Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> AoS thoughts
tensions
post Jul 24 2015, 08:43 AM
Post #1


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,836
Joined: 3-July 08
Member No.: 5,714



I don't really want to post anything on the main forum because I think I won't get much constructive comments there.

I have played many games of AoS now and here are some of my new findings and I suspect we have jumped ahead too far in term of comp.

Findings:

1. When the game first came out, everyone tried to take 2 equal and balance armies to play AOS, but if you actually play the game completely as per the 4 page rules. The two armies should NEVER be equal and balance.

When the first player finished setting up, the second player can continue to set up units, so if the game is played as per the rule, the army that finished setup last should always have roughly 33.2% more models than the first player.

therefore in theory, the second army should always be stronger than the first army.

2. if one army is always better than the other, then how to you have a balance game? one might ask.

I think GW TRIED to solved this problem with 2 rules.

Firstly, the first player gets to choose to go first or second. This is massively important. in fact I think one of the most important rule in the game. If you opponent has a shooty army, you either have all your units out of shooting range and give your opponent first turn or if you have a fast combat army and you can rush across the table.

Secondly, random game turn.
At first, I REALLY dislike this mechanic, it is the one rule that makes me wanna give up AOS. However after many test games, I found it more and more interesting.

in theory, the player who goes first is the one who suffers the most from the random game turn because there is a chance that the second player can get a double turn in round 2, and since the player who has the smaller army can always choose to go first or second, so this rule always benefits the smaller (weaker) army.

on many occasions when we tried to play with 2 equal balance forces, the player that goes first or get double turns in round 2 wins the game very quickly. it was very depressing if you are on the receiving end of this.

however, if the 2 armies are unbalanced in term of model count, random game turns and going first make much less impact to the game in my opinion.

In conclusion, I think AOS is designed to play with 2 unequal armies, and I think the game mechanic supports that, I think ppl should step back and just play the rule as it is, some of the strange rules actually make more sense if you play the game as written.

in term of competitive play when 2 armies are equal and balance, first turn should be decided on a dice roll, the player that finishes set up first gets +1. (he has less warscrolls)
random game turn should be removed if 2 armies are equal and balance.

all victory condition should be scenario base, the TO should creates creative scenarios which forces player to think how they play the game instead of building the most optimal killing machine list.
e.g. objective holding, killing general, holding zones etc.

This post has been edited by tensions: Jul 24 2015, 11:00 AM


--------------------
train like a barbrother.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fued
post Jul 24 2015, 08:59 AM
Post #2


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 23-December 11
From: sydney, south west
Member No.: 12,343



An army without shooting wont be balanced by random turns
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tensions
post Jul 24 2015, 09:03 AM
Post #3


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,836
Joined: 3-July 08
Member No.: 5,714



QUOTE
An army without shooting wont be balanced by random turns


if you get double turn:
you get to move and run then move and charge again.

a flyer can fly 16' then fly 16' and then charge.

how does a combat army not benefited when a unit can move 32' and charge whatever you want?

if you are worry about your opponent getting double turns:

either:
1. take less models and choose to go second, stay out of shooting range turn 1, on average 25-28' away
your opponent can't shoot much turn 1, run forward on your turn 1.

in round 2, random game turn, if you opponent goes first, that's fine. he supposes to go first anyway.
if you win roll off, then it benefits you because you get to move and possibly charge in round 2 without getting shot at at all.


or 2.

take 33.2% more models, run forward turn one, you have 33.2% more models to cancel out the damage a shooty army could do with double turns.

This post has been edited by tensions: Jul 24 2015, 09:13 AM


--------------------
train like a barbrother.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fued
post Jul 24 2015, 09:37 AM
Post #4


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 23-December 11
From: sydney, south west
Member No.: 12,343



so 50% of games, if you go 2nd, you can charge just your fliers into the opponent? even if that was possible it sounds like a terrible plan, as they will get swarmed while you wait for the rest to catch up.

It is not a balancing method for all the armies, if there was only 4 armies, and they had similar units it would be fine, but the game isnt designed that way
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
moz
post Jul 24 2015, 10:12 AM
Post #5


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 262
Joined: 6-February 15
From: Sydney
Member No.: 16,347



Bring back WHFB.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ecumenical matter
post Jul 24 2015, 10:17 AM
Post #6


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 30-January 12
Member No.: 12,522





QUOTE(fued @ Jul 24 2015, 09:37 AM) *

so 50% of games, if you go 2nd, you can charge just your fliers into the opponent? even if that was possible it sounds like a terrible plan, as they will get swarmed while you wait for the rest to catch up.


