BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1

    Default Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet

    Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
    Hello, All!
    I am posting this everywhere I think it might be useful. I am a veteran war gamer and am interested in playing Age of Sigmar, but like most of the community, I am frustrated by the lack of points/balance, while I am impressed by the quality of the models themselves, as usual. While GW doesnít always seem to know how to write the ďbestĒ rules, their models are amazing! So, without further hesitation, hereís how I propose we balance Age of Sigmar with points:

    It has been suggested that we use the Battalion WarScrolls and/or Wounds to balance this game. That is not an accurate way to balance something, as a Monster with high Wounds, such as a Great Unclean One, is worth way more than 20 Skaven Clan Rats. So in order to determine the points cost, I have made a spreadsheet (available for Download in my Signature below as either the full thing or just points costs for what I have put in so far) that will calculate a points system based upon the stats of the models. All you have to do is type in the following stats: Minimum Unit Size, Move, Save, Bravery, Wounds; then for each melee/ranged attack, input Range, Attacks, To Hit, To Wound, Rend, and Damage. Finally, under Additional Points, put in 10 points for each of the following keywords: Hero, Monster, and Wizard. If you desire to try to figure out how much certain special abilities are worth, you can also type that in under Additional Points. Additional Points are divided by the Minimum Unit size, so this is really only important for single model units, such as Heroes, Monsters, and Wizards. For Icons/Banners/Musicians/Leaders of multi-model units, I simply added in 1 point to show that technically this is a bonus to the unit, but that point cost is absorbed across multiple modelsí costs.

    If you donít want to know how my spreadsheet works, then skip to the bottom or just download the thing and try it out. Iím considering this a beta test, so if you have issues or questions or suggested tweaks/points cost changes, please respond here or PM me on this forum. I am a busy guy, but Iíll do my best. Since Iím giving you all the resources freely, you could also just make the changes yourself. Hopefully this will help with balancing.
    Why am I doing this? I played a game the other day with one of my best friends. He took Skaven. I took Nurgle Daemons. I have 16 models. He had like 68. He had over 100 wounds. I had 50 or so. The game was incredibly balanced. My friend playing the Skaven army won on the final turn with one model left on the table. It was a great game. We both had a blast. How did we balance this game? We used the spreadsheet. I realize that it is a pain in the butt to have to type in these stats and that, yes, indeed, it isnít our responsibility. Well, I am willing to give you the tools to do this yourself and I am willing to type in as many units/models as I can with the limited amount of time that I have. I will update this from time to time and include the new points. If you donít like my points value or you want to change the points a little: do it! Itís your game after all. But if you are looking for a balance based upon numbers that maybeójust maybeówe could all agree to, then this just might be it. I will post an explanation further down as the only response I've gotten so far is that the post is too long / needs broken down more. So here's the points and the newest version of the spreadsheet is in my signature:

    Points Cost Per Model
    Last Updated: 8/2/2015
    Daemons of Chaos 8/2/2015

    Bloodthirster of Insenate Rage
    130 Points per Model

    Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury
    120 Points per Model

    Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster
    145 Points per Model

