Greetings Dash28! Enjoy this guest article written by Guy Harper-Day weighing in on the debate on allies and balance, with the perspective of a self-proclaimed casual player. A big shout out of thanks to Guy for taking the time to write this piece!

Balance, flavour… and allies

In this opinion piece, I would like to look at some elements of game design, what makes Kings of War fun to play, what the allies system contributes, and I will conclude by suggesting future modifications to the game, splitting opinion and causing controversy, which everyone knows is fun to do.

Firstly, a caveat: I’m a casual player, I don’t like tournaments, I like playing the game with my friends and having a beer. I do think it’s important for casual players to have a voice in rules discussion – after all, we make up the vast majority of players. That’s not to diminish the importance of the tournament scene for a healthy, fun, and balanced game. How would we find out what was broken if not for all the hours of meticulous list building by our power-hungry tournament-going friends?

So, why do I, a casual gamer, care what’s happening in tournaments? Tournament gaming, with rules as written, defines the direction of faction and unit design in Kings of War. Members of the Rules Committee examine trends in tournament meta and suggest the changes to Mantic that get adopted as rules changes. This means that something like the allies system has important ramifications to overall game design.

Some (but not all) elements of game design

Balance

There are a few different types of balance that contribute to making a tabletop game fun:

• Balance of individual units, mostly in terms of cost efficiency but also in absolute terms – is unit X just so powerful that it becomes an auto-include? (Dragons with Ensorcelled armour at the start of 2nd ed.)
• Balance of factions against one another – does faction X just have better combinations of units than faction Y? In Space Hulk there is a clear power imbalance between the marines and genestealers, as a game design choice, and this adds to the fun. But in a game like Kings of War, maintaining a balance between armies is very important.
• Balance within a faction – are there some units that just aren’t taken, because they don’t play a useful role, or are points inefficient? Is there a particular build that is just clearly better than other builds?

The thing that ties these three aspects of Balance together is variety. Can I take the army that I like, and the units that I like, and still have a good chance of winning provided the units in my list work well together?

Crunchiness

Crunchiness is the complexity and depth of a game, both in its core mechanics and in the special rules applying to units. It’s a balance between on the one hand making a game that’s easy to pick up (less crunchy), and on the other hand, providing enough depth to keep the punters coming back for more (more crunchy).

Flavour/Flavor

Two aspects to flavour that I would like to highlight:

• The lore behind a faction or a unit, situated in a fleshed-out world, with interesting characters
• Tabletop flavour – does a faction, and the units in it, play in a particular way, does it have unique strengths and weaknesses that combine to form an identity?

There are many other things involved in game design, but for the purposes of this article, I don’t think it’s necessary to go into them, and nor do I know all of them. But, for the discussion of allies, I think we have enough to go on.

What we have in Kings of War is a game with excellent balance and simple mechanics that allow a depth of tactical gameplay. It’s a great combination. But, it has a reputation for being a bit light on the flavour side of things.

Propensity to make you want more armies

One other thing to consider: ultimately Mantic has to sell minis off the back of this game. This is a tricky proposition because a sizeable proportion of the player base has come into the game from WFB, and already has armies. I’d like to highlight a few notable things that Mantic has done to drive miniature sales whilst trying to maintain balance:

• Create a gateway game in the form of Vanguard with a (kinda) low barrier to entry to draw in people new to tabletop wargaming
• Put some units as entries in multiple armies, so that people already have a start on a new army if they include those models (often these models are in the Mantic line)
• Implement an ally system, with the intention of allowing people to use a smaller force alongside their existing army, that could grow into another army

Allies (finally)

How do allies tie into the game design concepts established above? And do they succeed in making people want to buy more armies?

For what it’s worth, I haven’t seen allies in casual games apart from in team games and mega battles (which are obviously great). As I understand it, allies are for the most part taken in tournaments, by a minority of tournament players, as a way to fill gaps in an army. If your army doesn’t have a unit that fills a particular role, or if a unit in another army does it better, you might take that unit. 

The weaknesses of your faction can be mitigated by taking allies. What this means for balance is that the strengths of the core units in your faction have to be watered down to compensate.

Similarly, you can co-opt the strengths of other factions. What this means for balance is that the strengths of the core units of other factions also have to be watered down to compensate.

Where does this leave us? Not only will the army that has taken allies be more generic in playstyle – in terms of having access to another factions’ tools – but the core units across all factions also have to be less divergent, in terms of strengths and weaknesses, because of the potential for each faction to take allies and for its units to be taken as allies.

Now, what if allies weren’t permitted? Your faction would have weaknesses that would have to be mitigated solely by its own strengths. Those strengths and weaknesses would be free of the constraints of needing to be balanced when your units were allied in other factions’ armies, or when allying other factions’ units into yours. It would be an opportunity to inject tabletop flavour, and flesh out the identity of each faction. For example, a Dwarf army without access to flyers or chaff (sorry mastiff hunting pack…), could make up for it with a significant nerve buff to their infantry (appropriately costed and balanced, of course). Such units wouldn’t be viable with an allies system because they would be overpowered when combined with the tools of other armies, but would make the army more unique and flavourful on the tabletop. The RC would be free to extend the strengths and weaknesses of each faction without the need to worry about how those strengths and weaknesses will play with units from other factions.

In regards to balance between factions, it becomes a more complex matter when greater divergences in playstyle are applied. Balance within armies would have to be carefully considered too – one of the great things about Kings of War is that there isn’t a particular army build for each faction, which is a difficult and impressive feat. Without a doubt, expanding the strengths and weaknesses of each army would make that more difficult. But provided points efficiency is maintained across units, and ensuring no units become so powerful as to become auto-includes, there’s no reason it couldn’t be achieved.

In a game like Kings of War, where crunchiness makes way for simplicity, flavour can’t be achieved by just adding special rules particular to each unit. This makes it all the more important for armies to feel unique in how they play on the tabletop. And when it comes to the propensity to buy a new army, what better temptation than a distinct new flavour to try out?

Controversial Suggestions

Finally we get to the good stuff, here are the suggestions I promised at the start:

• Allies should be phased out of the core rules, with a caveat for team games and casual games.
• Thought should be given to ways of making factions unique in overarching tabletop flavour by actively limiting the tactical options available to them and giving them particular combinations of strengths and weaknesses that aren’t available to other armies. This means specifically *not* gap-filling when adding new units to an army – I would go so far as to reverse gap-filling that has taken place, and even introduce new gaps and weaknesses. That’s not to say no new units, just not units that fill a specific area of weakness identified as part of the flavour for that army.
• Balance between factions should continue as a key focus  (and I take my hat off to the Rules Committee for making it the most balanced rules system for a tabletop game I’ve played).

And to all the tournament organizers out there, if you agree, I call on you to get the ball rolling by not allowing allies in your tournaments – make your players work with the tools they are given within each faction list. I think the game will be the richer for it.

But what do you think? I’d like to hear opinions and get a discussion going in the comments!

With thanks to the Unplugged Radio podcast for their discussion of alignment and allies, which prompted this article. You can find that episode here.