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.

If AoS stays as its own DIY, freeform system I am happy. I just dont want it bleeding over in 40k.

At least in 40k there's the option of playing a narrative driven game if you want and throw points out the window if you wanted to recreate the various "historical" set piece battles. Other players who want a competitive event or pick up games have the choice to use the points system - imperfect though it may be.

So, just thought I'd post my experiences with the Battle Brothers 40k event last weekend at WHW. It was pretty enjoyable, if we didn't play anything but Imperium... However there were a few niggles. I don't wanna fan the flames and imply I think people should boycott the thing, that seems too extreme, but thought it'd add to the discussion.

Basically, the rules pack was Gods of War, so a focus on ICs. There was a unique detachment we had access to which was any 3 ICs from any codex that could all join each other. Fair enough. However, about a month before the event an addendum was released allowing each player (it was doubles) to take a single IC for free. Again, whilst free stuff, this isn't really an issue as everyone has access to the same thing, and most codexes can kit someone out to about 300 free points. The issue was that GW did not notify us, the attendees of this in any way. We happened across this addendum 3 days before the event whilst going to print off the rules pack - and as we are both new players we just don't have guys like Draigo or Dante lying around to slap onto our armies (which is what everyone else ended up doing). So we decked out our guys in as many upgrades as we could, but were still playing at around a 300+ pt deficit every game as a result.

The one other thing, which personally bugged me more, was that the event was advertised as being 'a mixture of maelstrom and eternal war, randomly determined'. Every single game was maelstrom - which again would have been fine had we known, but as it was we had an army which excelled in e war and suffers in maelstrom. We managed to pull out 2 wins anyway which I am pleased about - but GW needs to communicate things like this better in future.

Benlisted wrote:
GW needs to communicate things like this better in future.

Benlisted wrote:
GW

Benlisted wrote:
communicate

Sorry, I'm not picking on you here it just struck me as funny. We're talking about the same company that axed an entire game (WHFB) without so much as a note, hint or anything until 2 weeks before the release of its replacement (AoS). If people weren't looking at rumor sites, they had no way of knowing that their entire way of playing and enjoying a game for about 20 years was about to be completely invalidated.

Yeah, GW and communication don't really go together.

@Benlisted I am glad that you enjoyed the event as much as you could. Sadly, your experience of the addendum is symptomatic of the "anything goes" style of play that the WHW events team is trying to encourage with the recent events pack. It also speaks of the practical and very real problems that participants face when entering these events. Some posters in this thread have waved this away by saying that the event should be treated as having a good time playing different people and looking at "kickass" armies. The truth is that people like to win rather than lose and would prefer fair games rather than unfair ones - no matter how "kickass" the opposing army is.

This type of freeform event which plays fast and loose with points and in Benlisted's case, additional force selection choices, favours those with a significant and varied army collection. Having a set points system does not address this point entirely, but it helps if people KNOW for sure what they are in for.

I see your issue as well regarding the missions not being as advertised - usually the events team are pretty good with this (pre the relaunch of WHW) but have heard of issues with the running of events of late...

How many guys turned up at the battle brothers event?

@agnosto Benlisted was referring to WHW events team. To be fair those guys are really dedicated to their job and do, in general, run good events. For some reason, post the WHW relaunch, their MO has been to run events using this freeform philosophy, which also includes addenda to the rules packs prior to the event.

Nidzrule! wrote:

@agnosto Benlisted was referring to WHW events team. To be fair those guys are really dedicated to their job and do, in general, run good events. For some reason, post the WHW relaunch, their MO has been to run events using this freeform philosophy, which also includes addenda to the rules packs prior to the event.

I would argue that the "freeform philosophy" is companywide at this point and communications issues are synonymous with GW. I don't know that they even have a marketing or communications department (I could be wrong) since talking to your customers is probably as "otiose" as market research, if not more so. If a company can't be bothered to tell its customers that it is about to invalidate a play style that has been around for decades, I find it easy to believe that minutiae regarding changes to event rules would not be considered important either.