The interesting thing about AoS is that flyers cant really get swarmed. You charge in, fight a round (or possibly two) of combat, then you retreat with a run move ~15-20" away.


--------------------
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tensions
post Jul 24 2015, 10:50 AM
Post #7


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,836
Joined: 3-July 08
Member No.: 5,714



Random turn gives no disadvantage to player that go second.

I like this mechanic if play as per rule.

I would strongly encourage those who had bad experience with double turns to give the full rule a go.
The game works way better and MUCH more fun.

I am talking from my experience and not bullcrap theory talk

Feel free to "try" to balance 2 armies and complain about double turns if you prefer.

This post has been edited by tensions: Jul 24 2015, 11:27 AM


--------------------
train like a barbrother.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mr_Roy
post Jul 24 2015, 11:30 AM
Post #8


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,613
Joined: 7-September 08
Member No.: 6,033



QUOTE(tensions @ Jul 24 2015, 10:50 AM) *

Random turn gives no disadvantage to player that go second.

I like this mechanic if play as per rule.

I would strongly encourage those who had bad experience with double turns to give the full rule a go.
The game works way better and MUCH more fun.

I am talking from my experience and not bullcrap theory talk, and I don't care if you disagree.

Feel free to "try" to balance 2 armies and complain about double turns if you prefer.


I like the mechanic as well and am very against changing it.


--------------------
[AoS] Age of Kislev: bringing Kislev back from the dead

Waaagh! of the Dead - my undead orcs and goblins army

QUOTE(Demetrius @ Feb 24 2015, 03:02 PM) *

I'm struggling to understand the relevance of WA mining profits to a discussion about the masters for a toy soldiers game, but thanks for your input.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
fued
post Jul 24 2015, 11:40 AM
Post #9


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 824
Joined: 23-December 11
From: sydney, south west
Member No.: 12,343



oh yeah i like the mechanic, and AoS...

i just dont think it balances the game tongue.gif


i have been using some of the 'point systems' others have made to come up with roughly balanced armies, then modifying it based upon both players opinions

e.g. You have 5 cannons? thats b.s. im taking more units! hahha
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Maximus3
post Jul 24 2015, 12:38 PM
Post #10


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 28-December 10
Member No.: 10,541



QUOTE(tensions @ Jul 24 2015, 08:43 AM) *

in term of competitive play when 2 armies are equal and balance, first turn should be decided on a dice roll, the player that finishes set up first gets +1. (he has less warscrolls)
random game turn should be removed if 2 armies are equal and balance.



I am not a fan of unbalanced armies and random turns.

If you take out one then you need to take out both and roll off for first turn


--------------------
All aboard the Spidah Ridah Express!

#wollongronks4life

Herminard "Swedish girls are a burden brought to us by mighty Loke himself, to force us from the toys and into the foul realm of moving awkwardly to pop music"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tensions
post Jul 24 2015, 01:02 PM
Post #11


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,836
Joined: 3-July 08
Member No.: 5,714



QUOTE(Maximus3 @ Jul 24 2015, 02:38 PM) *

I am not a fan of unbalanced armies and random turns.

If you take out one then you need to take out both and roll off for first turn


Yup, that's my thought


Unbalance army = one player chooses first turn, random turns

Balance army = roll off for first, fixed turns.

Can't play one without the other, that's my opinion.

This post has been edited by tensions: Jul 24 2015, 01:58 PM


--------------------
train like a barbrother.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mitou
post Jul 24 2015, 04:41 PM
Post #12


Member
*

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 9-June 15
Member No.: 16,647



Anyway the community will create new rules.. This is a big bull###### from GW, but probably those 4 pages rule just a frame for our own rule.
In Europe they already made few interesting Warhammer rules, v8.2 or AoS 2.0, we are just very slow in Australia 😂
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tensions
post Jul 26 2015, 11:15 PM
Post #13


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,836
Joined: 3-July 08
Member No.: 5,714



Just came back from Canberra, and had a 1 day AOS tourney there. Overall, I just want to get a "feel" of AOS on competitive level. I didn't take anything super hardcore, I took a list that I thought would be nice, balance and competitive.

