Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Back in 2002, Jervis wrote about the disease of tournament play under Points Values, Who Needs 'em?!?in the J files for Citadel Journal #48:



With AoS having been released, I think it's time to re-read what Jervis wrote, because AoS is very strongly based on the sort of gaming Jervis describes in his article.

Jervis Johnson wrote:I do not think it is any coincidence that all of the most experienced gamers in the Studio tend to prefer to mak eup their own scenarios when they play games, and rarely if ever, bother about boring things like points values or even pre-set victory conditions. Three of the gamers I look up to the most in the Studio are Dave Andrews, and Michael and Alan Perry, and I can't ever remeber playing a game with them where we used points values, or where we decided on the winner in any other way than chatting about 'who had done best' to achieve their objectives by the end of the game. And yet every single game I've played with these guys has been a real test of my skill and a deeply enjoyable gaming experience to boot. In fact, the tend to be a greater test of my skills as a player than tournament style games, as more often than not I'm presented with a unique scenario and I can't fall back on 'set-piece' ploys and tactics.

It's good stuff, and suggests that trying to create points is a mistake.
____

Someone else made the connection:
http://www.vampirecounts.net/threads/old-jervis-johnson-article-and-age-of-sigmar-design-philosophy.29448/
____

Also, I will NOT have this thread devolve into yet another "AOS sucks" rant fest. If you're just posting here to whine about AOS, you will be reported for SPAM. Keep that gak in the "opinions" cesspool.
____

8/7/15 - Not unexpectedly, Black Blow Fly, consummate WAAC Tournament player, doesn't like what Jervis had to say:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/08/40k-editorial-rules-rant-jervis-are-you-serious.html

Plenty of good games have no points (usually historical).

Unfortunately AOS has very few qualities that make for a cool scenario game.

Take Black Powder (easy one). That book covers heaps of armies, settings and periods. It has a section with EXAMPLES of fun scenarios, it has a section where you get to add points values to models and also has a section that shows you how to create your own model rules.

The whole game is set up from the start for fun scenario driven games (like most historical games).

What does AOS do? Well it gives you a mess and tells you to do what you want. That does not create a very cool narrative driven game at all. Even narratives have structure. AOS lacks any form of structure, unlike say Black Powder.

Lack of points is not the issue... its the backwards game design that is the issue.

cleaning up

Jervis is right, great games can have no points. But unfortunately it seems his team at GW cannot even write a game with or without points.

So how would you approach it? You come up with a plausible scenario and then design the forces based on that scenario? Like say it takes place soon after the opening campaign. The Sigmarites, led by Lord-Celestant Vandus Hammerhand, overthrew Korghos Khul and drove the forces of Khorne back across the land. Refugees spread out and build settlements near the Gate of Azyr. But now Korghos Khul Jr. is back to settle the score.

The battle takes place in a small refugee hamlet. Good features are completed buildings, buildings under construction and perhaps some ruins of a bygone age. Present are (plausible defending force). Requested by Angelphone, reinforcing units (led by Vandus Hammerhand himself) arrive on the battlefield several turns later. The aggressor is the warband of Korghos Khul Jr., which is deliberately fashioned after that of his late father.

So having come up with the battle, we play it out and see what happens. Then next time we come up with a new scenario..? Korghos Khul Jr. Jr. (with the passing of Korghos Khul Jr. it has now become a ceremonial title) is attacking a dam on the river of fire! The entire fire plains delta will be flooded if he succeeds in destroying it! Oh no! Luckily the Sigmarites are on the case. Khul brought some siege weaponry this time (we're slowly breeding a more effective Khul via process of natural selection) so the Sigmarites have unleashed their new Judicators! etc

The point being that instead of trying to make A List, we're just coming up with scenario-appropriate armies, sort of..?

Maybe that makes sense to someone.

Interesting article, cool that you found that. For once I agree with Jervis (I have despised him since the 4th edition Dark Angel codex... grrr). The studio guys make their own scenarios and play for fun and forging a narrative. This is opposed to what most people do at FLGS, which is build an army and play to win.

I have found that casual play leads to the style of play Jervis spoke about. It doesn't matter if I lost a game of 40k as long as we have some memorable moments and both have fun.

I (and many others) have found Age of Sigmar to be refreshing. I love that there is no limit to heroes, troops, elite or special units, etc. No points means play what you want. This is great for modellers and collectors like myself. The group I play with build fluffy armies (mostly 2 heroes, 1 monster, and 2 squads of troops or cavalry). So far no one has ever abused the system and no one has been curb stomped. I imagine that if someone did try to show up with 10 bloodthirsters, no one would lay with them anyway as the game is about fun.