I feel for the guys/gals running the events because I imagine, as you say, that they care about doing their jobs well but they have to contend with a corporate culture that has been created by such upper management as Jervis Johnson who believe that narrative play is the only way to play and a balanced game is not even on anyone's radar in the company.

@agnosto Nick Bayton who runs the events is a great guy and I wish him the best of luck - I do not know how much is being dictated from above.

Like you I dont understand why WHW is now running Throne of Skulls like a campaign event but without a narrative. They already do true campaign events (Inquisition Wars) and I feel that players who want to play a series of fair and balanced games do not have that particular avenue available.

Btw in your references to JJ being the driving force behind the 'forge the narrative' structure are you also referring to his article in the Citadel Journal yonks ago?

Nidzrule! wrote:
@agnosto Nick Bayton who runs the events is a great guy and I wish him the best of luck - I do not know how much is being dictated from above.

Like you I dont understand why WHW is now running Throne of Skulls like a campaign event but without a narrative. They already do true campaign events (Inquisition Wars) and I feel that players who want to play a series of fair and balanced games do not have that particular avenue available.

Btw in your references to JJ being the driving force behind the 'forge the narrative' structure are you also referring to his article in the Citadel Journal yonks ago?

I believe that to be part of it, kind of reaffirmed more recently with an article he wrote in WD about a year or so ago about FAQs and how he believes people should just dice off when they don't understand a rule. Sure, people can change their perspective but it doesn't appear that Jervis has and he's in charge of long-range planning. The fact is that the old guard played their games very differently to how most of us do and JJ is pretty much the last one left so, if it quacks like a duck....

 -Loki- wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

Exept that hasn't happened? Infinitys been around for 10 years with massive expansion of the range over the last couple of years, and is still regarded as excellently balanced with few, if any, outright bad units and no 'autoincludes' due to power level. Malifauxs younger, but no less regarded since 2nd edition (admittedly, 1.5e was GW level bad, but they at least saw the issues and fixed them).

And Warmachine has been around longer. Yes, their points isn't perfect but its a darn sight better than GW has managed for years. "Imperfect" doesn't mean "not good enough." And Infinity's balance is really quite well done.
And yes, balance is necessary for my enjoyment.

There were 36 teams at the event, which I believe was the full quota?

I would be much more bothered about the 'anything goes' approach if it were a competitive event like a GT - but the favourite game votes winning makes it clear it's not meant to be a hyper competitive environment. There is a niche for this type of tournament - I have some cool list ideas if I ever go to a throne of skulls that most places wouldn't allow due to detachment/formation restrictions, for instance. Allowing anything becomes an issue if you are trying to be a hyper competitive tourney, like the issue with the current UK GT rules pack (unlimited detachments, very little comp). In that sort of event I would be concerned about the same rules.

But yeah, whilst I wasn't going with the intent to stomp people, I do want a fair and reasonable game and prefer winning to losing (as most people do to some degree) and the lack of communicating changes did impair that. So yeah, that was the real issue as I saw it.

Anyway, I guess the reason I brought up the communication thing is that whilst I think AoS was mishandled, it is at the end of the day their game, and they don't have to tell us what they're doing with it. I don't like it and I think it's a stupid move, but we can't make them. Here, we signed up for something and paid in advance having seen a rules pack we liked - and then it was altered without notifying us. Luckily it didn't ruin the event for us, but it was enough to add a kind of annoyance at the odds being piled against us that I would rather have not had to feel.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

Exept that hasn't happened? Infinitys been around for 10 years with massive expansion of the range over the last couple of years, and is still regarded as excellently balanced with few, if any, outright bad units and no 'autoincludes' due to power level. Malifauxs younger, but no less regarded since 2nd edition (admittedly, 1.5e was GW level bad, but they at least saw the issues and fixed them).

And Warmachine has been around longer. Yes, their points isn't perfect but its a darn sight better than GW has managed for years. "Imperfect" doesn't mean "not good enough." And Infinity's balance is really quite well done.
And yes, balance is necessary for my enjoyment.

