Hello fellow cold-bloods! Tried an interesting new way of balancing our games last night, as follows; Pick a number of warscrolls you want to play. Warscrolls are taken 'off the shelf' at; HERO/MONSTER: Single INFANTRY: 2 x Minimum Unit Size MONSTROUS INFANTRY/CAVALRY/ETC: 1 x Minimum Unit Size CHARIOTS/WARBEASTS/ETC: 2 x Minimum Unit Size (usually 1) Start playing. Quick and easy, it made for a decent system. We picked up a few outliers to the three rules, skaven rat ogres for example (minimum unit size 2, seemed very small), but generally each army kept their feel from the previous age; skaven were suitably large compared to an equal number of warscrolls of elite armies like lizards and elves. Worth a try?
Sorry, must not have explained it well. There's no restrictions on what you can choose, the size is simply how many models you place for each chosen warscroll. Characters and monsters put down a single model per warscroll (as usual), but infantry put down 2 x Min unit size (so, 20 saurus, or 10 temple guard). You'd put down 3 kroxigor or ripperdactyls per warscroll. Or 2 salamanders (I'm arguing for handlers as part of the unit, maybe on a 1 to 1 basis). Nothing stopping you from taking multiples of characters other than finances and honour (no one wants to play vs 5 slann!).
Ah, then makes more sense. Yeah, probably it's worth a try... even if actually we are testing Azyr (mostly because it seems that is the current system used in northern Italy tournamens)
We've stuck to five for the meantime - small battles suit our timetables better! And gives you the flexibility of running a wound-heavy infantry list or choosing a smaller, elite force and pushing for the sudden death win!
Having tried half a dozen balancing systems, from the points ones to having no balance to one we made up called "Escalation" where you bring whatever you want but on turn 1 you only use one unit, then on turn 2 you use 2, then turn three uses 3 etc to keep smaller armies able to keep up with larger ones. But I find that the best system is the simple wounds one because that's the equivalent of both sides starting with the same amount of hit points in another game. Beyond that, it doesn't need balancing because all armies are equally OP and while some builds may be stronger than others, everyone's so strong now that it's the tactics on the board that make the key difference.
Bainbow, I would tend to agree with you. After a few more sessions, we've settled on a warscrolls-only system. No wound limits, and you rely on the %-casualties and sudden death options to give depth to your army selection. Sure, you can take a tonne of warriors, but the elite super-force may well punch through and complete sudden death before you wipe the board with them. And in realist terms, none of us have enough models to get stupid-large anyway! Thank goodness!
this is similar to www.ageofbalance.com, a system developed by a club in NYC to get models on the table and have balanced games. Its similar to 2x unit size, however it uses an exact algorithm based on saves and # of wounds. Things over 10 wounds count as 2 scrolls. It also has some summoning balance to either restrict summoning to ambushing, or just have both players agree to the number of extra scrolls that can be summoned. Clash comp is not bad but it adds a lot of opinionated rules changes. Azyr comp is the most popular because it changes AoS to what 8th was, so everyone who played 8th can easily identify with it. Unfortunately it makes only specific undervalued units mandatory for your list, because you have to game the system to create broken lists (or compete with everyone else who is doing that). Its a new age! Get your models on the table, pick some time of war rules and a battleplan and just have some fun.
I don't like it. Perhaps I'm just too jaded, but balance systems that use algorithms tend to be far too robotic and distant to really judge a warscroll's power because they don't take things like abilities or utility into account.