We have also seen that the game is indeed scenario driven. The starter has several scenarios. The 1st large book has many different scenarios which introduce objectives, hold at all cost missions, etc. The special rules added can really give the game some great twists.

For balance I have seen people on youtube introduce limits to units. max of 2 heroes, 1 monster keyword, and then your limited number of warscrolls. This also limits what can be summoned as you have to count that warscroll in order to have the ability to summon it. So, yea, I guess the points don't matter to have fun!

 455_PWR wrote:
Interesting article, cool that you found that. For once I agree with Jervis (I have despised him since the 4th edition Dark Angel codex... grrr). The studio guys make their own scenarios and play for fun and forging a narrative. This is opposed to what most people do at FLGS, which is build an army and play to win.

I have found that casual play leads to the style of play Jervis spoke about. It doesn't matter if I lost a game of 40k as long as we have some memorable moments and both have fun.

I (and many others) have found Age of Sigmar to be refreshing. I love that there is no limit to heroes, troops, elite or special units, etc. No points means play what you want. This is great for modellers and collectors like myself. The group I play with build fluffy armies (mostly 2 heroes, 1 monster, and 2 squads of troops or cavalry). So far no one has ever abused the system and no one has been curb stomped. I imagine that if someone did try to show up with 10 bloodthirsters, no one would lay with them anyway as the game is about fun.

We have also seen that the game is indeed scenario driven. The starter has several scenarios. The 1st large book has many different scenarios which introduce objectives, hold at all cost missions, etc. The special rules added can really give the game some great twists.

For balance I have seen people on youtube introduce limits to units. max of 2 heroes, 1 monster keyword, and then your limited number of warscrolls. This also limits what can be summoned as you have to count that warscroll in order to have the ability to summon it. So, yea, I guess the points don't matter to have fun!

With the tiniest bit of brain power you can do everything you said with any ruleset. AOS fails because it (through laziness maybe?) does the bare minimum needed for you to put models on and play them and as a result loses the interest of most people who just want to get playing with a little structure.

Name a game where you cannot do everything you just said? (hint, there is none). The cool thing is that all games offer more than AOS along with all the benefits AOS has without the rules about facial hair or communicating with models.

Nobody is silly enough to think you MUST have points, but structure is still needed. How much structure is up the the player, ultimately it is easier to take a game like say Fantasy, and simply say no to points and make a scenario, than it is to take AOS and try add points to it. Therefore AOS is limiting how players play a game by making it very hard to play it any other way than they way they want you to play.

If you like a game with a huge lack of options due to it's bad writing then AOS is certainly something to be praised, just note that a lack of points or even basic structure is not a bonus or something to praise in a ruleset. It is easier, better and opens up more options to have points with the ability to ignore them if you want.

That is why I disagree with this article and what it is trying to imply. The guy is right, but the AOS rules are not good game design.

Labelling one side as whiners completely and being rude, saying they're bitching, etc, is not on. Offending posts have been deleted, don't do it again.

That being said, make sure you are actually addressing the topic of the thread (which from the post above you seem to be). If you were just hopping in and going "OMG its terrible" then that could be grounds for spam if you did it enough in enough threads, but as long as you are actually engaging with the original topic then that's ok

I think that article really does explain where they are coming from, I remember these sorts of discussions in WD, and competitive play has always been looked down on by elements of the studio.

At the same time there have always been elements pushing a more "competitive" playstyle too.

Hell, I remember seeing Jervis and his kid at a tournament 5 or 6 years ago, the kid playing Dark Angels. Both seemed nice.

But as time has gone on we can see that most of the tournament advocates have left GW for other companies, and Jervis has stayed on. As the longest standing veteran of the company now that Rick is gone, you can easily see his hand prints on the design philosophy of AoS (perhaps not the details, the background or the naming conventions - but the mechanics).

If not him directly, then an apprentice of his was surely responsible.

Perhaps Jervis will turn out to be correct. I will be interested to see in what way they proactively support narrative play. At the moment, their actions have essentially been negative- cutting an option out of the game (tournament play) to leave people with no alternative but to finally try their preferred option (narrative play). I am hoping to see some positive support in the form of example campaigns, inspirational background material etc etc. If they do that, I think they'll meet a broadly positive or at least neutral response from much of the fanbase, as opposed to the very polarised community we've got now after their negative actions.

