About points..

[Diobarach]

Ok, figure I'd post this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerFantasy/comments/3cy67r/point_values_for_all_age_of_sigmar_models
as it looks pretty comprehensive, a direct link (in case you have an aversion to reddit)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4wN-6BdRhC5Wm56VXhmSmliRmc/view?pli=1

[Barking Agatha]

A true points system should cover the models offensive capabilities against wounds, bravery, move and save some how.

Warhammer has never had a system like that!

Yeah but this is age of sigmar "add suitable raucous cheers and shield bashing noises here"

If we are looking at ideas for points this route seemed the easiest to fathom as it quantifies the strength of a model/unit for me though a rough approximate wound count will do for initial games while the world accommodates :-)

That's a fair point, and maybe we'll start seeing something like that in the near future, but personally I hope not. You will either end up with some models being more effective than others for their points, or else everything will become same-y. It's one of my gripes with 40K right now that I can barely fit in enough 'necessary' units in my army, let alone play with the 'sub-par' units that I like, while Space Meringues for example can take dozens of big weapons and still have a few hundred points left over to put things in 'just for fun'. If that's 'balance' you can stuff it!

What I would like and expect to see are battle scenarios that go a bit like this: 'The Defender takes up to eight scrolls, including 0-1 war machine scrolls, 1 hero scroll, and 0-1 monster scrolls. No scroll may number more than 30 models. The Attacker takes up to...' etc., with victory conditions built in, rather than just 'let's see who kills more of the other's stuff'.

All you need to do is put down a similar (or better, the same) unit at 132% the number of models so you never reach the magical 33% sudden death scenario.

Sure, you could do that. And I can take my miniatures and go play with someone else, since you're obviously someone who is trying to work the system instead of having a fun game. Nothing forces me to endure your shenanigans unless I want to. There are plenty of people to whom you can say, 'Hey, isn't that a bit much?' and who will say, 'Yeah, maybe you're right, I'll tone it down a bit.' If your opponent is friendly you can talk it out, and if they're hostile... why are you playing with hostile people in the first place?

[Killerk]

All you need to do is put down a similar (or better, the same) unit at 132% the number of models so you never reach the magical 33% sudden death scenario.

Sure, you could do that. And I can take my miniatures and go play with someone else, since you're obviously someone who is trying to work the system instead of having a fun game. Nothing forces me to endure your shenanigans unless I want to. There are plenty of people to whom you can say, 'Hey, isn't that a bit much?' and who will say, 'Yeah, maybe you're right, I'll tone it down a bit.' If your opponent is friendly you can talk it out, and if they're hostile... why are you playing with hostile people in the first place?

Or you both can play a different game, and enjoy it.

As to Aos yatzee is offers same thrill exept it requiers some form of strategy, and you dont need really expensive models.

[Falstaff]

Hi Calisson,

The tournament's comp actually offers a very interesting approach to unit value calculation (i.e. "points").

[Barking Agatha]

Sure, you could do that. And I can take my miniatures and go play with someone else, since you're obviously someone who is trying to work the system instead of having a fun game. Nothing forces me to endure your shenanigans unless I want to. There are plenty of people to whom you can say, 'Hey, isn't that a bit much?' and who will say, 'Yeah, maybe you're right, I'll tone it down a bit.' If your opponent is friendly you can talk it out, and if they're hostile... why are you playing with hostile people in the first place?

Or you both can play a different game, and enjoy it.

As to Aos yatzee is offers same thrill exept it requiers some form of strategy, and you dont need really expensive models.

If you say so. I like a game of Yhatzee every now and then, preferably with more than two people. I also enjoy a game of AoS, of which I've played eleven in one week, which is more than I've played Warhammer in months, and I find that there is much more strategy involved in it than in Yhatzee, but to each their own. You can certainly both play a different game and enjoy it, but I wouldn't play any game with someone who was aggressive and hostile, not even Yhatzee.

[Killerk]

well you need the same level of skill to play both, I mean rolling those dice is sooo challenging. I've almost played 3 games, 1 the first game, then had a second, as we thought we played the first one wrong, and we did so we quit the second one half way, because it was a waist of our lives. Then I tried playing a third with my kids, they also thought it was stupid and boring, so we didn't finis it. while Iv played countless games of yatzee and must say its fun with a few people on board, while AoS is just lame.

