, and gambits that you have found which influence the game? I'm all ears. Those of us who have been playing the game extensively would love to find some way to see the game become something other than a big mosh pit every time where the dice simply grind one side or the other down. If you have found the trick, please share.


Yes, there are those still concerned about what someone determined to abuse the open nature of force selection could do. Yes, there are ongoing (entirely laudable) efforts to come up with some kind of shared points based system. Neither of those, nor anything else offers even a shred of support to the game being either pre-determined or completely random.

Ah. Ok. Let me boil it down because a long diatribe would just annoy. Movement is so simplistic and equalized that it isn't possible to utilize movement to influence the battle. Shooting is likewise just a minor precursor to melee combat and by in large (even with shooting units) marginal in damage. Movement will ensure that you are in melee long before you could do any attrition whatsoever. Once in combat, as both sides are measured by wounds, it comes down to dice almost entirely. The person throwing a significant number more dice will by virtue of the Bell Curve win a protracted battle. This means larger armies provide a more predictable outcome. The smaller the armies, the larger effect of statistical outliers. In short, the closer the armies are in wounds, the more random the outcome become. I can break this down into a chart and demonstrate how the Bell Curve relates to throws of the dice if you like. The fact that AOS has such a simple mechanic makes our input entirely irrelevant to the dice. Would you like some actual formulas to bear this out?


It's the unsubstantiated opinion of someone who has an axe to grind, and is determined to shriek at a whale about it. It's not even an anecdote. Anecdotes tend to be story based - comments such as 'I played a game, and X happened. This is worrying to me'. What Caitsidhe has offered up is a baseless statement. It's not substantiated, and it's not plausible.

Not only is it plausible, it easily to proven with simple math. My ax to grind is irrelevant. The math is so straightforward someone in the third grade can follow it and after a dozen or more games and can't help but find relentless.


But by all means, continue to only drop into threads when you have something snarky to say. I'm sure you enjoy it immensely.

This kind of post doesn't reflect well on you Mr. Mystery. You don't normally go off like this. Your skin is normally not this thin, nor are you so theatrical. Let's get down to it. Let's talk math. Let's talk tactics and strategy. Demonstrate? I've been waiting for the Battle Reports to show up. AOS has been out long enough for us to have seen some. Why are they not appearing? Where are the great tactical discussions of the past? Could it be that they are entirely moot?

[daboarder]

His statement was that in AoS, games are either entirely predetermined through poor sportsmanship, or else utterly random with no player skill involved.

And you don't consider that to be a nonsense statement?

Okay. Here's a little more flavour to the dish.

Soon as the AoS leaks/previews came out, Caitsidhe had written it off, claiming it was going to bomb, and nobody was interested in it. All before he'd even played a single game. Hence my comment about a pre-judged position seeking confirmation biased support.

The situation Caitsidhe described is not my experience of the game - nor have I heard or read anyone else claiming such a baseless position.

Yes, there are those still concerned about what someone determined to abuse the open nature of force selection could do. Yes, there are ongoing (entirely laudable) efforts to come up with some kind of shared points based system. Neither of those, nor anything else offers even a shred of support to the game being either pre-determined or completely random.

It's the unsubstantiated opinion of someone who has an axe to grind, and is determined to shriek at a whale about it. It's not even an anecdote. Anecdotes tend to be story based - comments such as 'I played a game, and X happened. This is worrying to me'. What Caitsidhe has offered up is a baseless statement. It's not substantiated, and it's not plausible.

But by all means, continue to only drop into threads when you have something snarky to say. I'm sure you enjoy it immensely.

Have you thought maybe hes short because of the months you spent screaming down and abusing or brushing off any concerns raised by a lot of posters previously? Or your adamant claims that anyone who does not like AoS must hate GW and merely be a troll with a preformed opinion that hasnt "played enough"

Cait posted his opinion. Thats all. You however saw the need to not just post your own but to take it the step further and attack his.

[Ray Rivers]

In one word price. Add up the cost of the miniatures in each force and viola that is your "points".

Spot on.

Haven't finished painting my starter box but when I expand that is EXACTLY the way I will plan my purchases.

[grimmas]

Spot on.

Haven't finished painting my starter box but when I expand that is EXACTLY the way I will plan my purchases.

Glad to hear it. Let me know how it pans out for you. At the moment it works well with the new AoS specific releases.

[nsc]

Glad to hear it. Let me know how it pans out for you. At the moment it works well with the new AoS specific releases.

Have you tested this with any of the re-boxings? How are you pound-costing (get it) the Lord Celestant on Dracoth? The Lord Relictor?

With pounds=points isn't this making 40 plague monks = 20 blood reavers? Or is this your point that it only works with new age of sigmar models?

Given what blood warriors are priced at I don't feel like 10 blood warriors come close to the power level of five paladins, despite costing similar amounts.