Having games without points values is one thing. That can be done and can work, but not the way AoS is trying to do it.

The problem is this. Games without points values really need to be approached the same way RPG's are, with set scenarios detailing the composition of forces on either side and specific objectives and outcome results and consequences for subsequent games (if applicable), or have a GM fill this role instead and have them create story driven battles the way a GM would in an RPG campaign. AoS offers none of these tools nor really any suggestions for such. Instead, it still fundamentally operates the same way that previous "competitive" pickup-game-friendly editions did.

It's the worst of both worlds, removing the fundamental balancing mechanism of a tournament/pickup style game, but still trying to operate as such, while not providing any of the narrative/scenario functionality it claims to wants to be.

TL;DR Points values are necessary for a competitive/pickup style game. If you're going to ditch them and push a game more purely as a narrative style game, then it needs to include the tools to do that. AoS does neither.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
So how would you approach it? You come up with a plausible scenario and then design the forces based on that scenario? Like say it takes place soon after the opening campaign. The Sigmarites, led by Lord-Celestant Vandus Hammerhand, overthrew Korghos Khul and drove the forces of Khorne back across the land. Refugees spread out and build settlements near the Gate of Azyr. But now Korghos Khul Jr. is back to settle the score.

The battle takes place in a small refugee hamlet. Good features are completed buildings, buildings under construction and perhaps some ruins of a bygone age. Present are (plausible defending force). Requested by Angelphone, reinforcing units (led by Vandus Hammerhand himself) arrive on the battlefield several turns later. The aggressor is the warband of Korghos Khul Jr., which is deliberately fashioned after that of his late father.

So having come up with the battle, we play it out and see what happens. Then next time we come up with a new scenario..? Korghos Khul Jr. Jr. (with the passing of Korghos Khul Jr. it has now become a ceremonial title) is attacking a dam on the river of fire! The entire fire plains delta will be flooded if he succeeds in destroying it! Oh no! Luckily the Sigmarites are on the case. Khul brought some siege weaponry this time (we're slowly breeding a more effective Khul via process of natural selection) so the Sigmarites have unleashed their new Judicators! etc

The point being that instead of trying to make A List, we're just coming up with scenario-appropriate armies, sort of..?

Maybe that makes sense to someone.

This. More of this!

I can't even remember who I played on Saturday in our 40k tournament. X points, ADHD maelstrom objectives, blah, blah, roll dice...thanks for the game. Boring.

I think Jervis Johnson was on the right track.

Probably the most attractive thing for me about Age of Sigmar is "no points", or more importantly, I can just play the models I want to play, and figure it out with my opponent.

I totally hated the way every time I wanted to build something in 40k, I came across "but that's not very good". I mean, give me a break. I started Hordes a little bit last year, too, and it was the same thing.

I am very happy playing a game where you're not penalized for choosing a "weak" army. If something isn't as good, it just isn't as good, and everyone knows it and works around it. Really, I wish Magic were the same way -- I would love to be able to play it using cards that I enjoy, instead of "well that card sucks, because this uncommon that you own is way better!"

I am certainly a little puzzled by how AoS' rules are written. Specifically, I don't see any explicit support in the rules for my reading of how the game is meant to be played (both players collaborate to set up an awesome game). Instead, it comes across as that you are meant to compete in terrain and army placement, and there are rules in place to help make it fair, like the way one player splits the table in two and the other picks the side they want, or how you alternate in placing units, or the sudden death rule. Even the final scenario in the starter set book, which allows you to add any units you want to your armies, does not suggest that you should attempt to make the battle somewhat balanced in any way.

So I guess I see where people are coming from when they're getting mixed signals.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is this. Games without points values really need to be approached the same way RPG's are, with set scenarios detailing the composition of forces on either side and specific objectives and outcome results and consequences for subsequent games (if applicable), or have a GM fill this role instead and have them create story driven battles the way a GM would in an RPG campaign.

Why not just come up with these scenarios on your own? They won't be playtested, but you'll have more flexibility in creating subsequent scenarios than you would with a pre-written scenario set. One of the really interesting ideas in Jervis' essay is that they often didn't even have set conditions for what constitutes victory in the scenario, they'd just talk about it afterwards. If you're collaborating to make a story, it doesn't even really matter if the scenarios are fair.