    Skulltaker
    45 Points per Model

    Herald of Khorne
    30 Points per Model

    Herald of Khorne on Juggernaut
    50 Points per Model

    Blood Throne of Khorne
    50 Points per Model

    Bloodletters of Khorne
    4 Points per Model

    Bloodcrushers of Khorne
    70 Points per Model

    Karanak
    35 Points per Model

    Flesh Hounds of Khorne
    20 Points per Model

    Skull Cannons of Khorne
    50 Points per Model

    Great Unclean One
    100 Points per Model

    Epidemius
    35 Points per Model

    Herald of Nurgle
    30 Points per Model

    Plaguebearers of Nurgle
    4 Points per Model

    Plague Drones of Nurgle
    70 Points per Model

    Nurglings
    15 Points per Model

    Beasts of Nurgle
    25 Points per Model

    Kairos Fateweaver
    160 Points per Model

    Lord of Change
    120 Points per Model

    The Changeling
    40 Points per Model

    Herald of Tzeentch
    45 Points per Model

    Herald of Tzeentch on Disc
    70 Points per Model

    Herald of Tzeentch on Burning Chariot
    85 Points per Model

    The Blue Scribes
    70 Points per Model

    Pink Horrors of Tzeentch
    4 Points per Model

    Exalted Flamers
    30 Points per Model

    Flamers of Tzeentch
    45 Points per Model

    Screamers of Tzeentch
    70 Points per Model

    Burning Chariots of Tzeentch
    70 Points per Model

    Keeper of Secrets
    150 Points per Model

    The Masque of Slaanesh
    50 Points per Model

    Herald of Slaanesh
    30 Points per Model

    Herald of Slaanesh On Steed
    50 Points per Model

    Herald of Slaanesh on Seeker Chariot
    55 Points per Model

    Herald of Slaanesh on Exalted Seeker Chariot
    80 Points per Model

    Daemonettes of Slaanesh
    5 Points per Model

    Seekers of Slaanesh
    40 Points per Model

    Fiends of Slaanesh
    30 Points per Model

    Seeker Chariots of Slaanesh
    40 Points per Model

    Exalted Seeker Chariots of Slaanesh
    65 Points per Model

    Hellflayers of Slaanesh
    55 Points per Model

    Note for Daemon Prince: Axe/Sword swap is NO points change.

    Daemon Prince of Khrone
    DP Khrone Monster/Hero No Wings
    70 Points per Model

    Winged Daemon Prince of Khrone
    DP Khrone Monster/Hero Wings
    95 Points per Model

    Daemon Prince of Nurgle
    DP Nurgle Monster/Hero No Wings
    80 Points per Model

    Winged Daemon Prince of Nurgle
    DP Nurgle Monster/Hero Wings
    105 Points per Model

    Daemon Prince of Tzeentch
    DP Tzeentch Monster/Hero No Wings
    75 Points per Model

    Winged Daemon Prince of Tzeentch
    DP Tzeentch Monster/Hero Wings
    100 Points per Model

    Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
    DP Slaanesh Monster/Hero No Wings
    70 Points per Model

    Winged Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
    DP Slaanesh Monster/Hero Wings
    95 Points per Model

    Daemon Prince (neutral)
    DP Monster/Hero No Wings
    65 Points per Model

    Winged Daemon Prince (neutral)
    DP Monster/Hero Wings
    90 Points per Model

    Furies
    8 Points per Model

    Note: Soul Grinder Blade/Talon are equal in points.
    Soul Grinder
    Soul Grinder Monster Blade/Talon
    150 Points per Model


    Khorne Bloodbound 8/2/2015

    Mighty Lord of Khorne
    45 Points per Model

    Bloodsecrator
    35 Points per Model

    Bloodstoker
    35 Points per Model

    Khorgoraths
    40 Points per Model

    Blood Warriors
    10 Points per Model

    Bloodreavers
    5 Points per Model

    Stormcast Eternals 8/2/2015

    Lord-Celestant on Dracoth
    80 Points per Model

    Lord-Celestant
    40 Points per Model

    Lord-Relictor
    30 Points per Model

    Lord-Castellant
    40 Points per Model

    Gryph-Hounds
    10 Points per Model

    Prosecutors
    35 Points per Model

    Retributors
    20 Points per Model

    Note: Non-special weapon Liberators are 7 points each regardless of equipment.

    Liberator (non-special weapon)
    7 Points per Model

    NOTE: Grandhammer and Grandblade varients are same cost.
    Liberator w/Grandhammer/Blade
    10 Points per Model

    Note: Judicators are same points for Bows/Crossbows
    Judicators w/ Bows or Crossbows
    8 Points per Model

    Note: Judicators are same points for Shockbolt Bows/ Thunderbolt Crossbows
    Judicator w/ Shockbolt or Thunderbolt
    10 Points per Model

    Protectors w/Glaive or Mace
    15 Points per Model

    Note: Decimators cost the same with the Mace as with the Axe.
    Decimators
    15 Points per Model

    Skaven Next?! Or High Elves? :-p Weíll see. Enjoy!

    Age of Sigmar Points Spreadsheet
    Age of Sigmar Points Only Spreadsheet
    Last edited by coruptcopy; 08-07-2015 at 09:35 PM.
    Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost! Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities! http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

  2. #2

    Default

    Oh, and I forgot to mention that based upon this beta version of the spreadsheet the Age of Sigmar starter box is pretty balanced. The Sigmarites only have like 40 more points that the Khorne Bloodbound. And since both armies are in the 300 point range, that's really pretty close. So I would support the claim that the box set armies are pretty balanced against each other. I hope future sets will be well balanced too. :-D Again, I love this game. Just think a points system would help us make sure we aren't crushing one another by accident or on purpose.
    I also think that GW statement about only taking so many Warscrolls and heroes and monsters is pretty solid too. Take that and add in this point system and I'm hoping we have a balanced and fun skirmish game that we can play using these fantastic models.
    Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost! Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities! http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

  3. #3

    Default

    Please edit it so there are paragraphs, it's impossible to read.

