Understanding AoS. Acceptance & Balance: The Break Up. The Future.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I have seen so many different articles and reviews on this game. Complaining en~masse and the loud and bellowing cry of how broken this game is from so many players. I've decided to write this in hopes that some of the massive butt hurt (mainly from people who've played one game, or are looking to break the system) gets some ice put beneath their seats.

This isn't going to cover everything. It isn't meant to. This is more or less my view, and the views of several old fantasy players I've talked to over the last month leading up to Age of Sigmar, and its release.

Acceptance

First and foremost what we have to accept is this game is not meant in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM meant to be played in a competitive environment. Period. This is a narrative focused game which allows you to play amazing campaigns.

All of these T.O.s trying to create comps for this game, are really taking away from how the spirit of AoS is meant to be played on a basic level, and has left many of the average players who enjoy wargaming shaking their heads. So many times before it has been reiterated that if you want to play a competitive fantasy game, there are by far better systems to play then AoS.


Next. Though several of the outspoken player base here on BoLS in general are a more focused competitive market/community of wargaming, have yet to grasp that you don't need points/wounds/whatever else meets your fancy totals to play this game and have loads of fun.

We have to accept that you no longer need points to play a game. That is probably the next hardest thing to accept. because for so long there has been this stigma that you have to have xxxx points in order to really enjoy the game. A "Balance" is pre-built into existence when you have a points system. IS a unit of 15 1 wound models the same points as a 15 wound character? No. Absolutely not, but common sense (which seems to have been lost in folds) tells you that. You don't have to have a book to tell you that. If you do, then look at the weapons guide and see that the one model will make quick work of those 15. I can't figure out why this one point has been so hard to grasp by so many.


Balance

For all the screams and wails and cries that this game is unbalanced, they need to get some tissue, blow their noses, and think before they call out. This game is INCREDIBLY balanced! Why do you say this DBH?! Because YOU get to decide what you want to play against. It is that simple. Period. Unless you're playing TFG. Those people have no business in AoS. This has been stated in articles before, but let's look at how great the balance in this game is.

The Magic Phase is so simple and unless you're taking a named character (Which are overpowered in their own rights) is balanced beyond anything we've seen in a while. Even playing against Daemon players that spawn more Daemons, you simply focus on the Sudden Death feature and run up to X objective and you have a chance of winning before being completely overwhelmed in the late game.

Shooting Phase; yes it IS good, but most shooting is pretty balanced by needing to roll either a 4+ or a 5+ to hit and then usually a 4+ to wound, and most average shooting doesn't do mortal wounds or have rending attached to them, and their close combat effectiveness is weaker than a dedicated melee unit. via saves and bravery, (Unless within the Inspiring Presence bubbles but even still, on average a dedicated melee unit will win against a shooty one.) There is also no overwatch now.

Even with random initiatives (unless you wish to play turn based agreed upon with your opponent) if you're playing a Pick up game that is agreed upon, the random initiative isn't really that big of an issue. Terrible and Amazingly fun things have happened so far from random initiative, and it has been filled with laughs. Yet there is still so much complaining about it.

The Movement phase is still extremely important in this game. Period.

I could go on and on about the Rules and what I've reviewed from the 20+ games I've played already, but ultimately, it boils down to something way easier to put into words. If you have an all close combat oriented army, and your opponent decides to only take shooty stuff, then hey guess what, you can just tell him, "No." One of the biggest parts of AoS that I have loved, so far is the amount of radically different types of games I've played. I've seen played, and everything was AGREED upon. The self balancing by the community (or at least in my area) has been fantastic, and the WAAC players who've looked for every nick and cranny to abuse rules, have already toned it down dramatically because people have outed them already. I've had to pull a couple of guys to the side myself and tell them that if they want to play rules sharking doesn't fly.