So yes if your mind set is about the level of challenge playing assassin creed or diablo, then yes AoS is for you. If you rather something that requires more then point and click, Play a different game. For the defence of assassin and diablo they have a story to tell, Aos not even that.

[Amboadine]

This is taken for Warseer, but the comp pack posted for a tourney on a GW store (and previous mentioned in a couple of threads here) facebook page looks to have been slapped down by GW Head office.

Original comp pack posted by store

1 - 12 Warscrolls
1 - 2 Hero Warscrolls
1 - 2 Monster Warscrolls
No single Warscroll may contain more than X wounds (i.e. 24)
Heroes may not be duplicated
All other Warscrolls may only be duplicated once

Current facebook comments

Quote Originally Posted by Facebook User
What happened to the comp rules etc?

Quote Originally Posted by GW Yonge and Lawrence
The game is a total blast and works fine right out of the box! None of that stuff is needed!

Just give it a go and you'll see for yourself !

Quote Originally Posted by Facebook User 2
I hope you typed that with a strait face lol

I would assume that pretty much settles the question of whether there will be official balancing rules from GW.

[The Mattler]

No single Warscroll may contain more than X wounds (i.e. 24)

Although it's a shame to see a global maximum number of units creep in, the other recommendations aren't so bad, but this one is because damage output and armour saves alter the quality of the model per wound. They should be focussing their efforts on tweaking the Warscrolls with unit size caps if they want a simpler solution. That requires more calculations than went into the unit design, though, and those calculations could be used to differentiate the units by role in the first place instead of having some choices being nigh-strictly better than others.

[Calisson]

I'm understand that the intent of GW is not to pose any limitation.
The intent of players is to find some kind of balance.

I would suggest, then, to agree beforehand on two "information", not limits:

- Inform about the number of warscrolls intended, providing a range bracket where the minimum is half of the maximum.
Something such as "let's play 5-10 scrolls". Playing more than twice the number of scrolls brought by your opponent, or less than half, should require his approval.
If one opponent says he wishes to play 5-10 and the other one 3-6, well, either make it 5-6 or allow opponent to refuse battle.

- Inform about your intention to fight a battle of troops (mostly multi-model scrolls) or a battle of heroes (mainly single-model scrolls).
Just add the number of hero+monster+wizard+war machine you intend to deploy, and see if that makes more than half of the total number of models, when deployment will be completed.
If the total is more than half of the models, that's a hero-heavy army. If it is less, that is a troop-heavy army.

Example: Malekith is a hero, a monster and a wizard, that counts for 3. If he comes along with 5 BG, that makes 6 models. Together, they make a troop-heavy army (there are twice or more as many models as occurrences of words "hero", "wizard" and "monster").

If the troop-heavy or hero-heavy nature of the two competing armies do not match, get prior agreement for both opponents before playing.

[Diobarach]

....

Current facebook comments

Quote Originally Posted by Facebook User
What happened to the comp rules etc?

Quote Originally Posted by GW Yonge and Lawrence
The game is a total blast and works fine right out of the box! None of that stuff is needed!

Just give it a go and you'll see for yourself !

Quote Originally Posted by Facebook User 2
I hope you typed that with a strait face lol

I would assume that pretty much settles the question of whether there will be official balancing rules from GW.

Oh well, that would seem to be a rather damning nail in the coffin on that matter.

[Barking Agatha]

So yes if your mind set is about the level of challenge playing assassin creed or diablo, then yes AoS is for you.