  4. #4

    Default

    Here I will explain how the spreadsheet works. Again, if you'd just like points, feel free to use the post above and / or the spreadsheet and ignore all this. If you have actual feedback, I'd love to hear it.

    Hereís how the spreadsheet works: rather than just adding all the numbers together or using wounds or whatever, Iíve actually figured out a way to determine an ďactualĒ amount of probability using fairly basic math principles. If you find errors or issues, please let me know so that I can correct them. For Wounds, instead of making each Wound a point, I figured out the ďeffectiveĒ number of Wounds by looking at the Save of the model and comparing it to the Wounds. You can see the actual formulas on the spreadsheet, at any time. But basically, if you have a 4+ save, you are saving ďstatisticallyĒ half the time. Now I know that the dice donít actually end up that way. We all have bad, bad dice from time to time, but ďstatisticallyĒ thatís how it should go. So if my model has 10 Wounds and a 4+ Save, to kill that model, statistically, the enemy will have to wound it 20 times. I hope that makes sense. So that model, for itís Wounds/Saves value has a calculated cost of 20.

    Next we do basically the reverse calculations for Melee/Ranged attacks. If a model does 20 Attacks, and Hits on a 4+, then statistically it will hit on 10 of those attacks. Next for to Wound, letís say it has a 4+ again. Then it will Wound on half again, down to 5 Wounds, on average. Now letís look at the actual damage. If the model does 1 damage per attack, then just use the 5 as points value to add to our Wounds/Saves calc. If it does 2 damage per attack, then double it. And so on. Thatís the basics.

    Hereís the other/more complicated stuff: What about Rending/Range/etc.? Iíve factored in Rending by multiplying it by the amount of Damage the attack does since, I would argue that each Damage is ďbetterĒ if it Rends. If the Rend is -2, then this becomes a multiplier. If it is 1, then it just adds in the damage again. For Range on Melee I just added in the number. If it is a 1, that attack costs 1 point. If itís a 3, thatís three more points. We can debate whether or not this too should be a multiplier. My thoughts are that if you are playing a huge horde army, a high Melee range may actually change the outcome of some attacks, but I think that it will most of the time be fairly negligible. Debate this below/with me, by all means. As for Ranged attacks, Iíve assumed (rightly or wrongly) an average range of 12. So when you type in the Ranged value of the attack, that number is divided by 12 and then used as a multiplier. If the range of the attack is 24, then it doubles the cost of that attack because thatís a huge range. If the range is only 8, then it will cut the cost of that attack by 25%. I realize that 12 may not be the average range, but as long as the value we pick is used consistently across the board to determine ranged attack points cost, then it should all be balanced equally. The only quest is whether or not this is balancing out ranged versus melee. Hereís my answer to that: most Ranged units have a (crappy) melee attack too, so that unit is going to cost more than a unit that only has Melee. Therefore, an all melee army can take more models than an all ranged army, which should push the player to play with a more balanced army, a mix of both, than all one or the other. But you can do whatever you like. Youíll quickly see that units that have lots of attacks cost more points because they have the potential to do more damage. Duh, right!

    For Movement values, I did the same thing as with Ranged attacks only I chose an ďaverageĒ value of 5. Again, this is a guess, really, but it should balance fairly well. Models with high move, cost more. Models with low move, cost less.

    You will note that Cavalry units, due to high move/armor/attacks tend to cost a lot of points. However, they also are amazingly effective on the battlefield, so I believe this is what balance is all about.