 Vaktathi wrote:
AoS offers none of these tools nor really any suggestions for such. Instead, it still fundamentally operates the same way that previous "competitive" pickup-game-friendly editions did.

That's the weird part. Also, a lot of modern RPGs provide guidance to the DM on what sort of creature something is and its approximate challenge rating. They could have provided something like that for Age of Sigmar without resorting to points values.

I definitely think points values are stunting the average game, because people feel like they have to use them - they have become the default - and it badly hurts diversity and narrative. Lacking points values is one of the most exciting things about Age of Sigmar to me. Maybe there is some middle ground, though. Then again, maybe there isn't - it could be that drastic measures are needed to shake people out of falling back on the easy default.

I will probably buy the big book tomorrow. It's been described in other threads as almost like a campaign setting book from an RPG. Maybe that has more guidance on how to make good scenarios within the points system.

The take home message from what jervis says isn't 'points are bad, m'kay'. It's that 'points used poorly Are bad.' And that's what Gw does. Don't mistakes the two.

Vyxen wrote:
I think Jervis Johnson was on the right track.

Probably the most attractive thing for me about Age of Sigmar is "no points", or more importantly, I can just play the models I want to play, and figure it out with my opponent.

You can do that in any game though.

Vyxen wrote:

I totally hated the way every time I wanted to build something in 40k, I came across "but that's not very good". I mean, give me a break. I started Hordes a little bit last year, too, and it was the same thing.

Give aos time and you'll get this here too. I've already seen comments stating x is better than y stat wise, but they still are both one wound.

Vyxen wrote:

I am very happy playing a game where you're not penalized for choosing a "weak" army. If something isn't as good, it just isn't as good, and everyone knows it and works around it. Really, I wish Magic were the same way -- I would love to be able to play it using cards that I enjoy, instead of "well that card sucks, because this uncommon that you own is way better!"

How is that any different from any other game though?

You are mistaking an 'attitude' thing for a 'game' thing. its called 'playing with like minded individuals' and is gaming 101.

Despite what the op states and his aggressive manner. I think points have value thryre not needed, but are extremely useful tools to use. And can be used within campaigns and scenarios. Look at infinity. I am sympathetic to thst whole themed scenario/ point-less army design. It's how we play flames of war. I couldn't tell you the points costs of anything in that game. What gets played is what's appropriate to the scenario, and what is thematic and makes sense, given the context of the greater narrative.
Thing is,Aos chucks you in the wilderness naked and expects you to figure it out. It's not a bad thing necessarily - like I said. I 'got' how it's meant to be played straight away, but thats because I play that way already, with my historical playing friends. It's not 'new ground'. A lot of people don't have this luxury and are looking at this weird thing that doesn't even offer to show them how. being honest, some scenario tools and directions and structures would have gone a long way to making it better at doing what it's supposed to. Maybe we'll see them in the future.
.

I wasn't aware points value were the bane of gaming. I mean sure I heard complaints before now and again but before AoS dropped I never heard a universal calling for the disbanding of a points system and that it was either ruining or creating a toxic environment in gaming. I thought we were all pretty aware depending on how friendly our locals were that it was players that made using the points system bad on occasion and we've all known that one off power player who uses every advantage the game gives them to win and thats bound to happen with AoS too.

A points system allows a lot of players a universal plain in which to build armies on, we get a point system, we understand it and there's little to no misunderstandings when it comes to the cold hard numbers. We know what our squad costs, whats in it and what it can do for the points you put into it. The idea that points take something away from a unit is wrong. The argument that points make some units less viable than others is in essence strategy. A general in a battle doesn't just take what he wants but also what he needs and thats for any game even digital online games. You find a build that works for you but you have to work at refining that build and sometimes that means adding something you might not like but its not forced. Nobody makes you play that way, you only play that way if you choose to, if winning is more important than say aesthetics. I mean if we have reached a point where we can't think critically for ourselves and have to have a game expressively tell us its ok to play our way I might as well get out a toy Godzilla and add it to my army because I want Godzilla in my army. Restrictions are not bad, when used right same as total freedom isn't always good especially when it comes to playing a competitive game based on armies clashing strategically.
Otherwise we might as well start running round playing pretend cowboys and Indians because anything not based solely on imagination is considered too restrictive

This whole just talk with your opponent things isn't a new wave ideology of gaming, talking with your opponent is something we all do anyway. If something in our points value isn't working out we talk it through, lower or higher costs. AoS isn't the revolution, getting rid of a system that doesn't work because some win at all cost players used it to take advantage. Its simply a system that doesn't use points but the idea that a tabletop game simply doesn't need points or a points system somehow makes a game worse because it doesn't encourage creative play or talking with your opponents is just false logic.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Why not just come up with these scenarios on your own? They won't be playtested, but you'll have more flexibility in creating subsequent scenarios than you would with a pre-written scenario set. One of the really interesting ideas in Jervis' essay is that they often didn't even have set conditions for what constitutes victory in the scenario, they'd just talk about it afterwards. If you're collaborating to make a story, it doesn't even really matter if the scenarios are fair.

