AoS Point Cost Algorithm!

[Nicholas Nitro]

In Age of Sigmar, players that who to play a balanced game are left to their own devices. Some want to balance by model count or by total wounds, but neither method satisfies. This has caused many players to throw up their hands in frustration. Some have even burned their models in protest...

But what if we had a tool we could use to remove this frustration? What if humanity had already encountered difficulties assigning value to commodities? Could it be that there already exists a solution waiting for us in the pages of our history? From the early days of tribal bartering to the advent of mercantile capitalism, value for goods and services were assessed and compared through use of mankind's greatest invention. Indeed, the savior of Age of Sigmar is the same force that enabled savages from all over the world to ascend from a dreary and devoid existence. The solution to balancing AoS is mathematics.

[ (Wounds + Attacks) x (Movement + Bravery) / Save ]

Now I've been attempting to share the good word with the good folks of this community, but mostly my altruism has fallen on deaf ears. Outside of this community (and a few other exceptions) I do not typically trouble myself with the concerns of others. To protect my interests in the fantasy community, I will attempt to make my final appeal. Below is the entire woodelf model range with the Point-Cost-Algorithm applied to them.

Heroes
Araloth - 39 pts
Glade Captain BSB- 24pts
Glade Lord w/ BOL, HODA, hunting falcon, & kindred blade- 42pts
Glade Lord w/ starlight spear & Kindred blade- 39pts
Glade Lord w/ starlight great blade & BOL- 39pts
Glade Lord on Great Eagle w/ BOL- 84pts
Glade Lord on Great Eagle w/ gladelord spirit blade- 90pts
Mounted Glade Lord- 61pts
Orion- 100 pts
Glade Lord on Forest Dragon- 132pts
Glade Lord on Great Stag- 68pts
Glade Lord on Great Stag w/ BOL- 81pts
SpellWeaver w/ heartwood staff- 13pts
SpellWeaver w/ blows of mystic power- 18pts
SpellWeaver w/ Purebred & heartwood staff- 28pts
Sisters of Twilight on Forest Dragon- 193 pts
Shadow Dancer- 23pts
BranchWraith- 21pts
Durthu- 131pts
Waywatcher Lord- 31pts
Treeman Ancient- 80 pts

Units

Hunting Hounds- 16pts
Glade Guard- 6pts
Wild Riders- 23pts
Waywatchers- 11pts
Wardancers- 8pts
Wildwood Rangers- 8pts
Warhawk Riders- 33pts
Glade Riders- 24 pts
Eternal Guard- 6pts
Sisters of the Thorn- 27pts
Great Eagles- 30pts
Dryads- 8pts
Treekin- 21pts
Treeman- 88pts

Look at how much these numbers make sense. Compare them to other armies....
(WildRiders are 3 points more then Knights of the Realm, but 3 points less then both Questing Knights and Grail Knights)
(Glade Guard are 1 point more then Peasant Bowman, but the same cost as Dwarf Quarrelers and Thunderers)
(Nagash is 190pts and can cast 8 spells a turn, but a SpellWeaver w/ heartwood staff is 13pts. We can literally field 14 Spellweavers for the same price.)

All special rules are internally balanced upon the model's point-cost, and magic is no better then any other special rule.

Folks I'm telling you AoS is exactly what we have been asking for. Just look a little closer.

[Hyarion]

E: I will continue to experiment with 7th/8th edition but I would also like a point balancing algorithm for AoS.

[Gwill_of_the_Woods]

Hey,

It looks good. I'll give that a try. To be honest, I really like the AoS style. It was a massive rejuvination of a game. Things were starting to get a little stale.

I particularly love the idea of choosing units based on fluff, but getting a good balance is also important.

Thanks for making the list too!

What do you mean that all Special rules are internally balanced? How is that factored in?

[Nicholas Nitro]

I think that to-hit/to-wound/damage/spells/special-rules all scale up with overall point cost, with some measure of diminishing returns. Expensive models have extra special rules and higher damage output. Even so, cheaper models can out preform more expensive models when they face off with equal value.
A Slann-mage priest is 49pts and can cast/unbind 3 spells per turn. A SpellWeaver with a staff is 13 points, so 3 SpellWeavers is 39pts and they also have 3 spells/unbinds per turn.
By 'internally balanced' I mean that circumstance determines the usefulness of any given special rules.

[Gwill_of_the_Woods]

Got it.

Thanks!

[Billthesurly]

The Sisters of Twilight on Ceithen Har are the most expensive thing in the entire WE realm? Dang! They must rock out big time.
(I actually like this. Finally, some love for the sisters with their history of mucked up rules.)

How about "don't personally care but if it makes AoS easier for some people to come to grips with - why not?"

I guess that would be "E" and so voted.

[Nicholas Nitro]

I'm finally happy with the sisters too bill, now they can be the center piece they were always meant to be.

[Sidewinder]

Not interested in an algorithm, nor using wounds, nor hero limits, none of it. Even as good as your algorithm is, I think it will enable min/max lists, which is the reason that so many models become dust catchers.

The debate over AoS lack of balance by not having a point system has highlighted just how poorly balanced the Warhammer Fantasy (regardless of edition) point system and even many other point based games truly are. So, is having a bad point system better than having no point system at all?

With AoS and Micro Armor The Game - Modern (http://www.ghqmodels.com/store/mg4.html), I'm trying to kick the point system addiction.

If GW releases an official AoS point system or if my opponent wants to use this algorithm or any balancing systems that have been suggested in various places, then sure, I'll do so. If my opponent has devised a balancing system, then I'll give it a go; no harm in that. Otherwise, I'll play AoS as is.

For anyone interested in a war game that has a very good point system that creates balanced games, then try Star Fleet Battles (http://www.starfleetgames.com/). The tournament ships are nearly perfectly balanced.

[Nicholas Nitro]

I'm glad my beavis & butthead reference is tied for most votes.

[Slobber]

Gee Dub can take a long walk off a short pier IMO. It looks my group is moving to KOW and I'll probably follow their lead.

[Nicholas Nitro]

Gee Dub can take a long walk off a short pier IMO. It looks my group is moving to KOW and I'll probably follow their lead.

Well I'm sorry to see you go, you've made some of my favorite comments on this board. Thanks for checking out my math, I had hoped it would help prevent the loss of seasoned players like yourself.

[Hyarion]

I played some games of AoS this weekend and I must say, I'm horribly disappointed. I might give it a try once in a while if a friend is looking for a game, but I certainly won't go out of my way to play it unless it undergoes a significant revision.

[Duraska]

How do you calculate the points of models that have a d3 or d6 statistics (ex: Ogre Leadbelchers have d3 attacks, and d6 attacks if they dont move)? Also, how do you calculate the damage-table stats for monsters (where the stats vary based on damage taken)?

[Nicholas Nitro]

How do you calculate the points of models that have a d3 or d6 statistics (ex: Ogre Leadbelchers have d3 attacks, and d6 attacks if they dont move)? Also, how do you calculate the damage-table stats for monsters (where the stats vary based on damage taken)?

It's easy.
With monster charts you use the highest numbers, for a d6 use 4, d3 use 2, etc. The more difficult examples are things like: saves of (-) are a 7, warmachine bravery is 10.

Don't apply special rules to your math, only use the d3 to calculate the lead-belcher costs. The "d6 attacks if they didn't move" is a special rule, and we treat all the special rules as being balanced to match the model's point cost.

I played some games of AoS this weekend and I must say, I'm horribly disappointed. I might give it a try once in a while if a friend is looking for a game, but I certainly won't go out of my way to play it unless it undergoes a significant revision.

What was so disappointing to you? You probably have years more experience then I do (I hated 8th, thought 7th was good), but I think AoS is by far the better game. I like shooting into combat, I like the fluid formations, I like rolling off for turn order, I like alternating combats. In fact the only thing I don't like are the new settings and aesthetics. When I hear/read people complaining about AoS being simple (as if that is a bad thing) and therefore lacking strategy, the first thing I think is that person must have a profound lack of creativity.