    What about Bravery? Bravery, until we see some sort of Fear/Bravery test coming up is effectively useless for single model units, so in order to show this, if the minimum unit size is 1 model, the Bravery cost is 1 point per model (hence if you can take 5 of them, then it costs 5 points total, but if it is just a single model always then it is just one point, so it does still scale for units that have minimum size of 1). If the minimum unit size is higher than 1, I do this calculation: Bravery divided by Minimum unit size equals points cost per model. In this way, we see that a unit with 10 Bravery and 10 models is still only paying 1 point per model for Bravery, whereas a unit with only 5 models is paying 2 points. Why is that? Thatís not balanced, right? Actually, it really is because that smaller unit is benefiting more from that high Bravery value than the larger unit. If the small unit isnít wiped out in an attack, letís say two models survive, then we take the Bravery of 10 and subtract 3 (because three models died) and get a value of 7, which means, that unit will not lose models due to Battleshock unless there is some special rule/ability that messes with their Bravery. They are effectively immune to Battleshock. Same scenario only with the larger unit: letís say 7 models out of our 10 man unit get destroyed. Now we have an effective Bravery of 3, and potentially are going to lose models on our Battleshock roll. Whatís the point? Well, taking more models in either situation is beneficial, but this balances out what models are more likely to remain on the table due to auto-passing Battleshock than not. Many units only pay 1 point per model for Bravery, but some (Daemons!) pay more since they are highly unlikely to fail.

    Additional small points: What about D6/D3/Monster damage Tables/Etc.? For the dice rolls, I just used the average. So on D6, the average is technically 3.5, so thatís the number I input. For D3, itís 1.5. Again these are statistical methods and in practice not always accurate, but we have to try something, right? Also, don't input any negative numbers for Rending. If it is a Rend of - 2, just type in 2.

    For Monster damage tables, at first I started running numbers for the whole table and concluding the average amount that that value would often be, and then I threw my hands in the air and asked just what the hell I was trying to do here, really? I mean, if I bring a Bloodthirster to the table, Iím not bringing it for the value of what it can do when itís about to die. Iím bringing it to stomp face when it is still near full strength. So I just used the fully healed stats in all of those tables. You can debate whether or not this is fair. In all honesty, in all the games Iíve played so far, I would be more likely to increase the points of most of the Monster models than decrease them, so using the best values is actually doing just that. This is also the reason for the 10 points additional cost per Monster. I would also do 10 points for Warmachines, but I havenít gotten to any of those yet. And again, Iím play testing when I can, but I want to give this to the community so that we all can play test this and determine if this does in fact balance the game somewhat (at least better than the Wounds/Models method).

    So what about Abilities and Magic? This is where things get funky. If an Ability is really good, such as re-roll all failed saves, I suggest we make that expensive, like 10 points, because that effectively doubles the amount of wounds that model has. Likewise, if it is re-roll all failed hit/wound rolls, thatís effectively doubling the models attack value/damage output. For most Abilities though I made them cost 1 to 3 points based upon how ďgoodĒ I thought they were. For single model units, this ďarbitraryĒ system needs work. If the Ability or Magic does damage, I calculated it just like an Attack and typed in the number. So if it takes a 7 to cast (on two dice thatís effectively 50% To Hit, right?) and does D6 Mortal Wounds, I assume that half the time you will be doing 3.5 Mortal Wounds (which I think is a Rend of 5, effectively). Am I over-costing this? Maybe. We can debate it. Mortal Wounds though are pretty hardcore, so they should cost more. In the end, I just want the abilities to be balance, so if a unit has re-roll all 1ís to Hit and another unit has that same type of ability in another Faction, it should cost the same. Again, for large model count units, these costs are absorbed because I divided the cost per minimum model size. For single model units, though, the cost is exactly what we type in for the ability cost. This is the ONLY part of this system that involves us not just typing in the exact stat from the WarScroll. This is the ONLY part, therefore, that is in anyway based upon opinion. For large units, again, it basically is negligible. So feel free to debate how much a spell or ability on a Hero should cost, by all means. This will require some balancing act too.

    Also, I tried to keep single model units to whole numbers that were multiples of 5. In other words, if my method calculated that a Bloodthirster model should be 133 points, I pushed that up to 135. If it told me that a Great Unclean One is 101 points, I dropped that to 100. This just seems way easier to balance out the points cost of an army than to have that one extra point lingering there preventing you from taking another model or something silly like that.

    If a unit had multiple weapons options, I wrote the Weapon in under Custom and made two separate entries for the unit. For instance, say you could run that unit with Axes or Blades. I put in Axes first and only used that attack value to calculate points. Then for the next entry I used the Blades. While I still have LOTS of models/units/WarScrolls to enter, so far the cost difference has been negligible. So let me give GW at least this much credit: they have balanced the individual choices of models fairly well so far, in my opinion, against themselves. If there is the option for a special weapon for every five models, or something like that, I calculated the cost of that single model with the special weapon. So far, these models tend to cost 2-3 points more than their regular counterparts.