One could come up with such thing on their own, however there's a few issues.

First and foremost, that should, to at least some extent, be the responsibility of the rules writers, especially from a company that styles itself "Games Workshop", and having to do it on my own, largely blindly and from scratch and without really any guidance from the designers, is going to require GM style effort without GM style tools or references, and that's an issue.

Second, it requires having a small, tight-night playgroup. If I play frequently at different clubs/stores, different playgroups, different cities, carrying that from place to place and trying to get people on board and re-explaining it every time is a big PITA.

That's the weird part. Also, a lot of modern RPGs provide guidance to the DM on what sort of creature something is and its approximate challenge rating. They could have provided something like that for Age of Sigmar without resorting to points values.

Yeah, that's the big thing, games that are driven around scenarios and a narrative typically will lay things out for you or give you tools to do it.

I remember the books from stuff like old Battletech campaign supplements would give you starting forces, resource acquisition, story trees, specific battlefields, consequences/results from battle to battle, or something like OGRE where it says "this side has X number of units deployed in Y area to defend Z, the other side has A forces that come on from B location to destroy C, and here's D, E, and F degrees of victory".

I definitely think points values are stunting the average game, because people feel like they have to use them - they have become the default - and it badly hurts diversity and narrative.

I don't think Points, as a fundamental concept, were ever really the issue. The problem was with GW very consistently poorly costing large numbers of units, and absolutely refusing to address any issues except with subsequent edition book printings, and often didn't bother fixing many even then. GW simply showed little interest in properly costing/designing many units, and actively refused to run any sort of "living ruleset" whereby they could fix such issues without having to wait (up to two editions in many cases) to address the problems. Other games, like Dropzone Commander, routinely revisit things every few months and get player feedback and address these issues, such that almost everything is routinely used and really very little is ever "not worth it".

No system is perfect, but GW seemed to go out of its way to ensure that "points" never really worked right, and that things that didn't work took forever to get fixed.

I will probably buy the big book tomorrow. It's been described in other threads as almost like a campaign setting book from an RPG. Maybe that has more guidance on how to make good scenarios within the points system.

I would hope so, I have no idea however :(

I think most of us reading between the lines have seen that the GW game designers come from a very different angle.
Competitive play is what they don't consider in the first place, better, not at all.
Look at the GW homepage, the Gaming button has been replaced by Painting and Modeling.
In our gaming group, we came up with restrictions to AoS using the Toronto rules floating around.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I wasn't aware points value were the bane of gaming. I mean sure I heard complaints before now and again but before AoS dropped I never heard a universal calling for the disbanding of a points system and that it was either ruining or creating a toxic environment in gaming.

That's why elite game designers like Games Workshop's don't just mindlessly listen to and implement player suggestions. They figure out how to address the root problems of the game.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I thought we were all pretty aware depending on how friendly our locals were that it was players that made using the points system bad on occasion and we've all known that one off power player who uses every advantage the game gives them to win and thats bound to happen with AoS too.

A points system allows a lot of players a universal plain in which to build armies on, we get a point system, we understand it and theres little to no misunderstandings when it comes to the cold hard numbers. We know what our squad costs, whats in it and what it can do for the points you put into it.

The promise inherent in point systems is that they create balance. We can create two lists of similar points costs and they will be comparable in power. The problem is that isn't the case. In fact, it's not the case to such a degree that a large part of the attraction of a points system is figuring out how to game it, how to make the leanest, meanest list possible within the points limit.

But balance isn't as simple as points portray. The usefulness of a given model is dependent on a number of factors, like what else is in the list, what is in your opponent's list, what the scenario is, what's on the table. They create only a vague semblance of balance. Yet the culture around them rarely reflects that. If you go to a games night, you're likely to play against someone on arbitrary terrain and with an arbitrary list of the same points value as yours. Does it guarantee a good game? No. But it's usually treated as if it will.