As an aside I believe we should stop acknowledging the bickering from naysayers who believe the game is "100% random." They're very obviously sad people who are lashing out at people who are happy to enjoy a fun hobby because they themselves cannot enjoy themselves. Just report off-topic ramblers and continue to discuss the topic of the thread, in this case using price point as a 'cost' to field the unit.

[Erik Setzer]

See, I tried to comment on-topic and just point out the flaws in the system, and still got insulted for it. At this point, I think some people are either just trolling, or feel the need to inject hate and vitriol into others' lives for some reason. It's depressing that even trying to be on-topic gets you flamed.

Meh.

It's this attitude that you have to personally insult people who aren't 100% on board that causes the vitriol level to continue to rise. People who disagree with you aren't "sad people who can't enjoy themselves." If so, then that goes for BOTH sides. Just because you enjoy AoS doesn't mean you aren't a sad person who can't get their jollies off without insulting someone else.

So I take it this discussion is reserved only for certain people, right? I just want to be clear on that, before I get told off again for daring to point out that a Dreadlord on Black Dragon is not less powerful than ten Witch Elves. That's a perfectly on-topic point, but because it shows the idea doesn't work, I'm to be insulted and called all manner of horrible things, right?

[nsc]

People who disagree with you aren't "sad people who can't enjoy themselves."

People who say that the game is entirely random, that there is no strategy, people who claim that age of sigmar isn't truly a game, these are sad people.

That you would be offended that I dislike baseless claims is telling of your own feelings. Baseless claims such that a game is not a game, that it is childish (and beneath other 'adult' games), that you cannot move models to influence the game. These are clearly sad attempts with ob I cannot even fathom.

I understand when being critical isn't a bad thing (I'm quite critical of video games as there are countless new ones being released monthly and to play all of them you would need immortality), however your critical eye is also dotted with remarks that "age of sigmar isn't a game."

If you want your critique (in this case justly pointing out the price of witch elves) to be regarded and considered you need to work on your communication skills. Information presentation is everything, you could regurgitate the binary notation of an impeccable point, but nobody would read it. Wrapping critique in personal opinions is a surefire way to have your post dismissed. Many people skim briefly instead of read and it's far easier to ignore something than consider it.

Your realization that a dreadlord on a black dragon is not less powerful than ten witch elves is correct, but it seems that grimmas is using his pounds-as-points system for only newer releases.

To end this semi-off-topic post: you have no right to pretend you're a victim. I challenge you to walk into any establishment, raving and shouting about how much better a competitor is and see how you're treated. Go shout that wal-mart isn't truly a store and that everyone would be better off attending Target. Go to a cell-phone service provider and rave about how terrible it is and how much better another is.


Edit: Some more on topic points

Furthermore grimmas has further revised his proposed army construction by limiting Heroes and monsters such that they form a limited percentage of the total forces.

As such comparing the black dragon and witch elves becomes less meaningful The dreadlord and black dragon suddenly take up a large amount of your comp, in a $200 game the dreadlord would be your only hero choice and half of your allowed monster/warmachine choices.

So is the monster stronger than the witch elves? Yes, are the witch elves inefficient? Yes, but when weren't they? As comes up in many comp discussions inequality in efficiency has and will always be an issue. Furthermore grimmas is suggesting that this isn't how to determine fair forces, you should still discuss with your opponent and agree to try and have fun with one another. Is it perfect? No. Can you have fun with this? Yes. Can it be abused? Yes.

Should you abuse it? No. If you're trying to beat someone in a game by manipulating rules or fielding efficient models then you're a jerk. Unless your opponent has agreed that he wants to try and do that too. Grimmas isn't suggesting this as a tourney comp, just musing as a possible guideline for people to try out. You tried it out in your head, compared witch-elves to a dragon and determined that it didn't work for you.

[Mr Mystery]

It's not a perfect system, but it's a decent benchmark to start from.

After all, £200 vs £200 is better than £200 vs £500. Yet such a match up would be obviously not 'balanced'.

Yet the great known unknown is exactly what balanced looks like. Perfect balance? Completely bare or perfectly mirrored terrain battlefield, with exactly identical forces. Like Chess, but with a choice of deployment. From there on in, it's determined mostly by skill. Why mostly? Sometimes the dice have it in for you and you can't hit nor wound for toffee.

Math hammer itself is just as flawed, as it's based entirely upon the law of averages when it's clear nowhere enough dice are lobbed in a single battle for that to be a truly reliable benchmark. It also doesn't take into account outrageously good or bad luck, or even a slight skewing from 'average'.

Let's take a quick example. Box of Ironguts against box of Bloodreavers, armed for the sake of tenuous sanity after a long day sorting out other people's **** ups with Meatripper Axes.