The restrictions were fairly light:

AoS 3 rounds 100 wounds.
- Army lists from 1 faction (ie High Elves)
- no named characters
- summoning only to starting wounds
- any of the 'fluff' rules go off on a 4+
- no sudden death (thanks for jogging the memory Rowan)
- Up to 25 wounds of the army can contain the following key words: Hero, Wizard or Preist
- Up to 25 Wounds of the army can contain the following key words: War Machine, Monster

Overall, I quite like the comp pack, there are a few changes I'd make:

Firstly, if the game is capped using number of wounds, victory condition should also change to % of wound lost, instead of models. clearly army with lots of multiple wounds models will benefit from % of models lost victory condition.


Secondly, AoS is not designed for fixed list, fixed list leads to rock/paper/scissor game. Sometimes game result is predetermined before the game starts as long as you have the right models at the right match up. I would suggest a wound pool where player can choose models from the pool to play each game.


Thirdly, victory condition should be scenario base. run forward and try to kill each other is not exactly tactical and fun all the time.

Pros with the comp system:

1. I like the combined keyword restrictions, with some careful keywords selection, i think it will work quite well.
2. definitely should have a cap on monster and warmachine, they are the best thing in the game. unrestricted and the game is ruined.
3. no special characters, just like 8th, they are crutches for poor play. most of them are overpowered and not fun to play against, and most players don't take sh$t one.

Here is my list

Anointed on Frostheart Phoenix
High elf prince on steed, phoenix banner
high elf mage on steed
20 phoenix guard, full command
10 reavers, champ
20 sisters of averlorn
white lion chariot
bolt thrower
bolt thrower

I think the list is fairly strong. Initially I had 3 bolt throwers, but then I toned it down to 2 and included a lion chariot instead. (which was a big disappointment) I still think warmachine are just way too powerful, maybe should tone it down to 1 RBT.

G1, I played against a similar High elves list, prince on steed, 2 loremasters, 21 phoenix guards, 10 sisters, 10 swordmasters, 7 dragon princes, 2 bolt throwers, flame phoenix.

it was a close game and it was a phoenix guards stand off, I managed to kill more stuff for a minor win.


G2, I played against Dark elves, dreadlord, sorc, 10 black guards, 10 black guards, 10 executioners, 10 dark riders, 5 warlocks, hydra, Kharibdyss.

jammed him up with phoenix, counter charge and shot off everything. tabled him for a major win.


G3. I played a warrior list with 38 wounds worth of monster/warmachine (didn't notice until i was on my way home) 2 x sorcerer lord on manitcore, 2 x hell cannons, 20 warriors, 10 hounds, spawn.

I chose battle for the pass deployment and put everything at the back edge. he shot off my RBTs, sisters and reavers. I didn't even bother to move. F$%k hellcannons

a minor lost.



Aftermath thought.

I came second,

Did I have fun? well yes... I was excited, because it was my first AoS tourney. But looking back, I think 2 out of 3 games, the results were already determined by our lists.

There were tactic in our games and fun time but the end results were inevitable, which is where I think is the downfall of AOS competitive tourney play. If the result of the game is not determined by the skill of a player but the composition of the list and match ups then there is no reason to play this competitively.

There are 3 main issues that need to be addressed:

1. warmachines. The range is massive, no disadvantage. roll dice and take stuff off.
2. monsters. immune to battleshock. no reasons to spend wounds/model counts on infantry when you can take monsters.
3. elite models. no advantages to take weaker models since elites are so much better.


In order for AOS to survive, I think:

1. it must have a structure for balance list building, can be points system, hard restrictions, something to tone down the overpowered bull crap.

2. it must have a victory condition which is determined by the skill of a player and not the composition of the lists, the victory condition in the 4 pages is bullsH@t for tourney play. Can be scenario base or a 20-0 system.

AoS is "unplayable" in tourney without these.