If you think changing the culture so that people pay much less attention to points values is the way to go, okay. Maybe you can work on that and we can stay here and give Age of Sigmar a try and see how it works out. If you're right, it sounds like it will be really nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thanks for the reply, Vaktathi. Maybe I can report back here on my experiences with the book in a couple of days. At present, if people are using old armies I would've thought the existing Warhammer material would be fertile ground for battle concepts. There's stuff to work with using the background information provided in the starter set, too.

I agree that Games Workshop's point systems have been especially bad, but points are always going to have issues because they are context-free. To give an example from the Age of Sigmar boxed set, Blood Reavers are massively more powerful when a Bloodsecrator is nearby. If I take Blood Reavers in my army and don't take a Bloodsecrator, they are worth much less, but a points system does not represent this, and I don't think you can make a non-automated system that will represent this in a satisfactory way. Also, to a certain extent these are considered perks of a points system - that you can attempt to optimise your army within the points limit - and this perk is necessarily at odds with people wanting freedom in their army composition.

To stress - points systems have weaknesses that you cannot ever overcome by correct balancing.

Anyway. That's why I'm very interested in the no-points system.

I can't see anyone with any imagination having a problem.

For a big game, I would take (for example):

* A Great Unclean One
* 1 Herald of Nurgle
* 20 Plaguebearers
* 1 Herald of Slaanesh
* 6 Seekers of Slaanesh
* 10 Daemonettes of Slaanesh
* Soul Grinder of Nurgle
* Skaven Warlord
* 1 Skaven Chieftain
* 1 Skaven Warlock
* 30 Skaven Clanrats
* 30 Skavenslaves

Clearly the Skaven have been meddling too far and have either attracted the patronage or enmity of a Greater Daemon of Nurgle. My opponent's army realise the daemons are gradually corrupting the Skaven, hoping that their explosive population growth will spread a devastating new disease and claim new souls for the Grandfather.

My opponent's army has bound evil monsters out of desperation and sent them to destroy the GUO. My opponent's objective is simply to kill him. My objective is to keep him alive.

Maybe each turn there's a chance more daemons will be summoned from the centre of the table as the other Gods take an interest in events, or if I am dominating, maybe another monster is attracted by the scent of magic and decides to chow down on my force.

This is what Jervis is talking about.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

That's why elite game designers like Games Workshop's don't just mindlessly listen to and implement player suggestions. They figure out how to address the root problems of the game.

'Elite' is pushing it they're a model making company. As for addressing problems, no they've not.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

The promise inherent in point systems is that they create balance. We can create two lists of similar points costs and they will be comparable in power. The problem is that isn't the case. In fact, it's not the case to such a degree that a large part of the attraction of a points system is figuring out how to game it, how to make the leanest, meanest list possible within the points limit.

But balance isn't as simple as points portray. The usefulness of a given model is dependent on a number of factors, like what else is in the list, what is in your opponent's list, what the scenario is, what's on the table. They create only a vague semblance of balance. Yet the culture around them rarely reflects that. If you go to a games night, you're likely to play against someone on arbitrary terrain and with an arbitrary list of the same points value as yours. Does it guarantee a good game? No. But it's usually treated as if it will.

Points are a tool to use, but they're not the only tool. You don't make a house with only a hammer. In the example above, why not have a multi list format, or side boards that let you mitigate bad match ups? The attraction to a points system isn't breaking it, it's having a universal language with which to build games. Not everyone plays in a tight knit group of friends. Being able to play with a 'common ground' in mind makes things so much easier. Points are an aspect of that.

Thing is, points promise a common ground. What does no points promise? potential massive headaches, frustration and arguments.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

If you think changing the culture so that people pay much less attention to points values is the way to go, okay. Maybe you can work on that and we can stay here and give Age of Sigmar a try and see how it works out. If you're right, it sounds like it will be really nice.

A forced change of culture is problematic at best.

And least offer a how to guide rather than leaving people in the wilderness. I like the narrative, themed scenario type of gaming. I think it has great value. The thing is, it's a 'people' thing, not a 'game' thing.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

I agree that Games Workshop's point systems have been especially bad, but points are always going to have issues because they are context-free. To give an example from the Age of Sigmar boxed set, Blood Reavers are massively more powerful when a Bloodsecrator is nearby. If I take Blood Reavers in my army and don't take a Bloodsecrator, they are worth much less, but a points system does not represent this, and I don't think you can make a non-automated system that will represent this in a satisfactory way. Also, to a certain extent these are considered perks of a points system - that you can attempt to optimise your army within the points limit - and this perk is necessarily at odds with people wanting freedom in their army composition.