The Break-Up

The five gamers that I have talked to extensively about Age of Sigmar have a combined 70 years of gaming experience, and they all seem to agree that for a lot of players, AoS has given certain players that reason they need to "break-up" with GW. Which is fine, some people need that. But of the five guys, (three have been playing for 20+ years each) they are all excited about Age of Sigmar, and have decided to play 8th edition with their plethora of armies whenever the itch takes hold, or they have been checking out Kings of War also. To quote one of them, "20+ years of wargaming I'm not going to Rage Quit just because I didn't get my way! This game looks fun and refreshing, sure it's going to take a while to not want to rank up my units 300 skaven slaves, but I'll deal and we will still have fun."

A lot of the articles I've read have hinted at this, but no one has really out right said it yet. Except for the outspoken comments sections which speaks for itself.

The Future

It is bright sunshine and rainbows. Except for Slaanesh, who ironically loves rainbows...(I'm looking at you noise marines!) So maybe just sunshine, we'll go with that. The Game IS fun, it is SUPER easy to get into, (I've already got 10 new players who've always wanted to get into fantasy, checking out all the new stuff, and bought/split the AoS box set. It is extremely affordable because one battalion, or two boxes and you have all you'll ever need to play, unless you just want to spend the average $800 to start up a new army. If you just want to add units to your or existing new force, oh my gosh you can, and it is only going to cost you about a 5th of what you would normally pay to get into the game!

[Path Walker]

Excellently put, agree on all points, its good to see people engaging with a what is ultimately a positive for the wargaming community, competitiveness was strangling everything that made wargames special

[Auticus]

While you don't need points to have fun, in a public setting with strangers it is pretty much impossible to have events and games without some kind of boundaries in place.

If people want to create points systems it is not going to detract from your fun if you do not use point systems. I've seen about 20 comp packs roll out now and if I don't like them I typically don't chime in at all because it doesn't affect me that they are doing what they are doing.

if you want to play a competitive fantasy game, there are by far better systems to play then AoS

Granted I did not write a point system for competitive play, but there are no other fantasy games on the market except for Mantic's Kings of War, which while more suited towards tournament play - is also very bland to a lot of people. So creating a point system for AoS allows people to stay in the warhammer world and enjoy it, and again - does not affect those that feel that they don't have to have a point system. There really are no other fantasy systems on the market right now that have any real following, so saying there are far better systems to play for competitive fantasy is not true.

I don't consider WM/H to be fantasy. Its steam-punk which is a lot different and I get no enjoyment out of it. The other fantasy systems are all 10-20 model max and thats also not a substitute for WHFB.

I know for the system I wrote I am not running around scolding people for playing without points and chiding them for not using the system I wrote.

[Ben_S]

If you have an all close combat oriented army, and your opponent decides to only take shooty stuff, then hey guess what, you can just tell him, "No." ... everything was AGREED upon. The self balancing by the community (or at least in my area) has been fantastic, and the WAAC players who've looked for every nick and cranny to abuse rules, have already toned it down dramatically because people have outed them already. I've had to pull a couple of guys to the side myself and tell them that if they want to play rules sharking doesn't fly.

I think this is the problem that I have with it. Obviously you'd be better speaking to my opponents rather than me, but I don't consider myself WAAC and I regularly field 'less competitive' options. I also don't mind a game that isn't balanced, e.g. Blood Bowl or Space Hulk. But I don't know how, absent anything like points values, I'm supposed to go about balancing a game that I've never played myself. Putting my WoC up against a Dwarf gunline was never that fun in WFB 8th, but at least the points gave us an idea that it should be roughly balanced. Is it impossible to balance such forces in AoS?

[Mr Mystery]

I think it takes a tweak to the mindset of a gamer.

Before when arranging a game, you'd agree a points value in advance, or play to one players comfortable max.

Now? You just agree a game and bring what you've got, and play to one player's comfortable max.