    Finally, as for Battalions, I would just take the models as there ďnormalĒ points cost from the spreadsheet and assume that, as in 40k, the bonuses are free as long as you take all the appropriate models. I feel like most of the Battalions/collections of models are fairly balanced by forcing you to take certain models that maybe you would not normally use. Debate this at your leisure. :-D

    I think I have explained everything, but if you have any questions, please look over the spreadsheet and contact me here via PM or in this thread. I hope that you all find this helpful. And again, if you are not into math, just put in the numbers in the spreadsheet and use the cost per model thatís shown there. Even if you completely leave out abilities and magic, as long as you make Heros/Monsters/Wizards/Warmachines cost 10 points more, I think this will be fairly balanced, again, at least way better than using just Wounds/Model count to play games. Hope this helps.

    Peace out,
    CoruptCopy

    P.S. Updates to follow as often as I can. But please keep in mind, I have a day job and no one is paying me to design this game. Hint! Hint! GW, if you need a game designer, get in touch. :-p
    Last edited by coruptcopy; 08-07-2015 at 09:37 PM.
    Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost! Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities! http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

  5. #5

    Default

    Put in extra spaces between paragraphs and model costs. It had paragraphs before I copied it into the forum. Hope this makes it easier to read. Let me know if you have any feedback or questions.
    Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost! Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities! http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

  6. #6

    Default

    I don't think age of sigmar needs to be fixed, I've found that keeping an equal wound count creates better balanced fights than other point systems, neither GW points, nor comp systems, nor other game companies have come this close to a balanced game.

  7. #7

    Default

    I'm curious how balancing based upon wounds seems effective to you. If I take a monster that has 10 wounds, a 3 up save, hits on 3's, wounds on 2's, with a rend of 2, and 5 attacks that each do D3 damage, how could that model possibly be equal to a unit of ten single wound models that don't hit as hard and won't have a save if my monster hits them?

    I'm not trying to dictate how anyone should play this game, but I think it will be helpful to try find some balance using math here. Maybe it's because I'm new to most of these models, so I don't know which are too much and which are more fluffy. But I certainly don't see how having a points system would hurt the game.

    Secondly, I am not sure what other games you are referring to, but while the starter box to Age of Sigmar seems to be pretty well balanced (and my points system supports that claim), many of the other Warscrolls could use a points value to determine how effective these models are on the battlefield. I have played many games that out of the box are more balanced than this one, largely because there doesn't appear to have been any attempt to balance it at all in the first place. However, I am suggesting that with a points system based upon math we could balance it, and I'm willing to do a large amount of the work. I'm curious if anyone is interested in such a system though. So far, I've mostly seen comments about paragraphing and have moved to correct that error. What about the system? Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks.
    Last edited by coruptcopy; 08-07-2015 at 09:49 PM.
    Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost! Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities! http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

  8. #8

    Default

    So I've scoured the Interwebs to see if anyone is interested in my points system and if anyone else is doing anything like this, and I've found a group from Sweden (go fig) who are using nearly the exact same calculations as me only their points values are roughly doubled. If you've read how my spreadsheet calculates points based off percentage to do damage and to save wounds, then theirs does basically the same thing too. Since they appear to already have people play testing theirs and have already put out beta rules for every army (which I have gone over and so far they seem to match my own findings only roughly doubled costs for everything), I am planning on discontinuing my spreadsheet in order to begin play testing theirs. Here's a link to their site which contains a suggested rules tweak document, that mostly "fixes" summoning, as well as point costs for every army:

    http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com/

    The AoS stuff is under PPC Comp and Lists (PPC standing for Project Points Cost). You can download everything for free. They are looking for feedback and playtesters, so if you thought my idea had any merit, I highly suggest you help play test their system as it uses similar math to determine a points value that isn't speculative. Their main thread is on Dakka (I know it's probably not cool to promote another site, but I want everyone looking for points for this game to know that a group out there is doing a great job at this and that if we all unite, I think this game can be, and maybe already has been, balanced to some degree).