This post has been edited by tensions: Aug 1 2015, 09:26 AM


--------------------
train like a barbrother.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
akorndr2
post Jul 27 2015, 05:25 AM
Post #14


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 153
Joined: 8-May 12
Member No.: 12,965



QUOTE(tensions @ Jul 26 2015, 11:15 PM) *

Just came back from Canberra, and had a 1 day AOS tourney there. Overall, I just want to get a "feel" of AOS on competitive level. I didn't take anything super hardcore, I took a list that I thought would be nice, balance and competitive.

The restrictions were fairly light:

AoS 3 rounds 100 wounds.
- Army lists from 1 faction (ie High Elves)
- no named characters
- summoning only to starting wounds
- any of the 'fluff' rules go off on a 4+
- no sudden death (thanks for jogging the memory Rowan)
- Up to 25 wounds of the army can contain the following key words: Hero, Wizard or Preist
- Up to 25 Wounds of the army can contain the following key words: War Machine, Monster

Overall, I quite like the comp pack, there are a few changes I'd make:

Firstly, if the game is capped using number of wounds, victory condition should also change to % of wound lost, instead of models. clearly army with lots of multiple wounds models will benefit from % of models lost victory condition.
Secondly, AoS is not designed for fixed list, fixed list leads to rock/paper/scissor game. Sometimes game result is predetermined before the game starts as long as you have the right models at the right match up. I would suggest a wound pool where player can choose models from the pool to play each game.
Thirdly, victory condition should be scenario base. run forward and try to kill each other is not exactly tactical and fun all the time.

Pros with the comp system:

1. I like the combined keyword restrictions, with some careful keywords selection, i think it will work quite well.
2. definitely should have a cap on monster and warmachine, they are the best thing in the game. unrestricted and the game is ruined.
3. no special characters, just like 8th, they are crutches for poor play. most of them are overpowered and not fun to play against, and most players don't take sh$t one.

Here is my list

Anointed on Frostheart Phoenix
High elf prince on steed, phoenix banner
high elf mage on steed
20 phoenix guard, full command
10 reavers, champ
20 sisters of averlorn
white lion chariot
bolt thrower
bolt thrower

I think the list is fairly strong. Initially I had 3 bolt throwers, but then I toned it down to 2 and included a lion chariot instead. (which was a big disappointment) I still think warmachine are just way too powerful, maybe should tone it down to 1 RBT.

G1, I played against a similar High elves list, prince on steed, 2 loremasters, 21 phoenix guards, 10 sisters, 10 swordmasters, 7 dragon princes, 2 bolt throwers, flame phoenix.

it was a close game and it was a phoenix guards stand off, I managed to kill more stuff for a minor win.
G2, I played against Dark elves, dreadlord, sorc, 10 black guards, 10 black guards, 10 executioners, 10 dark riders, 5 warlocks, hydra, Kharibdyss.

jammed him up with phoenix, counter charge and shot off everything. tabled him for a major win.
G3. I played a illegal warrior list with 38 wounds worth of monster/warmachine (didn't notice until i was on my way home) 2 x sorcerer lord on manitcore, 2 x hell cannons, 20 warriors, 10 hounds, spawn.

I chose battle for the pass deployment and put everything at the back edge. he shot off my RBTs, sisters and reavers. I didn't even bother to move. F$%k hellcannons

a minor lost.
Aftermath thought.

I came second,

Did I have fun? well yes... I was excited, because it was my first AoS tourney. But looking back, I think 2 out of 3 games, the results were already determined by our lists.

There were tactic in our games and fun time but the end results were inevitable, which is where I think is the downfall of AOS competitive tourney play. If the result of the game is not determined by the skill of a player but the composition of the list and match ups then there is no reason to play this competitively.

There are 3 main issues that need to be addressed:

1. warmachines. The range is massive, no disadvantage. roll dice and take stuff off.
2. monsters. immune to battleshock. no reasons to spend wounds/model counts on infantry when you can take monsters.
3. elite models. no advantages to take weaker models since elites are so much better.
In order for AOS to survive, I think:

1. it must have a structure for balance list building, can be points system, hard restrictions, something to tone down the overpowered bull crap.

2. it must have a victory condition which is determined by the skill of a player and not the composition of the lists, the victory condition in the 4 pages is bullsH@t for tourney play. Can be scenario base or a 20-0 system.

AoS is "unplayable" in tourney without these.