Anyone who see their opponent has emptied their case, and then just keeps on digging out unit is a massive sagging Tramp's bellend - and would still have been a massive sagging Tramp's bellend if you were playing to points.

Early days? Going to be some hit-and-miss experiences, where it look about right, but wasn't quite right. This is tempered somewhat by most units being 'much of a muchness' in terms of damage output. The wide variances of old Warhammer just aren't there. It is of course a slightly different matter for more esoteric collections, such as any with larger amounts of Monstrous Infantry types.

Trial and error folks, that's all it takes

[Path Walker]

If you are finding a game unbalanced in your favour, take a unit away, it's was whisked away as the God King needed that unit elsewhere or the fickle Chaos Gods intervened, own the game for what it is. By trying to put limitations like the pervious edition, you're missing what makes Age of Signar special in my eyes. It's the first properly balanced game they've done in YEARS. You think x unit is overpowered? Tell your opponent you want to take more units because it's too good. Think y is weak against z? Leave y off the table and go for a sudden death? Or make up some fluff to change the victory conditions with your opponent.

This isn't a tournament game and trying to make it one is on a hiding to nothing, it's never going to satisfy tournament players, those people need rules and structure to dictate to them how the armies are built so that they can break it to beat the opponent. That's their hobby and that's fine but it's not the one GW want to make rules for.

Enjoy Age of Sigmar for what it is and play the game they designed.

[Auticus]

Enjoy Age of Sigmar for what it is and play the game they designed.

No thanks I'm not interested, and neither is most of my area. However, a version where there is a point system of some kind in place will keep at least 1/3 of them around so we'll stick with that, and hats off to anyone wanting to play the game as designed. You won't see me ever telling you you are playing wrong.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I think this is the problem that I have with it. Obviously you'd be better speaking to my opponents rather than me, but I don't consider myself WAAC and I regularly field 'less competitive' options. I also don't mind a game that isn't balanced, e.g. Blood Bowl or Space Hulk. But I don't know how, absent anything like points values, I'm supposed to go about balancing a game that I've never played myself. Putting my WoC up against a Dwarf gunline was never that fun in WFB 8th, but at least the points gave us an idea that it should be roughly balanced. Is it impossible to balance such forces in AoS?

What I mean here is modeling for advantage. Allying only the best and most powerful named characters. Earlier in trial games I caught 2 kids wanting to play with lizard men and his buddy who's been playing took organ guns and cannons and placed them 36-48" away screened by iron breakers and riflemen. I just went up to him and asked why he was even playing the game and he just got red in the face and reworked his list for his buddy. These were not 12 year olds either they were probably early 20s...lol.

As far as fantasy having a tournament setting, you still have the End Times and 8th edition. It just isn't the new shiny. I understand that, and this isn't meant towards you Atticus. However it does make abusing certain aspects easier when put certain restrictions up. I've seen se pretty crazy T.O. Rule sets that have over complicated a very simple game. Making people go from not having to max/mini a list to max/mini is what I'm talking about. And changing the system in a way that allows for better math hammers. Right now there are no bad units in AoS, but handicapping via points or wounds, while stabilizes the tourney scene puts an overall barrier on the average table top player. (In my experience anyway.)

Time will indeed ultimately tell but so far the game has been brilliant.

[Lexington]

You can tell that Age of Sigmar is really fun because of the many, many articles that are required to qualify and explain its fun.

[Alaric]

You can tell that Age of Sigmar is really fun because of the many, many articles that are required to qualify and explain its fun.

Damn that was funny. Actually lold. Spot on too. You arent going to change peoples minds via this medium due to many reasons. I have seen more people get swept up in these games from a decent ambassador in rl than any amount of advertising.

No thanks I'm not interested, and neither is most of my area. However, a version where there is a point system of some kind in place will keep at least 1/3 of them around so we'll stick with that, and hats off to anyone wanting to play the game as designed. You won't see me ever telling you you are playing wrong.

Wish more had this outlook.