    I'm looking forward to playtesting some more of the PPC tomorrow. So far so good. If anyone really wants to use my spreadsheet, feel free to continue to do so, but know that unless there's support for it, I'm discontinuing my work on it, though you still have the resources to input stats and use it as much as you like.
    Thanks for any comments so far and in the future. Hope you'll all join me in playtesting the PPC and keeping Age of Sigmar alive and well!

    Blood for the Blood God!
    CoruptCopy
    Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost! Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities! http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by coruptcopy View Post
    I'm curious how balancing based upon wounds seems effective to you.
    Well there are actual tournaments being run, several of them, using wounds as comp, there are several community comp packs, based on wounds as comp.
    The idea is that model count doesn't really work because warriors of chaos, stormcast eternals and ogres exist. These models get out of hand if they're comped on model count, so wound count works better.
    One blood thirster isn't worth one skeleton, but 14 skeletons is a little more fair. It's not fair, but it's better than none at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by coruptcopy View Post
    I'm not trying to dictate how anyone should play this game, but I think it will be helpful to try find some balance using math here.
    Except it's a dice game, and frankly most units are balanced mathematically, as people remark/complain, most things hit on 3 or 4 and wound on 3 or 4. Most things have a 5+ or 6+ save, no infantry has a 3+ save.
    Many things are similar.

    Quote Originally Posted by coruptcopy View Post
    Secondly, I am not sure what other games you are referring to
    WHFB 7e, WHFB 8e, 40k 6e, 40k 7e, Infinity, Warmachine, Hordes, Malifaux. These are the games I'm referring to.

    All of these game systems have points, all of them have models which aren't used competitively, Warmahordes and Infinity are better about this, with many being useful, but they're still not as efficient as other choices; they're handicaps frankly. Some systems such as 40k notably, have models which handicap you so badly where you almost always lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by coruptcopy View Post
    largely because there doesn't appear to have been any attempt to balance it at all in the first place
    Again, as I've mentioned many things have a similar power level in attacks. If you have an equal count of monster wounds, hero wounds, wizard level's (debatable whether this should be comp'd) and infantry wounds, it will be a pretty fair game. You don't need to balance Age of Sigmar, you want a way to ensure fair fights. Experienced WHFB players usually can do this, they can look at two armies and internally think if it will be fair or not. Using wounds as a measuring stick works nicely for new players, new factions (such as the stormcast) etc. etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by coruptcopy View Post
    But I certainly don't see how having a points system would hurt the game.
    You're right, a point system wouldn't hurt the game. One system. However--and I'm not going to go into the 9th edition point systems--there is the SDK, Azyr Comp, your point comp, this PPC you just mentioned, warofsigmar has it's own comp.

    All of this fragmentation isn't good for the game. Warhammer is a strong brand because you can move across the country, or the world, and likely find a gaming club. It's why many other games struggle, they just don't have the player base which warhammer has/had. You can do whatever you want with your models in your own playing space with your friends, whether you can find other people to play with you is what governs it.

    Cumbersome point costs and restrictive comp systems push away from what GW is trying to do with AoS, these rules, at least to me, are about the collector. I've seen people dust off models which they haven't played with since they painted them, and it is awesome seeing these old models being played with and loved.

    Ultimately these games are about toy soldiers, and I like this new age where anyone can play with their toy soldiers, because that's what makes these games different. It's about your dudes, who you model, paint, and love.

  10. #10

    Default

    I tried using wounds as a balancing mechanism but it failed totally when in the hands of people good at breaking the game.

    For example: chaos warriors and dark elf dark riders are both 2 wound models. Chaos warriors get 2 attacks. Dark Riders can get 6 attacks on their turn.

    Thats just one example, and why I don't think wounds as a balancing mechanism works at all outside of friends playing that can self regulate. In the arena of public events, it fails pretty hard because power gamers gunna power game and the wound mechanism is easy to break.

    It would be nice if GW had included a real balancing mechanism but they did not. The community won't ever agree on a single comp packet, and thats to be expected. Many wargamers like to write their own stuff, and accepting someone else's unofficial work is a hard sell.

    Without an "official" balancing mechanism that actually somewhat works, this will continue, and more people will continue to write their own comp packets and try to sell them to the community to use (by sell I don't mean for profit I mean to get others to use). Thats normal and natural in this hobby.

    It has been a thing for many many years, the difference today is that before you could kind of play RAW (I never did because the system has always had glaring issues that certain types could run a train through) and today its very difficult to do so outside of close knit groups that regulate their own members.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •