Balancing AoS, hidden in plain sight?

[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. 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).