Id go soft and allow characters but put limits on like 2 named characters for sake of the old lord and hero slots drop the idea of wound limit and just go warscrolls limited as you guys didnt use sudden death

This post has been edited by akorndr2: Jul 27 2015, 05:28 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Micky
post Jul 27 2015, 11:33 AM
Post #15


What is this now?
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 1,461
Joined: 6-August 12
From: North Brisbane
Member No.: 13,324



Totally agree about having a pool of models to pick from each game. Also agree that some war machines are super powerful (have you seen spear chukkas?) but then others not so much (skull catapults are kinda rubbish).



I wrote up some of my own ideas here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7516635...20part%202a.pdf






--------------------
Infinity: Onyx Force, Bakunin, Merovingienne, Imperial Service
KoW: Night Stalkers, Salamanders

Twitter: @Levialegions
Medium Blog: LegionsAU
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Æon
post Jul 27 2015, 11:42 AM
Post #16


Edition Change Skeptic
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 13,218
Joined: 19-November 04
From: Canberra
Member No.: 222



QUOTE(tensions @ Jul 26 2015, 11:15 PM) *

G3. I played a illegal warrior list with 38 wounds worth of monster/warmachine (didn't notice until i was on my way home) 2 x sorcerer lord on manitcore, 2 x hell cannons, 20 warriors, 10 hounds, spawn.


I queried this yesterday and was told that the manticores were taken out of the hero allotment and not the monsters cap so it was legit.


--------------------

"Hail ĆON - Slayer of the Scrubs"


Full Disclosure - Yes, I really am a scrub :)


WHFB 8.5 Community FaceBook Group

40K Chapter Unapproved FaceBook Group
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mr_Roy
post Jul 27 2015, 01:55 PM
Post #17


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,613
Joined: 7-September 08
Member No.: 6,033



Nice write up Simon.

As much as I like the idea of only lightly comping a new game to let people try new things but you will never see any core infantry.

Hoen's axemaster pack looks like it covers most of the issues.


--------------------
[AoS] Age of Kislev: bringing Kislev back from the dead

Waaagh! of the Dead - my undead orcs and goblins army

QUOTE(Demetrius @ Feb 24 2015, 03:02 PM) *

I'm struggling to understand the relevance of WA mining profits to a discussion about the masters for a toy soldiers game, but thanks for your input.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tensions
post Jul 27 2015, 03:54 PM
Post #18


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,836
Joined: 3-July 08
Member No.: 5,714



QUOTE(ĆON @ Jul 27 2015, 01:42 PM) *

I queried this yesterday and was told that the manticores were taken out of the hero allotment and not the monsters cap so it was legit.



Sorc on manticores have both monster and hero keywords





--------------------
train like a barbrother.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tensions
post Jul 27 2015, 04:01 PM
Post #19


Member
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 2,836
Joined: 3-July 08
Member No.: 5,714



QUOTE(Mr_Roy @ Jul 27 2015, 03:55 PM) *

Nice write up Simon.

As much as I like the idea of only lightly comping a new game to let people try new things but you will never see any core infantry.

Hoen's axemaster pack looks like it covers most of the issues.



Sorry but I have to disagree,
I do not believe that's how ppl want to play AOS from what I have observed.
player pack should not "force" ppl to play the game how you want it but encourage them to make decisions and not go for the best.

think about it this way,

if I use my high elves for the past 40 pick up games without archer or spearmen.
why would I waste my time to paint and rebase 30 to 40 of these models so i get to play in your tourney which probably only happen once a year??

This post has been edited by tensions: Jul 27 2015, 05:21 PM


--------------------
train like a barbrother.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Æon
post Jul 27 2015, 04:05 PM
Post #20


Edition Change Skeptic
*

Group: Veteran Members
Posts: 13,218
Joined: 19-November 04
From: Canberra
Member No.: 222



QUOTE(tensions @ Jul 27 2015, 03:54 PM) *

Sorc on manticores have both monster and hero keywords


Yes, and as I was told yesterday by both Tim and the TO; they counted towards only the Hero allotment of Wounds.


--------------------

"Hail ĆON - Slayer of the Scrubs"


Full Disclosure - Yes, I really am a scrub :)


WHFB 8.5 Community FaceBook Group

40K Chapter Unapproved FaceBook Group
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th July 2019 - 12:24 AM