I am still confused as to why an Age of Sigmar thread is in the Armada forum.

to suggest that Armada could benefit from having points imbalanced games mediated by "sudden death' victory objectives

which, imo, is not a good idea at all because what we have right now is strictly better i.t.o how much player-involvement actually affects the game

but feel free to try new things in casual games, where anything goes so long as you and your opponent agree

Yeees, that's true, and... something like 6 varieties of 'sudden death' conditions which I'm okay with. Do we agree that instant death isn't the way to go in Armada? Then change it: make it worth X amount of Victory Points, adapt. I don't want a sudden death feature myself (although 'kill your enemy's team flagship good and proper' in a 600-900 point multiplayer team battle would be pretty neat). Or at least, I don't want them all the time, naturally, but it can work as a scenario or secondary objective bit. Ugh... I'm going to have to go back and look through that 4 pages of self-induced nightmare fuel, aren't I?

But I'm more talking about the actual scenario things that came in the main rulebook/setting compendium, or the warscrolls for terrain. Wasn't there something like 6-10 separate 'missions' involved in that one? I'm fine listening to pro-AoS people give me some ideas, because they might have more experience and excitement generated from the system they're using: you know, bridging the gap between fellow wargamers rather than just saying, “This is my side of the line, we dun don't need none of y'alls influence in any way, shape, 'r form 'round 'ere!”

If they're playing with that self-admitted bizarro system, then they might see something I'm not, and have ideas that I don't have. That way, I don't have to hear about AoS vs. 8E, but I might get some ideas to roll into something new.

Ummmm. . . Question. . . How does one balance a game where one side has a landslide of points? Isn't the point of having more forces to be unbalanced?

This could just be my outlook on what history shows us bit I am pretty sure the one with the bigger stick (read:army) is the winner. . .

warscrolls for terrain sounds interesting (if a bit similar to how obstacles are handled in armada, it at least has room to grow) though I have no idea how one is supposed to regulate that unless you're only allowed X warscrolls per map

Ummmm. . . Question. . . How does one balance a game where one side has a landslide of points? Isn't the point of having more forces to be unbalanced?

This could just be my outlook on what history shows us bit I am pretty sure the one with the bigger stick (read:army) is the winner. . .

not so much the bigger army, but the bigger army and the bigger/more intact economy. Size and staying power

the US mightnot have won any of the wars between WW1 to the Cold War without that later bit, most of it seemingly due to not getting involved in either world war until after a bunch of other countries had been bearing the bloody brunt (which, if one ever wants to get into a war, is probably the ideal way to do it)

well there was that one we lost in Vietnam. We ****** up royally there from the very premise Napalm, Agent Orange, and an almost laughable misunderstanding of the country + its relationship with the communist powers (not to mention the communist powers' relationship to each other), turns out, do not win hearts and minds.

well, that's just talking about the war. If we're talking about the skirmish, I can only really think of things like the Spartans versus the Persians.

Well, there was also the unfortunate coming to terms with the invention of the machine gun on the onset of WW1. Turns out, doesn't really matter how many guys (on foot or on horseback) charge the enemy entrenchment when those things spit out thousands of rounds per minute.

Oh, and there was the initial stage of Operation Barbarossa. The Red Army was by far the largest and most heavily equipped army at the time, but after Stalin was done purging the ranks of basically every commanding officer with a half a spine, **** thing folded like wet tissue until it got its **** together.

On the flip side, there are also accounts of these heroic Russian last stands such as a KV-2 heavy tank holding up an entire German Panzer division by blocking off a bridgehead and essentially shrugging off anything they could shoot it with. (battle of Raseinani)

Change the conditions of the engagement, add certain features to the field, institute a number of micro objectives that add up for X amount of points where the defender/attacker has an advantage? I mean, historical wargamers have been doing this for decades, and when we talk about scenarios, we can play a little more loose than pick up games and tournaments. Has anyone played the PC game Waterloo? Or Sid Meiers Gettysburg?

I like rules for basic games, because (and no offense to anyone out there) but I don't trust my fellow gamer to not take advantage of the situation. I play with too many power-gaming RPG players to have good will t'wards all mankind. But we can design scenarios or add rules/trials, to find something fun and different for the occasional game too.

Post Scriptum: I have no idea how they organize warscrolls, I thought it was something like that but I've got no concrete idea. But what's what we can discuss here... in the context of Armada, and replacing existing obstacles.

For the first part, I think maybe some of you need to dial back the rancor a bit when dismissing someone elses ideas. If you feel strongly about it, great, but there's no need to be a jerk about it. Also: None of us have the complete picture about what happened regarding AoS and why, pretending you've somehow figure it out? That's pretty arrogant.

But I don't feel a pointsless system is entirely without merit, although if I were designing a miniatures game around that idea I'd want to muck with it a lot myself. I'd probably do something similar to GW's old Epic system without points, which would necessitate a larger battlefield than is standard for Armada. Something like buying cards that represent formations or flottilas. So one "Warscroll" might be two AF2's, where another might be three CR90 Bs. Extrapolating further I'd have upgrade cards come as a kind of 'package deal' like a card that applies Enhanced Armament to all ships in the "Warscroll" or something similar.

Would that work for Armada AS IS? Probably not honestly. They've built a very solid system in place already, and I feel like tinkering with it at this point would be sheer madness (also Sparta). That could just be me though, since I'm unsure of how the game will change once it jumps to 400 point standard so...there you go. A "Warscrolls" based system I think appeals to newcomers and people who play super casually, giving them a chance to get into a scene that can otherwise be very exclusionary and have a brutal entering price point.

Although as a note: I'm super happy with how friendly people usually are on this forum. As a video gamer as well I'd taken to avoiding all forums relating to games I play, and this has proved to be a happy exception.

Warscrolls with built-in number limitations are a perfectly legitimate way of balancing a wargame in lieu of points

you do miss out a bit on customization, unless you restrict upgrades to their own warscrolls, but ideally you'd have variety through greater number of unit options rather than individual upgrades

when you have model-intensive games, it's a bit of a pain in the ass to have to go micro-managing customizable units of grunts and then tallying up point totals. More efficient, imo, to have standard loadouts for different units and then restricting customization to a.) army composition and b.) select few, but very influential characters such as generals, standard bearers, and spell casters.

pretty sure it's why Armada doesn't have any upgrades for squadrons outside of named pilots, and instead puts all squadron support on the capital ships in the forms of upgrades (hangars, flight controllers, yavaris etc.)

AoS is just a Bad Bad business move. It gave the Old WHFB players the middle finger while it put out the most lazy set of rules I have seen.

Also our LGS's are sitting with piles and piles of the AoS starts and they can't get anyone to buy them. GW sales are going to look skewed right now because a lot of stores and players preordered the products and are now stuck with it. The next 6 months will give a better picture but so far it is a vocal minority that likes the game and many like myself are Done with everything GW.

I am looking forward to the day GW hangs themselves on Stupid business decision and FFG doesn't just own some of the IP's to do games but buys them out right.

This day might be coming sooner than expected. There are some rumours going on (with relative credibility on the source because the one who's been leaking them only pushes verified stuff, check on the Bolter and Chainsword forum) that they are slowly focusing on making models and are going to publish lightweight rules leading to no rules at all (AoS being a testbed for that idea) for all their range.

They'll be shooting themselves in the foot if they do that, as a gaming company you want to be close to your customers and manage the rules, the community etc. FFG is a prime example of how succesful that business model is !

- Confused in Iowa

Hmm, I'll be honest and say when I said warscrolls, I was purely thinking about terrain... but that might not be the worst thing in the world if it had a rough component 'scroll' cost and then an alternate point cost. I'm thinking a little closer to the Drop Zone Commander Helix idea, where you have a 'command' or a pre-set Armada admiral+Flagship unit which might be roughly balanced, then 'line', 'scout', 'fighter'', 'hunter' type formations, which each one being roughly equal.

IE:

Flag 'scroll/helix' = ~ 125 fleet points

Tarkin +VSD II (Wulff+XX-9)

or

Dodonna+CR 90A (Dodonnas pride+Countermeasures)+ CR90A (Enhanced armament+ Countermeasures+Engineering team)

What it does it allows a less degree of customization for a few potential 'extra perks', thus by restricting the original choice into something more quantifiable (with the variety of upgrades, points get skewed a little based on the potential of ships rather than the actual upgrade. By limiting the potential to a slightly more refined system while adding an otherwise 'illegal' perk, such as VSDII command range for squadrons =distance 3, etc.) Can I figure out the math potentials? No, but it's at least a 'warscroll' like idea. Might even be a fun way to get other types of ship titles, so it can be give and take because lets admit it, Demolisher is an insanely popular and understandably awesome title: you could always make that a 'scroll' without ACM's but give it some sort of 'Concentrate Fire' token and Engine tech, call it a 'Hunter' helix and value it at ~75.

Spitballing here, so cut me some slack for 'off' numbers

And if people want to play some home brew rules on their own, that's fine. I for one intensely dislike home brew rules, and always play the game as is.

Now scenarios that use the rules as written, except for forces involved ( like some of the ones on the Xwing Epic ship rule books) I can get behind.

GW doesnt make good games. Miniatures yes, games, no.

Everything FFG does is gold.

My opinion.

(I say this as a former GW player of over 20 years...they lost me from fantasy long ago, and the last two editions of 40k are complete trash)

For the first part, I think maybe some of you need to dial back the rancor a bit when dismissing someone elses ideas. If you feel strongly about it, great, but there's no need to be a jerk about it. Also: None of us have the complete picture about what happened regarding AoS and why, pretending you've somehow figure it out? That's pretty arrogant.

But I don't feel a pointsless system is entirely without merit, although if I were designing a miniatures game around that idea I'd want to muck with it a lot myself. I'd probably do something similar to GW's old Epic system without points, which would necessitate a larger battlefield than is standard for Armada. Something like buying cards that represent formations or flottilas. So one "Warscroll" might be two AF2's, where another might be three CR90 Bs. Extrapolating further I'd have upgrade cards come as a kind of 'package deal' like a card that applies Enhanced Armament to all ships in the "Warscroll" or something similar.

Would that work for Armada AS IS? Probably not honestly. They've built a very solid system in place already, and I feel like tinkering with it at this point would be sheer madness (also Sparta). That could just be me though, since I'm unsure of how the game will change once it jumps to 400 point standard so...there you go. A "Warscrolls" based system I think appeals to newcomers and people who play super casually, giving them a chance to get into a scene that can otherwise be very exclusionary and have a brutal entering price point.

Although as a note: I'm super happy with how friendly people usually are on this forum. As a video gamer as well I'd taken to avoiding all forums relating to games I play, and this has proved to be a happy exception.

I think it would just be simpler to reduce the points used rather than doing away with them totally. For a quick example, rather than have a Gladiator I-Class be worth 56 points, have it cost 5. You'd have to find a way to balance out upgrades and squadrons but I think we get the general idea.

I know every game company is watching GW's experiment, and Mantic is probably the happiest right now, so we will all see how it works out. But if someone is jumping into a black pit you should wait to see them come back out ok before you jump in too.

Points work far better than other ways when it comes to balance. Is it perfect, no, and spamming is the worst abuse of the point system. But it is far superior to the other systems of balancing.

Now can there be scenarios made were the Points are not the same with some conditions involved to bring the balance back? Yes. But it will take a lot of play testing and good rule writers to make it work. But if they did I would play it.

Please don't bring anything from AoS to Armada. In fact, if would be best if it went the other way. GW, since you don't care about rules, please license the ruleset out to Fantasy Flight. Pretty pretty please. Thank God for Kings of War.

Please don't bring anything from AoS to Armada. In fact, if would be best if it went the other way. GW, since you don't care about rules, please license the ruleset out to Fantasy Flight. Pretty pretty please. Thank God for Kings of War.

I think I've said it here before but honestly this a thousand times. FFG already is willing to sell licences to their systems (see: Attack Wing) so really, GW should just get one. Otherwise they're going to just be a company licencing out their IP. Kinda like Star Wars between trilogies.

You do realize that FFG already has a handful of games (15) based on GW's IP? That includes Blood Bowl, WHFB and 40K.

I do! Some of them (Death Angel, Chaos in the Old World, Forbidden Stars, the various RPGs) are pretty neat. Some of them (FS) I own. But what FFG does not have, and I do not think ever will have, is a miniatures wargame featuring GW IP*. Diskwars is a pretty clear indication, IMO, that FFG would like to implement a proper Warhammer game with miniatures and so on, but there's no way in hell GW is ever letting anyone, licensee or no, produce models that could compete with their own.

*I guess there's an outside chance something like Necromunda could be revived by FFG.

Why is this in the general forum for armada and not, like, an off-topic section or something?

I guess there's an outside chance something like Necromunda could be revived by FFG.

Around here we may say it goes by the name of "Imperial Assault"?

GW doesnt make good games. Miniatures yes, games, no.