Now its my turn to vent. Every game I played in 8th edition came down to my opponent 6-dicing some nuke spell. Is that strategy? Soldiers used the phalanx formation from before 2000 BC until the advent of trench warfare in the early days of the last century. The reason the phalanx became obsolete was because of artillery... if everyone was tightly grouped together a single mortar blast would kill everyone in that unit!

1. So here we have the 8th edition fantasy game with soldiers in solid block formations that wizards can endlessly throw fireballs into. That makes sense right?
2. How about wood-elfs, the best archers in the world, but they do not possess the ability to shoot into combat? Really?
3. How about the initiative score? Always strikes first was so tactical!
4. How about the arbitrary nature of the old point cost system?
5. How about bad rules marginalizing your favorite models so much that you are guaranteed a loss if you used them?
6. How about the lords with 1+ armor saves plus ward saves too?

8th edition sucked.

p.s.
The greatest post script ever written went like this, "I'm sorry for the excessive length of this letter, I simply didn't have the time to make it shorter..."

[Duraska]

What about models that do more than 1 damage per successful wound roll. What about rend? Ironguts do 3 damage per hit at -1 rend, and using your formula, they're only 22.75 points a model. Meanwhile a single Glade Rider is 24 points? Uh.. I'd take the Ironguts every time.

I think it's a lost-cause to try to balance warscrolls based on points. I think a better approach might be to try balance the game based on victory conditions, and I don't mean the "sudden death" rules.

Basically, the rules as written say that you get a Major Victory if you kill every enemy model on the table. Ok.. hard to argue with that. But they also say that you get a Minor Victory if you end up killing more of a percentage of your enemy's army than he does of yours. This percentage is based on [models killed] / [models deployed at start of game] * 100. What happens if you tweak this so that it's: [wounds inflicted] / [wounds deployed at start of game] * 100. Does that suddenly make the game feel a bit more balanced?

Also, what if they came out with scenerio cards like in 40k, where the ultimate goal isn't always to just wipe out the entire enemy army. What if each Faction got their own deck of victory conditions based on their strengths/weaknesses? Maybe every faction could have cards like "Kingslayer: Kill an enemy hero," or "Charge!: Declare 3 charges in the same turn." What if Wood Elves also had some unique cards like: "Awaken the Woods: Use a Command Ability or Cast a Spell during the Hero Phase inside every forest on the table before the end of the game." Have these cards be randomly drawn before each game Turn, and like in 40k, allow the players to dismiss an redraw a card each turn if they want to. At the end of turn 6, add up how many victory points have been scored off the completed card objectives.

These are just examples, but my point is that everyone seems to want to balance Age of Sigmar as if it's 9th Edition Warhammer Fantasy. But it's not. So maybe it's time we give up on points and start balancing the games based on objectives. Suddenly those Ogres aren't as overpowered if you can win through other means, besides just having to kill them all.

[Nicholas Nitro]

I wouldn't. Glade-Riders shoot twice per turn, and the Iron guts will never catch them.

[Duraska]

I wouldn't. Glade-Riders shoot twice per turn, and the Iron guts will never catch them.

Until the Ogre player gets two move phases in a row.

[Nicholas Nitro]

True enough, but it still feels fair to me.

[Siegfried]

Now its my turn to vent. Every game I played in 8th edition came down to my opponent 6-dicing some nuke spell. Is that strategy? Soldiers used the phalanx formation from before 2000 BC until the advent of trench warfare in the early days of the last century. The reason the phalanx became obsolete was because of artillery... if everyone was tightly grouped together a single mortar blast would kill everyone in that unit!

1. So here we have the 8th edition fantasy game with soldiers in solid block formations that wizards can endlessly throw fireballs into. That makes sense right?
2. How about wood-elfs, the best archers in the world, but they do not possess the ability to shoot into combat? Really?
3. How about the initiative score? Always strikes first was so tactical!
4. How about the arbitrary nature of the old point cost system?
5. How about bad rules marginalizing your favorite models so much that you are guaranteed a loss if you used them?
6. How about the lords with 1+ armor saves plus ward saves too?