You are incorrect. You even said it yourself. You take blood reavers on their own, you pay x points. And they're good. You take blood reavers and a bloodsecrator for x plus y points. And they're better. You essentially pay a points 'tax' for an improvement.How does a points system not represent this?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

To stress - points systems have weaknesses that you cannot ever overcome by correct balancing.

Only when you refuse to look at the other tools available.

 NoPoet wrote:

Maybe each turn there's a chance more daemons will be summoned from the centre of the table as the other Gods take an interest in events, or if I am dominating, maybe another monster is attracted by the scent of magic and decides to chow down on my force.

This is what Jervis is talking about.

Doesn't that kind of thing lead to a game changing course and favour based on the random whim of the players. Changing it up on the battlefield is great but doesn't that come at the cost of having a fair gaming table.
Chess wouldn't be chess if the rules could just switch up every few turns, the fun comes in learning the system and working out strategies you can't do that if the rules change from game to game. I just don't see that kind of style been good for the long run or any kind of organized events or tournaments but maybe AoS simply isn't that type of game at all.

Maybe im just someone who needs that universal structure I didn't even like when they started deciding you can basically take whatever armies you want combined in 40k. If I can just take anything from any army whats the point in having unique factions. I still find the idea of I'll take whatever I feel like childish I like having restrictions in strategy its what makes strategy fun, to think your way out of a situation to build a better army by learning from each mistake and lost match, to focus your force. Its not about win at all cost its just whats fun. Like real generals, they are presented with a situation and its up to them to work out how to beat it. Do whatever you feel like in the moment takes away all the tension and drama. Like a kid making the deathstar fight the starship enterprise whilst darth vader is thrown into a horde of plastic soldiers. Structure is strategy.

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

I agree that Games Workshop's point systems have been especially bad, but points are always going to have issues because they are context-free. To give an example from the Age of Sigmar boxed set, Blood Reavers are massively more powerful when a Bloodsecrator is nearby. If I take Blood Reavers in my army and don't take a Bloodsecrator, they are worth much less, but a points system does not represent this, and I don't think you can make a non-automated system that will represent this in a satisfactory way. Also, to a certain extent these are considered perks of a points system - that you can attempt to optimise your army within the points limit - and this perk is necessarily at odds with people wanting freedom in their army composition.

You are incorrect. You even said it yourself. You take blood reavers on their own, you pay x points. And they're good. You take blood reavers and a bloodsecrator for x plus y points. And they're better. You essentially pay a points 'tax' for an improvement.How does a points system not represent this?

The worth of a unit depends on what other units are in the army, what units are in the opponent's army, the scenario, the terrain on the table, and complex interactions between all of these, often in ways that are non-obvious. It is not possible to accurately derive a points value for a unit that takes all these factors into account.

(That said, maybe I'll bow out of any further discussion on whether No Points is Bad since the thread seems to be intended to revel in the joy of No Points. Which is awesome. Hooray no points! )

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

Doesn't that kind of thing lead to a game changing course and favour based on the random whim of the players. Changing it up on the battlefield is great but doesn't that come at the cost of having a fair gaming table.

It does, yeah, but any dice-based game is based on uncertainty. You could have a Bloodthirster losing a combat to Skavenslaves, you could have three Great Cannon kill an Exalted Vermin Lord and a Grey Seer in one turn, you could have your Lord running for the hills when a militia detachment fights to the last against a Dragon. GW games are fluid, dynamic and unpredictable. When playing Necromunda, I had a flamer (a highly maligned weapon which nobody ever seemed to take) roast a gang leader and two henchmen in a single shot, and games where the same flamer did no damage and ran out of ammo after one shot. I played a game of 40K where a GW staff member and I created rules for a lone Space Marine to climb on top of a bunker; he failed three times, actually falling to his death the third time. (You don't read about THAT in the novels.)

To me, the whole point is having a good time. Spot rules occur in every single WD battle report.

Chess is a battle of wits and strategy following strict limits of time and rules. It's all "Queen to King Bish Three, Horsey takes Prawn". There are no situations where you can strap wings onto one of the pieces and fire it from a catapult.