Why, that sounds very nearly insulting, Mr. Killerk. I play and have played a *lot* of miniatures games over the years, including but not limited to:

Warhammer 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th edition
Warhammer 40,000, Rogue Trader, 2nd ed, 3rd ed, 5th ed, 6th ed, and 7th edition (I skipped 4th)
Warmaster and Warmaster Ancients
Necromunda
Mordheim
Gorkamorka
Man-o-war
Battlefleet Gothic
Epic 40,000
Blood Bowl
Warzone
Chronopia
Chainmail
Malifaux
Confrontation
Warmachine / Hordes
Infinity
Aetherverse
Fire and Fury
De Bellis Antiquitaties
Hail Caesar
Black Powder
Bolt Action
Wargames Foundry's Mediaeval Warfare
... and many others I've forgotten

As for board games, I can't even start to list everything I've ever played. Off the top of my head: Talisman, Village, Terra Mystica, Catan, Carcassone, Mansions of Madness, Escape: the Curse of the Temple, Tsuro, Risk, Puerto Rico, Cosmic Encounter, Kingmaker, Chaos in the Old World, Pandemic, Zombicide, Axis & Allies, Formula De, Agricola, Aladdin's Dragons, Robo-Rally, the good old mainstays like Monopoly and Cluedo, obviously, and so many, many others I've forgotten more than half of them.

Ironically, I have never played Assassin's Creed or Diablo. I'm not very into video games, as I'm terrible with the controls.

So you may disagree with me, and that's fine of course -- everyone's entitled to their own opinion -- but kindly do not imply that my 'mind-set' is inferior to yours or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I have a much wider range of experience with tabletop games than most people, and I daresay that includes you.

[Killerk]

Ironically, I have never played Assassin's Creed or Diablo. I'm not very into video games, as I'm terrible with the controls.

Well in those games you just point and click, that's about it. Much like in AoS, push an unit forward and roll 4+. they are all pay to win type games, except with AoS you have to pay more then your opponent, to have a bigger rang so you can win.

yes I have been in the hobby for something like 20 years.

[Barking Agatha]

Ironically, I have never played Assassin's Creed or Diablo. I'm not very into video games, as I'm terrible with the controls.

Well in those games you just point and click, that's about it. Much like in AoS, push an unit forward and roll 4+. they are all pay to win type games, except with AoS you have to pay more then your opponent, to have a bigger rang so you can win.

yes I have been in the hobby for something like 20 years.

And I disagree with you about AoS, but I'll respect your 20 years, if you respect mine.

[Killerk]

Then maybe I'll put it in another light. If I want to play a game, I play and try to win the game.
When playing I also try to have fun, even if things are going bad.
If my opponent screws up, I will tell him about it, some times I will ask if he is certain he wants to do this or that, because of...
Never the less if I catch you on a major mistake I will take off all you toys with out remorse. If dice screw you over and over, and you loose because of this, I will not have a good time.


Now the deployment rules set the game. Since I have a huge collection om models, ( can easily play 50k battles by my self). So I will be able to out deploy my opponent. Unless I don't take all my models with me (pure stupidity).
Either by fielding 2-3 models what will give me an almost auto win, or I will just field so much shooting, I can shoot off my opponents army before he gets a chance to move. its easy to count I hit and wound on the same dice roll its not hard to count how much damage my 100 archers are going to do first turn, and since I can shoot anything in range, well.
The only way to win is if my opponent gets a lucky cannon shot to kill my hero, and even if he does so the game is over with out playing. Again a no game.
Unless my opponent and me take extra caution and we negotiate what we bring and how we play the game is impossible to have fun if you play some one else.

This all is because of stupid deployment rules, stupid shooting rules.
Love cannons that shoot and hit heroes behind a building or obelisk, just pure awesome, or shooting a unit that has engaged you in combat, and then fight them in that combat - priceless.

Take all that, and consider the fact that you hit and would every thing the same, it just matters who rolls more dice. And last thing, if fielding a super elite units is the same as fielding slaves, what is the point of fielding something that is not "the best".

You have games where one side field a hero and 2 canons and the other a small units and a hero. Again no game.

And there are a few good things about AoS
like monster loose attacks when taking wounds, or war machines.
But the rest the idea is correct, just the way they executed it is just plain STUPID. GW never could write rules, but it feels like a moron sat down to write these.

The only way to play this in a more or less fun environment is to take your 8ed armies, and fight another 8 ed army. Which is totally pointless, as you can just play 8th.

[Barking Agatha]

( can easily play 50k battles by my self)

Sounds like you'd have to, with that attitude.