I get 4 Ironguts, with a maximum 13 attacks if I include a Gutlord. 4+ to hit shows 6 hits on perfect average. 3+ to wound, and that's 4 wounding hits, jobbing a respectable 12 Bloodreavers in a single round of isolated 'that's all we've got' combat.

You have 20 Bloodreavers, with a maximum 20 attacks. 4+ to hit means 10 hits. 4+ to wound means a total of 5 saves to made, with a rend penalty of -1. Ironguts now save on a 5+. Again, rounding odds down (to be internally consistent) bags 4 wounds, and a single Irongut is removed.

If the Ironguts strike first, it's damned near curtains for the Bloodreavers once Battleshock kicks in..... If the Bloodreavers swing first, I do less damage, but with Bravery 7 I can't lose anymore to Battleshock.

Very slight skewing of the averages, and the Ironguts struggle to not come out on top.

So how to 'balance' that out? As i said in my first post - experience, and for the Bloodreavers player, accepting the Bloodreavers themselves need buffs and support from elsewhere - something that within their army, the Ironguts don't get a lot of.

[Al Shut]

At least, balancing by price would make it impossible to simply outspend your opponent.

[Erik Setzer]

There are issues even with newer products. A Bloodthirster is a Hero and a Monster, so you have to hit $500 (or the pound equivalent) to use one.

But older products are important to consider. Games Workshop knew chucking all that stuff out would be a horrible idea, so it has to be considered here. You can get a pair of dragon-riding elf lords, or even a pair of Thundertusks, for the price of a single Bloodthirster. You can't just ignore that kind of disparity by noting that past models have a different pricing scheme. So that has to be worked in somehow, even if it's just making a list of items that have to be altered in their in-game value (either up or down).

[grimmas]

Lots of good stuff coming out. My apologies for takings a little while to get back I've had stuff on.

I think in respect of a lot of stuff direct unit to unit comparison is a little misleading and one needs to look at the whole faction. Yes Plague monks are a bit more economical but censer bearers aren't also there's a lot less synergy with plague monks than the Bloodreavers, for example, who surprisingly play very well with others. Also Pestilens only have one wound no save units that makes them much more vulnerable as a faction. The approach I'm proposing is about creating roughly matched forces rather than exact unit by unit balance. Yeah the system can be broken but only if want to do stuff that is obviously a bit pants.

It is quite interesting that the Dryads and Plague Monk are pretty well balanced at their costs, seeing as they were re released at the same time.

Think the comparison NSC makes with Bloodwarriors and Retributors does illustrate that it isn't perfect exactly but it is a whole lot better than the alternative. 10 vs 5 may not be entirely balanced but it is bloody close and more so than wound count, 10 vs 7, or model count 10 vs 10.

Of course a real problem may occur if GW only release some models as part of bundles as we've seen with the 40K campaign bundles. But I'm sure that can be worked out by a couple of reasonable people on the day.

This is also a a starting point there's nothing to stop evolving it further, you could add further restrictions around Keywords like I suggested with the percentages, you could try restrictions on the numbers of repeated Warscrolls. These are making it all a more complicated but the price does gives us a point to start from.

[nsc]

You mention that it's close, but not perfect, and you personally feel that it's better than by wounds, but I would argue that that's not good enough.

Wounds are damn good as a guideline, and you're proposing a guideline, one which has provably had a lot of trouble with the Hero choices as they're often priced much higher than troops. For example is a Herald of Khorne truly worth 10 troops? Are two heralds worth five paladins?

No, it's not even close.

Furthermore using price is an added level of abstraction, but one that is less accessible. For example, which price do you use? Should everyone use pounds or their local currency? Even worse than that is having to look up prices while setting up forces. If you're going off wound count you just look at your war scroll, you have those readily accessible, you need those to play, it doesn't take extra effort to find this information.

Sure if you use any comp system you'll need to lookup another set of information, but these comps are neatly organized into a pdf, the GW site is anything but tidy and I can tell you that I do not enjoy browsing it with my phone. If you told me to lookup the cost for all my models before starting the game I would laugh thinking you were joking, because it wouldn't be quick that's for sure, not with my phone.

I don't think it was a bad idea to examine this, however it's not fully formed truly, there's still no definitive price point for the lord-celestant on the dracoth, the prosecutors, the lord relictor, the mighty lord of khorne, the bloodsecrator, and the khorgorath. so right off the bat things fall apart, and they progress to a puddle quite rapidly when we start looking at things like witch-elves, bloodthirsters, heralds and even empire battle wizards..

[Erik Setzer]

the GW site is anything but tidy

Actually, I have to step in and put in a good word for GW there... When I first saw it I was a bit thrown off, probably because I was so used to the old style. I asked my friend who's a web designer (really into stuff like usability, cleanness of design, etc., did the redesign on our websites and continues to tweak them), and she said that it's a good design, and for someone who doesn't know the products she was able to find things pretty easily.