Got to defend GW this time:


1) Infinity makes really good use of the point system, but not cause it is a godly entity compared to GW, but simply cause the point system is a really good balancing mechanic in small scale games.

2) WM/H on the other hand is in no way more balanced than GW. Now i don't know if something changed in the last 3 years, but when i used to be a really competitive Everblight player 70% of the list was already compiled by the time i choose my warlock.
AutoincludeMachine is by far not a good example of a balanced system. A well balanced system shows in letting the player field what he wants with small/minimal impact on list efficency. WM/H is the opposite of it.

 agnosto wrote:

Benlisted wrote:
GW needs to communicate things like this better in future.

Benlisted wrote:
GW

Benlisted wrote:
communicate

Sorry, I'm not picking on you here it just struck me as funny. We're talking about the same company that axed an entire game (WHFB) without so much as a note, hint or anything until 2 weeks before the release of its replacement (AoS). If people weren't looking at rumor sites, they had no way of knowing that their entire way of playing and enjoying a game for about 20 years was about to be completely invalidated.

Yeah, GW and communication don't really go together.

Well according to GW employees and their sycophants here the end times was your pre warning, and you should have bought the $600 paper weights that not only are still useful as fluff books, but were definitely not a bait and switch tactic.

agnosto wrote:


Sorry, I'm not picking on you here it just struck me as funny. We're talking about the same company that axed an entire game (WHFB) without so much as a note, hint or anything until 2 weeks before the release of its replacement (AoS). If people weren't looking at rumor sites, they had no way of knowing that their entire way of playing and enjoying a game for about 20 years was about to be completely invalidated.

Yeah, GW and communication don't really go together.

True and what's worse is the argument put forward that the name used for the last campaign 'end times' was an obvious clue what they were going to scrap the whole game in favour of the new nonsense. Even reading the rumours on here and other sites it was very hard for most people to believe that they were going to take such a drastic step. As you point out, the lack of communication was anothe feature and quite frankly appalling...

Ravenous D wrote:

Well according to GW employees and their sycophants here the end times was your pre warning, and you should have bought the $600 paper weights that not only are still useful as fluff books, but were definitely not a bait and switch tactic.

Well I remember speaking to staff members in my local Gw only a week or two before AoS popped and they were adamant that the changes from 8th would not be drastic or as bad as being predicted online so either their own staff didn't know in advance or...?

Nidzrule! wrote:
It's a sad state of affairs. The depth of the AoS isnt there. It will be fun for awhile but to me any initial "new game" shine wears out and what will be left - a shell of a once glorious game.

Warhammer 6th edition died almost a decade ago. Time to stop mourning it's loss!

 Lt. Donomar StubbornBull wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:

Well according to GW employees and their sycophants here the end times was your pre warning, and you should have bought the $600 paper weights that not only are still useful as fluff books, but were definitely not a bait and switch tactic.

Well I remember speaking to staff members in my local Gw only a week or two before AoS popped and they were adamant that the changes from 8th would not be drastic or as bad as being predicted online so either their own staff didn't know in advance or...?

They knew at least a month a head of time from the quarterly managers meeting in memphis, and were selling end times books right up to 2 weeks before release. But remember the end times was just fluff and stands alone as a story book for $100 just as well.

Well no one has volunteered that they will be attending the AoS campaign event. Will see how successful this has been in the next few months...

Spoletta wrote:

Got to defend GW this time:


1) Infinity makes really good use of the point system, but not cause it is a godly entity compared to GW, but simply cause the point system is a really good balancing mechanic in small scale games.

2) WM/H on the other hand is in no way more balanced than GW. Now i don't know if something changed in the last 3 years, but when i used to be a really competitive Everblight player 70% of the list was already compiled by the time i choose my warlock.
AutoincludeMachine is by far not a good example of a balanced system. A well balanced system shows in letting the player field what he wants with small/minimal impact on list efficency. WM/H is the opposite of it.