Killerk, I've tried to be subtle, but it just seems to go over your head. You don't like Age of Sigmar. You've said. We get it. I swear to you that we all understood you the first time. Message received and processed, okay?

Now please understand this: There are many of us who have read the rules for Age of Sigmar, have played the game several times, and still like it or at least remain interested. We are not stupid, we are not inexperienced kiddies, we are not your inferiors, and yet we still disagree with you. Shocking, I know. You are not going to show us the error of our ways. So, may those of us who are still intrigued by Age of Sigmar and want to play it have a reasonable discussion without you bringing it back over and over to how 'lame' or 'stupid' you think it is? Please?

There is a whole thread for pointless bitching and moaning, and I know that you know this, because you've been doing your share of pointless bitching and moaning in it, so I'm asking you nicely to please confine your pointless bitching and moaning to that thread, and join the adult discussions when you have actual ideas to contribute, and not 'AoS is stupid!' 'No it's not!' 'AoS is lame!' 'Your mum is fat!'. We've been over that already and we're done.

I promise I don't mean to be rude, but you've already come this close to calling me stupid (or rather, my 'mind set'), and subtle hints don't seem to be doing it.

[Elrithral]

I'm as fed up reading the snarky comments from those desperate to tell me that AoS is fantastic and super skilful as I am those desperate to tell me how bad it is compared to 8th.

There are some of us who are firmly in the middle and would like to discuss the issues with AoS because we want it to be good AND at this moment in time don't think it's terrible.

I'm happy to give it a chance. However, i'm a tournament player who doesn't have a local gaming club and I enjoy meeting up with the other players, having a laugh, getting drunk and playing some Warhammer. I don't see how that's possible with comp or AoS being FAQ'd to death. What's wrong with me being concerned about that? How does that constitute pointless bitching and moaning? Similarly, how does just going on about how bad it is actually improve the situation?

[Sangfroid]

Then let us take this threads conversation back to the OP original question "about points" I do have a gaming club (we meet on Mondays in Cheltenham your all welcome to come have a game just find us on the web Cheltenham war chiefs and make contact) anyway about points.

So far the club guys have been using either warscrolls or wounds as a tally system pre agreed to give the semblance of the structure so many of us crave. It's not ideal but it has got us doing what frankly I think everyone loves and that's making a list!

The games overal have all been quite close and have gone the distance before a winner can clearly be seen. 75 wounds - 100 wounds feels about right for a 2-3 hour game and most have self regulated to around 25% of Army in heros. Also everyone has been sensible with war machines (omg one guy took two RBT last night!!! ;-) )

Measuring from bases is unanimously agreed as better and about half of peeps agree a no shooting into combat rule (or out of) but the ones that don't have t noticed a real advantage either way. Part of this I stress is because peeps are club mate and so not WAAC but I will also stress others are excited at being able to field a manticore or dragon Lord (err that's me) or a warshrine or something else that just gathered dust in 8th because it was not optimum. (Most of the WHFB go tourneys so it's a competitive atmosphere but not WAAC)

We have also back fitted the armies to old 8th points values and also the W+A x B model from Steve at miniwargaming.com interestingly a stormcast/empire list smashed a dark elf list last night that using the latter points calc was 950 (St/e) 1450 (druchii) but by smashed they both hammered each other, malekith is just amazing and so was the amber wizard on a griffon.

So for now points is difficult to quantify but a simple wounds tally or xheros xunits xmonsters/warmachine tally is reasonably balanced.... Enough for fun at least
Lastly a warscroll we define as min unit so 1 BG = 5 models 1 Corsiars = 10 models the balance isn't too far off per scroll like this but common sense is needed with morghasts and swarms etc...

[Elrithral]

I've raised two issues previously about wounds and that formula;

a) If it's just wounds then some units are redundant, which seems a real shame because I put an awful lot of time into painting my Skavenslaves and now i'll exclusively take Stormvermin.

b) The undead are absolutely hammered by bravery 10. A Skeleton Warrior is 20pts, a Stormvermin 15pts.

I think the major issue is how the tournament scene moves forward with this. Agreeing house rules with mates and not being overly cheesey with mates is fine, but there doesn't seem to be a way to comp for a tournament that doesn't involve going through each and every warscroll and FAQing everything.