Also in Warhammer the races co-operated as well as fought each other. It was a big world with lots of weird things happening. There is notable overlap between several races, for example Skaven and Nurgle, or Beastment and Chaos Undivided. All Magic users tap into the winds of Chaos. It's hardly a stretch to imagine races fighting together.

Spot rules are not for everyone. Every viewpoint is correct in its own way. It's about finding someone else who will play the same way as you. And that leads back to my original point: AoS almost forces you to work with your opponent, just like Inquisitor did. I don't know *anyone* who played Inquisitor, but I'm sure there were a few people who had combat servitors with two lascannon arms, just as I'm sure plenty of players avoided that type of overkill.

 NoPoet wrote:
created rules for a lone Space Marine to climb on top of a bunker; he failed three times, actually falling to his death the third time. (You don't read about THAT in the novels.)

Wouldn't it be great if they did though.

 NoPoet wrote:
"Queen to King Bish Three, Horsey takes Prawn".

Been a while since Ive heard that red dwarf reference

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

I agree that Games Workshop's point systems have been especially bad, but points are always going to have issues because they are context-free. To give an example from the Age of Sigmar boxed set, Blood Reavers are massively more powerful when a Bloodsecrator is nearby. If I take Blood Reavers in my army and don't take a Bloodsecrator, they are worth much less, but a points system does not represent this, and I don't think you can make a non-automated system that will represent this in a satisfactory way. Also, to a certain extent these are considered perks of a points system - that you can attempt to optimise your army within the points limit - and this perk is necessarily at odds with people wanting freedom in their army composition.

You are incorrect. You even said it yourself. You take blood reavers on their own, you pay x points. And they're good. You take blood reavers and a bloodsecrator for x plus y points. And they're better. You essentially pay a points 'tax' for an improvement.How does a points system not represent this?

The worth of a unit depends on what other units are in the army, what units are in the opponent's army, the scenario, the terrain on the table, and complex interactions between all of these, often in ways that are non-obvious. It is not possible to accurately derive a points value for a unit that takes all these factors into account.

(

It's called 'playtesting', and yes, yes it is possible.

It's an interesting point of view but of course to say that all the top players in the Studio spurn points perhaps merely reflects group think within the Studio.

In my long career of club play, the majority of players I have known have been equally open to "fair" games with points, and games without points, and had fun with both.

Another couple things to point out:

Between the two systems - a game with points values that have had some thought put into them, and Jervis' free-form scenario gaming - which has gotten GW to the position it held when it was king of the hill?

And second, that Warwick Kinrade states that he's in Jervis' camp, and yet his relatively successful Battlegroup ruleset for WWII has a points system - and errata correcting points values - and so does his new Soldiers of God rules.

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

I agree that Games Workshop's point systems have been especially bad, but points are always going to have issues because they are context-free. To give an example from the Age of Sigmar boxed set, Blood Reavers are massively more powerful when a Bloodsecrator is nearby. If I take Blood Reavers in my army and don't take a Bloodsecrator, they are worth much less, but a points system does not represent this, and I don't think you can make a non-automated system that will represent this in a satisfactory way. Also, to a certain extent these are considered perks of a points system - that you can attempt to optimise your army within the points limit - and this perk is necessarily at odds with people wanting freedom in their army composition.

You are incorrect. You even said it yourself. You take blood reavers on their own, you pay x points. And they're good. You take blood reavers and a bloodsecrator for x plus y points. And they're better. You essentially pay a points 'tax' for an improvement.How does a points system not represent this?

The worth of a unit depends on what other units are in the army, what units are in the opponent's army, the scenario, the terrain on the table, and complex interactions between all of these, often in ways that are non-obvious. It is not possible to accurately derive a points value for a unit that takes all these factors into account.

(

It's called 'playtesting', and yes, yes it is possible.

Sadly, its not that simple. Thorough playtesting tends to highlight the fact that the points value of a unit has to be changed according to the situation that it is fighting in.

Obviously that's true in some senses, for example a pontoon bridging unit is worth less in a desert terrain than in a river area.

 marlowc wrote:

Sadly, its not that simple. Thorough playtesting tends to highlight the fact that the points value of a unit has to be changed according to the situation that it is fighting in.

It's apparently simple enough that companies and groups with a lot less resources available to them than Games Workshop does are capable of making points system that allow for balanced gameplay.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously that's true in some senses, for example a pontoon bridging unit is worth less in a desert terrain than in a river area.

Yes, very true! However, the main problem seems to be caused by the inherent stone/scissors/paper nature of many types of units.