Everything FFG does is gold.

My opinion.

(I say this as a former GW player of over 20 years...they lost me from fantasy long ago, and the last two editions of 40k are complete trash)

100% agree with this sentiment. GW have said themselves they are a miniatures company and not a games company which essentially absolves them of the sh*tty rule sets they come up with.

The rules have always been a vehicle for pushing more mini sales which is also inbuild into the power creep of new updates and the constant push to escalate engagements.

This is a very different approach to what FFG take with their games where each miniature comes with it the components needed to use it in the game

Why is this in the general forum for armada and not, like, an off-topic section or something?

Because the OP suggested that getting rid of points values, like AoS, was a good thing. And that idea needs to be cast into the human dump pile of bad ideas, like Nazism, instant coffee, and the shake weight.

Kind of ironic that there name is GAMES-Workshop (key word, Games) and they make lousy games. They should rebrand themselves as...hrm, I dunno...miniatures-workshop maybe?

started a new thread for the original purpose of this topic.

Yes, you can take your 10,000 point army vs their 750 point one, but why the heck would you? That's not going to be fun for either side.

Because I don't know how strong my army is, or how strong his is, because there are no points values! I hear this defence of the new system a lot and it doesn't make sense to me. I don't know what value every potential unit of my army and his should have, that's what I expect designers to take care of. How are we supposed to agree what kind of army to bring? "Bring a medium strong army", something like that? What on Earth does that mean? Even if we build our armies together (so planning your army in advance is right out, making the gaming night take even longer) we don't know that we're making them roughly equal, not without huge loads of experience with both armies - again, that's what designers are for.

Why is this in the general forum for armada and not, like, an off-topic section or something?

Because the OP suggested that getting rid of points values, like AoS, was a good thing. And that idea needs to be cast into the human dump pile of bad ideas, like Nazism, instant coffee, and the shake weight.

GW doesnt make good games. Miniatures yes, games, no.

Everything FFG does is gold.

My opinion.

(I say this as a former GW player of over 20 years...they lost me from fantasy long ago, and the last two editions of 40k are complete trash)

Kind of ironic that there name is GAMES-Workshop (key word, Games) and they make lousy games. They should rebrand themselves as...hrm, I dunno...miniatures-workshop maybe?

Agreed, they're definitely about the minis, not the games. And to be fair, they do make excellent minis (though I don't care for the 40k style of AofS).

Because the OP suggested that getting rid of points values, like AoS, was a good thing. And that idea needs to be cast into the human dump pile of bad ideas, like Nazism, instant coffee, and the shake weight.

Kind of ironic that there name is GAMES-Workshop (key word, Games) and they make lousy games. They should rebrand themselves as...hrm, I dunno...miniatures-workshop maybe?

*Ding-ding-ding* We have a winner! Thanks for playing Wheel-o-Godwin, and we'll see you next time!

On a two-pronged serious note, GW is rebranding their stores (at least) Warhammer, IE 'the Warhammer store', which was in their reports. And second, I guess this has become an echo chamber so I'm bowing out. It's not even something I disagree with, it just feels like we're going in circles.. And this is coming from a fervently anti-Age of Sigmar gamer who is also not a GW apologist.

And juuust to be clear, I'm just toying around a bit, not angry or hurt or anything like that: I agree with a lot of sentiments here, but life's finite and I'd like to do something productive.

Because the OP suggested that getting rid of points values, like AoS, was a good thing. And that idea needs to be cast into the human dump pile of bad ideas, like Nazism, instant coffee, and the shake weight.

Kind of ironic that there name is GAMES-Workshop (key word, Games) and they make lousy games. They should rebrand themselves as...hrm, I dunno...miniatures-workshop maybe?

*Ding-ding-ding* We have a winner! Thanks for playing Wheel-o-Godwin, and we'll see you next time!

More like winner of the Wheel-o-bait!

Come now, surely you realize, like Admiral Ackbar did only too late, that "it's a trap!"

On a cheeky note...I'm not sure what I wrote really fulfill's the spirit of Godwin. Nazism is a bad idea, after all. If I had said "AoS is as bad an idea as Nazism" then I think you might have something, or "AoS is as bad an idea as fighting a World War on 2 fronts", then again; yes. But I don't think my observations really fulfill the spirit of Godwin. I think the comparison has to be more hyperbolic and inflammatory to really qualify. Wouldn't you agree, mein bruder?