I understand that some people might not be bothered about tournaments, but I live in Northern Ireland and we get a lot of guys from the Republic coming up for tournaments and it's always great fun. It seems a shame to lose that sort of aspect of Warhammer.

[Barking Agatha]

I'm happy to give it a chance. However, i'm a tournament player who doesn't have a local gaming club and I enjoy meeting up with the other players, having a laugh, getting drunk and playing some Warhammer. I don't see how that's possible with comp or AoS being FAQ'd to death. What's wrong with me being concerned about that?

Absolutely nothing. I suggest that, with Age of Sigmar being open-ended, it will be up to the tournament organisers to set limits on participating armies, but only for that particular tournament. You can set limits on wounds, you can set limits on unit types, total number of scrolls, number of models and/or wounds per scroll... it will really be up to them. That may be annoying, because your army for one tournament won't be valid for the next one, but being flexible isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I'm not accusing everyone of bitching and moaning, just the ones who b*tch and moan and call me stupid.

I've raised two issues previously about wounds and that formula;

a) If it's just wounds then some units are redundant, which seems a real shame because I put an awful lot of time into painting my Skavenslaves and now i'll exclusively take Stormvermin.

b) The undead are absolutely hammered by bravery 10. A Skeleton Warrior is 20pts, a Stormvermin 15pts.

That's an excellent point. Also, the one that limits war scrolls to 24 wounds makes a lot of unit rules irrelevant that reward you for having 30 models or more. But there just aren't going to be any universally agreed-upon limits any more - every tournament and every group is going to have to come up with their own. So if your local tournament organisers end up using a system that you feel isn't right, maybe have a word with them? Well in advance, of course, not on the day of the tournament.

That being said, you must be joking about skellingtons. With a standard bearer (and why wouldn't you have one) they recover D6 models every turn. With 20 models they get two attacks, three with 30. And with any hero within a whopping 18" they hit on 3's. Bravery 10 means that they almost never run away (or crumble, as it were). Not to mention that you can raise them up with appalling ease. Not that Stormvermin aren't good, but I think you're dismissing skellingtons too lightly.

[Elrithral]

That's an excellent point. Also, the one that limits war scrolls to 24 wounds makes a lot of unit rules irrelevant that reward you for having 30 models or more. But there just aren't going to be any universally agreed-upon limits any more - every tournament and every group is going to have to come up with their own. So if your local tournament organisers end up using a system that you feel isn't right, maybe have a word with them? Well in advance, of course, not on the day of the tournament.

That being said, you must be joking about skellingtons. With a standard bearer (and why wouldn't you have one) they recover D6 models every turn. With 20 models they get two attacks, three with 30. And with any hero within a whopping 18" they hit on 3's. Bravery 10 means that they almost never run away (or crumble, as it were). Not to mention that you can raise them up with appalling ease. Not that Stormvermin aren't good, but I think you're dismissing skellingtons too lightly.

Oh no, i'm not discounting them. The point you make actually raises even more questions about comp. Are Skellies 20pts each if you take 10 and 40pts ((1 + 3) * 10) each if you take 30? At which point that unit of 30 is 1200pts!!!! Which highlights an even bigger issue for tournament organisers because not only will they haver to comp each unit themselves, but they'll potentially have to comp units multiple times based on the buffs they get and even then some buffs aren't as straight forward as an extra attack e.g. hitting on 3s instead of 4s is potentially better than having an extra attack, but doesn't affect the formula.

My issue isn't how it's comped, per se, more that I don't see other people playing tournaments if it's comped and if there isn't agreeable comp then tournaments are dead.

[Barking Agatha]

Oh no, i'm not discounting them. The point you make actually raises even more questions about comp. Are Skellies 20pts each if you take 10 and 40pts ((1 + 3) * 10) each if you take 30? At which point that unit of 30 is 1200pts!!!! Which highlights an even bigger issue for tournament organisers because not only will they haver to comp each unit themselves, but they'll potentially have to comp units multiple times based on the buffs they get and even then some buffs aren't as straight forward as an extra attack e.g. hitting on 3s instead of 4s is potentially better than having an extra attack, but doesn't affect the formula.