The mobile point, though... Yeah, you're right on that one. It's a bit clunky. But at least they tried to make it mobile-compatible.

[40kGamer]

Actually, I have to step in and put in a good word for GW there...

Aren't you forbidden from putting in a good word? We're supposed to stay in character. :p

[grimmas]

You mention that it's close, but not perfect, and you personally feel that it's better than by wounds, but I would argue that that's not good enough.

Wounds are damn good as a guideline, and you're proposing a guideline, one which has provably had a lot of trouble with the Hero choices as they're often priced much higher than troops. For example is a Herald of Khorne truly worth 10 troops? Are two heralds worth five paladins?

No, it's not even close.

Furthermore using price is an added level of abstraction, but one that is less accessible. For example, which price do you use? Should everyone use pounds or their local currency? Even worse than that is having to look up prices while setting up forces. If you're going off wound count you just look at your war scroll, you have those readily accessible, you need those to play, it doesn't take extra effort to find this information.

Sure if you use any comp system you'll need to lookup another set of information, but these comps are neatly organized into a pdf, the GW site is anything but tidy and I can tell you that I do not enjoy browsing it with my phone. If you told me to lookup the cost for all my models before starting the game I would laugh thinking you were joking, because it wouldn't be quick that's for sure, not with my phone.

I don't think it was a bad idea to examine this, however it's not fully formed truly, there's still no definitive price point for the lord-celestant on the dracoth, the prosecutors, the lord relictor, the mighty lord of khorne, the bloodsecrator, and the khorgorath. so right off the bat things fall apart, and they progress to a puddle quite rapidly when we start looking at things like witch-elves, bloodthirsters, heralds and even empire battle wizards..

I would argue that close is the best you're going to get with a GW game. Yes it's not fully formed the game is 6 weeks old it'll develop may be some releases will render it totally moot or it'll continue on the same vein and strengthen the concept. I still think it provides a far better guage than wounds which provides no means of acknowledging the difference better the most commonly occurring units in the game namely those with one wound. Model count is just totally inadequate

I did say just use your local currency (all be it I was a little tongue in cheek) it would probably be easiest and people do tend to have very little trouble counting money. I'm not sure what you mean about the website it's actually set out like an army list. Never had any trouble. Still that's up to you I'm not forcing you to do it. Though I'd probably lend you my phone if you needed to check😉.

I'm finding it quite successful if you aren't that isn't an issue just stick with what you were doing before. I've found at £70 Bloodthirsters are about right.

I'd also admit there's a bit of personal preference going on I really don't mind Heroes being more expensive I prefer them to be support to the troops rather than all conquering

[nsc]

Actually, I have to step in and put in a good word for GW there... When I first saw it I was a bit thrown off, probably because I was so used to the old style. I asked my friend who's a web designer (really into stuff like usability, cleanness of design, etc., did the redesign on our websites and continues to tweak them), and she said that it's a good design, and for someone who doesn't know the products she was able to find things pretty easily.

The mobile point, though... Yeah, you're right on that one. It's a bit clunky. But at least they tried to make it mobile-compatible.

Yeah using a desktop it's a wonderful site, as soon as you're jabbing at a phone screen it's a whole other animal.


As far as money comp though, there aren't prices for Prosecutors, Lord Celestants on Dracoths, Mighty Lords, Bloodsecrators, Bloodstokers and Khorgoraths, so if you want to play with these you're back to comping based on what you personally feel it is worth so it still comes down to a gentleman's agreement, it's not a bad idea, but it has problems as price point can come from other things such as mold creation and maintenance costs and some weaker units (like witch-elves) being overpriced and thus you didn't have a reason to take them before and now you're punished for wanting to play with them.

[grimmas]

Your criticism is fair. I'd keep it in mind though and give it a try a bit further down the line (or with a selection of the existing units). The wounds system does punish pretty much every one of the old "core" units in that they just not worth taking instead of the elite ones. Witchaelves are just down right poor in AoS, you'd only take them in a scenario that required them regardless of any of the "easy" balancing mechanisms we've seen or just in AoS neat as it were, as they are both pants and expensive. I wouldn't discount the whole concept based on that balls up of a unit.

[nsc]

Yeah and even with your daddywarbucks comp system (that's what I'm calling it now :P) witchelves are still garbage.

Clearly for a comp system we just need to measure things in terms of witchelves :D based on how easy witch elves kill them and how easy they kill witch elves ;)

[grimmas]

Hehe I like it change approved.

I think at this point we can assume GW are just trolling Dark Aelf ( I'm going with it ) players with them.

[nsc]

It's because they're pretty good in bloodbowl, kind of ;)