I wrote up a wall of text about Warmachine's balance, but this is all off topic. We agree on the part that matters to this thread's topic- games can be balanced using point values.

 Vaktathi wrote:

So it looks like it's a more "play 2K, if both you and your opponent want to play 2.5K, you can play that". Not quite as bad, but still pretty wonky for a tournament.

I'd say lame, yeah. I'd just say no to more than 2000 pts if my opponent wanted to increase it. In a tournament, 2000 points will already take a while to get to turn 4. No reason to make it take longer and only get in 3 turns.

Spoletta wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Corvus Belli and Wyrd manage to make very, very balanced games using points systems.

Every new game is "very, very balanced" according to people who used to be blind GW fans and were "born again" into GW haters and blind whatever-fans. Once you get a good pool of sensible people playing and the novelty of having at least some semblance of balance wears off, all the usual problems inherent with points systems come up, and it becomes clear that the semblance of balance really is just a semblance.

Exept that hasn't happened? Infinitys been around for 10 years with massive expansion of the range over the last couple of years, and is still regarded as excellently balanced with few, if any, outright bad units and no 'autoincludes' due to power level. Malifauxs younger, but no less regarded since 2nd edition (admittedly, 1.5e was GW level bad, but they at least saw the issues and fixed them).

And Warmachine has been around longer. Yes, their points isn't perfect but its a darn sight better than GW has managed for years. "Imperfect" doesn't mean "not good enough." And Infinity's balance is really quite well done.
And yes, balance is necessary for my enjoyment.

Got to defend GW this time:


1) Infinity makes really good use of the point system, but not cause it is a godly entity compared to GW, but simply cause the point system is a really good balancing mechanic in small scale games.

Not only that but Infinity effectively has two different points systems--the points of a model and the Special Weapons Cost of a profile.

And honestly Loki, "no autoincludes due to power level" is true but "autoincludes because of Specialist" is even more true.

The issues with points costs in both Infinity and WM/H are also mitigated by the simple fact that the two games circumvent the typical points-efficiency equations. In Infinity, you just need to take 10 different things and activate the best one for the current situation 10 times a turn while the rest fiddle their thumbs. A model is never useless because it can just pass on its action to a better model. And in WM/H the interactions between special abilities are far more important than individual model power. And yet, still, some units are clearly better deals than others.

Not to necropost, but I'm back from the first day of the Horus Heresy ToS event that kicked up such a fuss when it was announced.

And?

What an event so far! Pretty much all the players have brought 2k, 2.5k and 3k lists that can be swapped between depending on their opponent's ability to field the same points (or thereabouts). There's very little in the way of power gaming or cheese (yes, one guy has turned up with 3 war hounds, but he's not doing so well...), but what there has been is three great games with very little complaint..
and a full hall.

My three games so far have been great fun - one at 2.5k, one at 3k and 1 at 2k. All games are using the Maelstrom setups, with event specific strategy cards rather than the standard deck.

I'll post up a more detailed report tomorrow, but I'm knackered now and need food!

 Art Steventon wrote:
(yes, one guy has turned up with 3 war hounds, but he's not doing so well...)

Ah, the old friendwinner formation

 lord_blackfang wrote:
40k has already been Sigmar'd over the last decade, but it was so gradual that most people only caught on when Unbound dropped. There's nothing there worth saving, just like there wasn't in WHFB.

I wanted to believe in AoS but alas, I made the official jump to Warmahordes today. Lots of fun.

I like the W40K rules as they are for the most part, but I could easily live without points. I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

Points can unbalance as well as balance a game. Sadly when I read a lot of pro-point comments, the individual hasn't fully considered this. With no disrespect intended I don't think a lot of pro-point individuals can see the forest through the trees.

I suggest players try playing W40K, using all rules except points for army composition (forgoing Unbound)... Seriously, try it out... You may find that it's quite enjoyable.

No, they can't make it any more unbalanced. Having points can't make it any worse than not having them, because you can ignore them while not having them you can't just use them.