And that's exactly the problem that GW rules writers have always faced when determining how many points units were worth, which is why their points values have always ended up being meaningless.

My first thought is, wow, I'm glad I'm not a tournament organiser! But if I were, I wouldn't bother with formulas that calculated points. Even GW hasn't bothered with formulas in decades. Instead I'd go with something like this:

Your army may contain no more than 12 War Scrolls, and must adhere to the following limitations:
0-1 Monsters
0-2 War Machines
0-3 Heroes
No single war scroll may count more than 30 wounds

Then I would discuss it with my local community and tweak it up or down.

EDIT: Also, it's a bit off-topic, but for tournaments, how do you win? If it's by wiping out your opponent, it will take months. If you count slain models after a time limit, it's unfair to a non-shooting army that just got into melee. I think that tournament organisers will have to choose or invent their tournament scenarios and victory conditions as well.

[Calisson]

I'm as fed up reading the snarky comments from those desperate to tell me that AoS is fantastic and super skilful as I am those desperate to tell me how bad it is compared to 8th.

There are some of us who are firmly in the middle and would like to discuss the issues with AoS because we want it to be good AND at this moment in time don't think it's terrible.

For the convenience of people who want to have a genuine discussion about how to play AoS, and not about its merits, I spent some time to make two threads, copy/pasting posts I found relevant.
You can find them stickied on top of the AoS forum.
AOS game discussions: strategies, tactics...
AOS rules discussion: questions, suggestions...
Feel free to reply there or to reply to the original thread from which these post originate.
If these threads become too large and clumsy, they can be splitted later.

I'm a tournament player who doesn't have a local gaming club and I enjoy meeting up with the other players, having a laugh, getting drunk and playing some Warhammer. I don't see how that's possible with comp or AoS being FAQ'd to death. What's wrong with me being concerned about that? How does that constitute pointless bitching and moaning? Similarly, how does just going on about how bad it is actually improve the situation?

GW has explained that AoS rules as we have are "beer & bretzels" rules. That's what GW said to have wanted WH to be in the last couple of years. That's what AoS enthusiasts seem to find in the game.
GW promised to deliver tournament rules in the course of summer. All discussions about tournies using only the basic rules miss a point: there will be additional GW rules for tournaments, later. Until it is released, I can understand the frustration of tourney gamers, but they need to be patient.

[Killerk]

Thx Calisson for keeping and eye on us . .

[Icon hack]

Calisson, thanks for the work splitting discussions off into separate threads as the focus begins to diverge. Good idea.

Regarding the general discussion on points, I agree that it's important to keep in mind that, while we might put forth some interesting ideas that make a lot of sense in general situations, we are not likely to find some magic formula that works across the board. But the points system from WH was never that great at delivering balance anyway, and as we worked our way through each edition, each new army release got progressively better which got old with me.

In my personal opinion, losing the points and deployment restrictions with the introduction of AoS does nothing to lessen my enjoyment of the game, but that's me - I play for enjoyment with friends and not in a hyper-competitive tournament situation with people I've never met before. I can empathize with people who only have the opportunity to play in such situations, since a system without points and composition rules must be very frustrating to adjust to.

We have been discussing simple guidelines in our group and I'm finding some of these ideas very insightful. Our formula was based on total Wnds x Bravery + Movement with some additional points for special abilities. Simple (and thus flawed), but something that at least gets us close to the same strength so that our games are more or less close to being evenly matched.

And lastly, <puts moderator hat on> I also agree that these side discussions aren't the place to vent any general grievances over the new game. Please, express disagreements all you want about the topic on hand, but try not to derail discussions about AoS with general venting. As mentioned, there is another thread for that. <takes moderator hat off>

[Elrithral]

EDIT: Also, it's a bit off-topic, but for tournaments, how do you win? If it's by wiping out your opponent, it will take months. If you count slain models after a time limit, it's unfair to a non-shooting army that just got into melee. I think that tournament organisers will have to choose or invent their tournament scenarios and victory conditions as well.

That's an irritatingly good point. I have no idea how they might work round that.