Age of Sigmar Azyr Composition Rules 1.0b

[darnelius]

Hi there Auticus,

Loving the points system and all your efforts.

The Daemon prince for Warriors & Daemons of Chaos have different points costs but they're exactly the same warscrolls. Could you perhaps standardize?

Our group arent using the special rules from your comp, instead only having a short list of changes, but the points are definitely being used.

We're very much looking forward to the Army Builder software. Will the optional +1 pt for shooting units be integrated as an option into this?

[Auticus]

We had an update yesterday actually that brought hammerers down to 3 for 5.

[SerialMoM]

We had an update yesterday actually that brought hammerers down to 3 for 5.

Ahh yes thanks, 3 for 5 fits better for them.

[nsc]

Why are blood warriors so expensive? They don't have any rend, their attacks aren't very strong, they're not efficient for their wound count either.

[Auticus]

Why are blood warriors so expensive? They don't have any rend, their attacks aren't very strong, they're not efficient for their wound count either.

Because the formula put them with a similar score as other elite infantry so they are cost like that if they landed in that tier (which contains a range of scores).

Ironically enough someone wrote last week that they were too cheap for what they do. Such is trying to write a point system

[nsc]

Alright well, I know that I played a game, not using your point system we just matched wounds, and it ended up coming down to just three wounds left on the table, it was very close.

When I calculated the armies in azyr comp it came out that the losing side had 10 more points than the winning side, had the winning side spent those ten points it would have been a crushing, one sided, blood bath, tabling.


Also currently, blood warriors aren't really elite infantry.

They have one attack per wound 3/4/-

Which puts them almost on par with basic fodder, the +1 to hit and +1 amour don't really work out to pay for the point difference, their special rules also are very minimal in their impact and everyone in my area feels that the blood warriors are very poor choices as far as WAAC optimization goes.

Ultimately it seems to me that Azyr comp doesn't have the granularity to encompass and pay for these small differences, while I don't want to go back to a GW style where this model is 17 points and this model is 18, it's very easy to see that the low impact, low integer azyr comp struggles with these small differences.

[Auticus]

Alright well, I know that I played a game, not using your point system we just matched wounds, and it ended up coming down to just three wounds left on the table, it was very close.

When I calculated the armies in azyr comp it came out that the losing side had 10 more points than the winning side, had the winning side spent those ten points it would have been a crushing, one sided, blood bath, tabling.


Also currently, blood warriors aren't really elite infantry.

They have one attack per wound 3/4/-

Which puts them almost on par with basic fodder, the +1 to hit and +1 amour don't really work out to pay for the point difference, their special rules also are very minimal in their impact and everyone in my area feels that the blood warriors are very poor choices as far as WAAC optimization goes.

Ultimately it seems to me that Azyr comp doesn't have the granularity to encompass and pay for these small differences, while I don't want to go back to a GW style where this model is 17 points and this model is 18, it's very easy to see that the low impact, low integer azyr comp struggles with these small differences.

Its not for everyone. Right now we have about an 85% positive rate in how it handles balance based off of the game play feedback that I and others on the team have received, so I'm happy with it. For someone that wants more granular points, Azyr really wouldn't appeal to them.

Most of the negative feedback we receive is usually along the lines that its not granular or precise enough. I'd say about 95% of the negative commentary I receive is usually tied to that actually.

Typically when looking at negative feedback I ask for a detailed battle report to show mathematically how the comp failed and when supplied and valid we tweak the points as needed. This has to show what the player did with his units since a great many battles I have personally watched where one person says that the comp failed is that they just played poorly, or had no answer in their list for something the other player had. Detailed battle reports are definitely key.

An example: one of our guys said the comp failed because his sigmarites got tabled by a high elf player. However in having the battle reported to me, the high elf player had a lot of ranged attacks that the other guy couldn't answer, and he let the warmachines and archers just do whatever they wanted. He also failed to mention that an important battle between the sigmarite commander and the sea helm character could have gone either way and had he won that battle he likely would have won the game, but instead fell on how it was the comp that caused him to lose.