That's the thing that immediately completely torpedoes any anti-points sentiment.

 Art Steventon wrote:
Not to necropost, but I'm back from the first day of the Horus Heresy ToS event that kicked up such a fuss when it was announced.

And?

What an event so far! Pretty much all the players have brought 2k, 2.5k and 3k lists that can be swapped between depending on their opponent's ability to field the same points (or thereabouts). There's very little in the way of power gaming or cheese (yes, one guy has turned up with 3 war hounds, but he's not doing so well...), but what there has been is three great games with very little complaint..
and a full hall.

My three games so far have been great fun - one at 2.5k, one at 3k and 1 at 2k. All games are using the Maelstrom setups, with event specific strategy cards rather than the standard deck.

I'll post up a more detailed report tomorrow, but I'm knackered now and need food!

Glad to hear you enjoyed it! Did you take any pics?

Yeah, Warhound featured at the CoW too. Oddly that guy didn't get any fellowship votes out of all the matches.

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
Having points can't make it any worse than not having them, because you can ignore them while not having them you can't just use them.

That's the thing that immediately completely torpedoes any anti-points sentiment.

Exactly

 Crablezworth wrote:

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great

Maybe you should try playing it with people that aren't just looking to break the system?

I've yet to have a bad game of AoS--barring the ones where I was the one playing the Ambusher in "The Trap" scenario, running nothing but Wood Elf Waywatchers, a Waywatcher Lord, and Hunting Hounds of Orion.

Spoiler: It was great for me; no fun at all for the other person.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great

Maybe you should try playing it with people that aren't just looking to break the system?

I've yet to have a bad game of AoS--barring the ones where I was the one playing the Ambusher in "The Trap" scenario, running nothing but Wood Elf Waywatchers, a Waywatcher Lord, and Hunting Hounds of Orion.

Spoiler: It was great for me; no fun at all for the other person.

I don't understand this assumption that wanting a baseline for a fair game = wanting to be a WAAC TFG.
With pick up games I don't want to bring my whole collection of models in order to negotiate what might be in the ballpark of a fair game.
"What faction? How many points?"
That's the level of negotiation I like and am used to.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 oni wrote:
I firmly believe people put too much importance on points and the game and community would be much better without them.

I hear AOS is really great

Maybe you should try playing it with people that aren't just looking to break the system?

I've yet to have a bad game of AoS--barring the ones where I was the one playing the Ambusher in "The Trap" scenario, running nothing but Wood Elf Waywatchers, a Waywatcher Lord, and Hunting Hounds of Orion.

Spoiler: It was great for me; no fun at all for the other person.

I don't understand this assumption that wanting a baseline for a fair game = wanting to be a WAAC TFG.

Admittedly, I should have clarified a bit more but my point was that it's actually a hard system to break unless you're REALLY trying to outside of a few outstanding circumstances. An example of this: "The Trap" scenario with someone who is running small units of ranged attackers against someone who is running a horde army means that the Ambusher[person with fewer models] could potentially have Sudden Death rules in effect, if they are outnumbered 2 to 1.

That is literally the only time I have seen an Age of Sigmar game end in a single round of shooting because of the nature of the mission and the units I ran. If I had known it would be like that, I would have altered the list since it was week one of our Escalation League.

With pick up games I don't want to bring my whole collection of models in order to negotiate what might be in the ballpark of a fair game.
"What faction? How many points?"
That's the level of negotiation I like and am used to.

Truthfully, the "level of negotiation" I have had to do so far has been as follows:
"What mission do you want to play? What Realm rules do you want to use?".
Everything else falls into place as the missions, much like the warscrolls themselves, give you all the pertinent information within.

Myself and a few others in my group have already switched from the mess that 40k is to AoS and are having a great time.Many more are taking note of AoS and its gaining in acceptance,maybe not so much from the WHFB competitive circles but more so from 40k and other game systems like warmahordes and such.

If AoS continues at this rate,players may actually start wanting to see 40k "Sigmar`d"