I fully agree with the points you made mate and I feel the same as you regarding AoS. I was really sick and tired of having battles determined by ultra powerful spells, unbeatable death stars, steamtanks, unkillable characters.

Age of Sigmar may have its flaws but there is no unkillable models, the monsters that are very powerful get toned down as they get wounded, the cannons are not homing anymore, no more destructive magic (although I feel summoning perhaps needs comping) and a bunch of cool abilities that create synergies with other models for nice combos.

Addd to this the fact that since the game is now skirmish you can play all kinds of interesting scenarios (and no scenarios and blocks of units do not mix well) and actually use the terrain in the battle (in the way that you can move inside it climb on top of it with ease and have a more realistic feeling)

Initially I plan to use the wounds as points system with a few restrictions such as:

0-2 monsters
0-3 warmachines
1-2 heroes for every 50 wounds and perhaps a limit to the number of warscrolls. If that does not work I may give your point system a go...

[Baardah]

How about not going to points. Could there be mileage in some kind of slot system? Max (enter number) of warscrolls. Let's say 12. Of those max 2 monsters, max 3 heroes, minimum 4 infantry (add this as a keyword) etc....haven't thought it through, just throwing it out there...

[Hyarion]

Baardah, I like that idea, but would you do anything to cap the # of wounds/models per warscroll or leave it open?

[Baardah]

I don't know, maybe bring back labels to unit types e.g monstrous infantry, warbeast, cavalry etc. and then put cap on unittypes

As I said I haven't really thought it through. But it's obvious that for the possibility of a fair game where the opponents haven't agreed on something beforehand, some kind of construction rule has to be applied. There seems to be a need for some restriction on summoning of other summoners as well for daemons, undead and other that might be able to summon units.
The silliness of keepers summoning keepers summoning keepers for example shouldn't be possible

[Merlin Elf friend]

We have been playing a fun level AoS campaign at my local GW store, at about 5-7 warscroll level, we have about 10 regular players, only two armies have found to be overpowering:

A Destruction Ogre Army that contained about 30 Ogres, plus Tyrant and Firebelly; the problem being no cap on the number of strong multi-wound models in a WS.
The other was our only power player who soon made himself unpopular bringing Thanquol Bone-ripper plus 60 clan rats as a Two WS Army! With the rats gaining saves (up to a 2+ @ 60 ) as the numbers rise in one WS.

So a number cap per model type/per WS does seem to be necessary, the other lesser problem was the number of models an undead Army with 2 Necro's and a Vampire Count could raise per game; no Supreme Lord of the Undead as Yet!

A part from the game against the said "power player" I have enjoyed all my games of AoS I like the quick set up and easier rules (against 8th Ed); but then I was always a "Beer and Pretzels" player!

[Nicholas Nitro]

I'm sure summoning will be giving additional counters at some point later in the campaign series. Probably be some kind of dispel effect, or maybe even 'kill the summoner and the unit disappears.'
As far as balance goes, two dueling wizards of equal wounds and spells per turn could vie for attacking each-other with an 'arcane bolt vs summoning' battle. With how the rules are written the arcane bolt wizard would have a really high chance of winning because summoned models count as causalities, and if the summoned unit didn't make the charge roll of 9, then the summoner would have taken 2 arcane bolts by the time they get into combat. There is a good chance the summoner would be dead before the summoned unit was able to get into combat, and if not, the summoner would be killed in turn 3 if the summoned unit doesn't kill the other wizard with the first round of combat.

Also, I think the wound/model count balance idea works well with specific scenarios. It's my suspicion that eventually a "Battle-Line Scenario" will be introduced, using the Point-Cost Algorithm from above, once the game has gone through a few minor 'optional rule' tweaks with prior campaign scenarios. After this, I predict that lots of folks will regret selling their models and begrudgingly decide to buy new ones, meanwhile the GamesWorkShop execs toast their success.

Mark my words.

[Spiritus Sanctus]

Good attempt at trying to balance this.
However, bear in mind that the definition of Perfect Balance, is a pregnant hunchback!