A lot of negative commentary has also come from people that never actually used it, but are just eyeballing it and dismissing it which I cannot use for validity checking. I have seen a lot of games that are balanced based solely on wounds, and some come out close, and a large number are usually totally one-sided (which has caused a lot in my community to rage-quit and go on to Infinity or other games in the past couple weeks)

I know that out of 200+ games now playtested with this system, very few result in tabling barring some bad play or super bad luck on one players part. We have 18 tournaments that have reported to us using this comp, and all 18 reported positive feedback overall as well which is encouraging. If we had a lot of negative feedback, we would have scrapped the project as a waste of time.

As far as blood warriors being too high in points in our system, that may be. Thats what playtesting is for. Every model has had the same formula applied to it which gave it a score. Some of those scores have since been adjusted based on playtest results if enough solid evidence to back that change was presented and verified (we have since this project started had 37 adjustments based off of playtest feedback)

I haven't seen an infallible perfect system come yet, nor will I ever claim that this system is infallible and perfect.

[nsc]

Its not for everyone. Right now we have about an 85% positive rate in how it handles balance based off of the game play feedback that I and others on the team have received, so I'm happy with it. For someone that wants more granular points, Azyr really wouldn't appeal to them.

Most of the negative feedback we receive is usually along the lines that its not granular or precise enough. I'd say about 95% of the negative commentary I receive is usually tied to that actually.

Typically when looking at negative feedback I ask for a detailed battle report to show mathematically how the comp failed and when supplied and valid we tweak the points as needed. This has to show what the player did with his units since a great many battles I have personally watched where one person says that the comp failed is that they just played poorly, or had no answer in their list for something the other player had. Detailed battle reports are definitely key.

An example: one of our guys said the comp failed because his sigmarites got tabled by a high elf player. However in having the battle reported to me, the high elf player had a lot of ranged attacks that the other guy couldn't answer, and he let the warmachines and archers just do whatever they wanted. He also failed to mention that an important battle between the sigmarite commander and the sea helm character could have gone either way and had he won that battle he likely would have won the game, but instead fell on how it was the comp that caused him to lose.

A lot of negative commentary has also come from people that never actually used it, but are just eyeballing it and dismissing it which I cannot use for validity checking. I have seen a lot of games that are balanced based solely on wounds, and some come out close, and a large number are usually totally one-sided (which has caused a lot in my community to rage-quit and go on to Infinity or other games in the past couple weeks)

I know that out of 200+ games now playtested with this system, very few result in tabling barring some bad play or super bad luck on one players part. We have 18 tournaments that have reported to us using this comp, and all 18 reported positive feedback overall as well which is encouraging. If we had a lot of negative feedback, we would have scrapped the project as a waste of time.

As far as blood warriors being too high in points in our system, that may be. Thats what playtesting is for. Every model has had the same formula applied to it which gave it a score. Some of those scores have since been adjusted based on playtest results if enough solid evidence to back that change was presented and verified (we have since this project started had 37 adjustments based off of playtest feedback)

I haven't seen an infallible perfect system come yet, nor will I ever claim that this system is infallible and perfect.

Yeah I can provide a fairly accurate battle report, I don't have all the die rolls but I know that I was rolling extremely poorly, and still managed to win. As far as tactical decisions there weren't many admittedly, the beastmen mobbed up and rushed forward haha.

I'll pm you the details later

[Auticus]

Appreciate the feedback.

[Auticus]

Software data entry is done. They are working on an import feature now so you can just download new units and scroll images as needed.

Few pdf changes as well.

Temple guard down a point.
Knights and Reiksguard knights match up better
Blood Warriors down a point

Added
Decimators (2 for 3/(1))
Protectors (2 for 3/(1))