But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?
I appreciate they are doing something about it, but I am still at a loss as to why anyone thought not having something there from day 1 would be in any way a viable approach.
TheWaspinator wrote: Oh hey, they finally realized that the game needs to be playable as a pickup game without major house rules.
And to anyone who thinks that the standard way of playing the game going forward is anything but the points system, I just have laughter for you.
haha, I see your laughter and raise you a raspberry Actually, I do expect at this point going on the very little we have that Matched Play will indeed be very big but I hardly see any "scene" I end up in with no option for Open an Narrative. Maybe do a Match game to prep for a Match event but we are quite happy using SCGT or Clash comp now without anything else. We shall see. But this announcement is good news.
I'm really interested to see how they handle this. I suspect that they recently decided to speedily introduce a balancing system with points after they realised that not having one was a real barrier to entry, and so we probably shouldn't expect books - since they would have been arranged years ago. Probably a new section on the app? Anyway, to explicitly have a three-way division in gaming - random fun, competitive, narrative campaign - has always been my impression of the best way to handle the GW fanbase. A lot of people really do like not having points - and by subdividing the rules in this way, they can keep on playing that way. The Narrative rules also could be really interesting, and we might hope to see a Mordheim-style game mode coming out.
The real question will be 'how good are the points?' Having tournament organisers involved will be really good for helping to bring balance to the force, er, I mean the game, but the degree to which GW follows their advice remains to be seen.
I was actually considering playing age of Sigmar the weird balance issues had me skeptical. I will definitely say this is a step in the right direction if it actually makes things balance. I don't say this too often but kudos to GW for doing that
Charles Rampant wrote: I'm really interested to see how they handle this. I suspect that they recently decided to speedily introduce a balancing system with points after they realised that not having one was a real barrier to entry, and so we probably shouldn't expect books - since they would have been arranged years ago. Probably a new section on the app? Anyway, to explicitly have a three-way division in gaming - random fun, competitive, narrative campaign - has always been my impression of the best way to handle the GW fanbase. A lot of people really do like not having points - and by subdividing the rules in this way, they can keep on playing that way. The Narrative rules also could be really interesting, and we might hope to see a Mordheim-style game mode coming out.
The real question will be 'how good are the points?' Having tournament organisers involved will be really good for helping to bring balance to the force, er, I mean the game, but the degree to which GW follows their advice remains to be seen.
Arguably they did a wise thing; let the community create the best fit for them and then appropriate it.
GW has had issues in the past in that they create a system and the community adapt it to their needs as a tournament game, it not really being the milieu of their lead developers in days gone past (messers Priestley and Johnson). So an interesting approach it would seem.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?
Or alternatively, they're working with the community that a) has an established independent balancing system ready to adapt, b) has a ton of data to work from given the events over the last year, way more info than GW would get working from their own playtests!
Working with the community to improve the game isn't an admission of anything, it's simply taking advantage of a resource that's there. Mantic to essentially the same thing with their Rules Committee and open Beta testing of their games.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?
Or alternatively, they're working with the community that a) has an established independent balancing system ready to adapt, b) has a ton of data to work from given the events over the last year, way more info than GW would get working from their own playtests!
Working with the community to improve the game isn't an admission of anything, it's simply taking advantage of a resource that's there. Mantic to essentially the same thing with their Rules Committee and open Beta testing of their games.
Indeed, which makes this that much more of a step from GW's than a simple admission of "our rules suck, guys". It's the reversal of several years of ignoring the community.
But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?
The CEO that boasted about not doing market research and not asking their customers what they wanted.
Thank the Emprah he's gone.
Kirby was in no way at a level to give a toss about rules or points or how minis looked, it will have been his underlings, viziers and wormtongues, now there's a new CEO, the new positives will be coming from the people he's elevated and started listening to. Rowntree seems to have cast down those he found of little merit and elevated those he wants to forge a new direction for GW.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:Is the outsourcing an admission by GW that they can't write balanced rules even if they wanted to?
It's not 'outsourcing', it's collaboration and listening to feedback, that's commendable, let us please, dear god, not start snarking them for doing the right thing now they're doing it...
I only played one game of AoS, mostly though due to time restrictions but whilst I wasn't fond of the simple attacks although I loved LoTR as a kid which was essentially the same i.e. roll 4, 5 or 6 to kill them so I am not sure why I would be bothered by this. The game was treated like LoTR for the basis of the campaign so every model was a separate unit which made the 'I go, you go' combat deceleration a pain in the ass. It certainly wasn't bad though. Three players Stormcast, Dark Elves and myself as Khorne in which I (temporarily) teamed up with the elves to make up the wound count of the Stormcast. Overall fun narrative play.
I would be so happy if the 'balanced' play went as smoothly as I hope as it gives me an excuse to finally assemble all those VC models I had before End Times finished. I didn't play enough to say points are needed or not but for me it just felt weird not having a structure system for army list and hopefully this will bring more players in.
I am devastated The Old World is no more and what I would give to see it again even stuck in the End Times period. I do really like the AoS lore so far so it would be nice to see it progress more.
Good on GW though, I love the stuff they are doing now.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: It's not 'outsourcing', it's collaboration and listening to feedback, that's commendable, let us please, dear god, not start snarking them for doing the right thing now they're doing it...
As you wish...
Honestly I hope they do it with 40k, too. 40k could definitely use a more balanced "matched play" format.
Putting my personal feelings aside (it's too little too late, and as a TK player I've been shafted) I do think this is really good news. I DONT think this is going to have all the ostracized fantasy players running back, but I don't think that's their target. It only made sense (because it literally cost them nothing but time and the paper if it gets printed) to offer points as an option, and to echo other comments all they had to do was look at what the community had already done and adapt.
I think the more exciting aspect of this is the community engagement, even more so than the points. I mean, when I played locally, we effectively already had points available via the community systems, so not a huge practical change for us.
But the engagement on FB, acknowledgement of the community, etc, represents an attitude that casts everything in a positive new light.
I actually think that's kind of a good idea of offering bundles for winning armies, as it ties product to community events. I'm sure there are gamers that would want this. If they will Google winning lists then they'll damn well want to buy them.
Holy gak... a Games Workshop responsive to customers??? Age of Sigmar wasn't working for many (most?), and fans and community leaders did a commendable job building a working points system into a game which wasn't meant to have one. Now GW has announced using these same talented individuals to develop the game further in a meaningful way???
Kevin Roundtree is absolutely making Kirby his bitch, and in the last year has begun course-correcting GW into a company which engages with fans, is responsive and willing to change direction when mistakes occur, etc...
Kudos in general. I think I might even need to go get some Orruks (ugh... ok, I still won't use their awful IP protected names).
Now all we need is a supplement where they un-explode the proper background and somebody to paint "We did a very stupid thing" in 1' high letters on the outside of GWHQ and all will be well. Or better, at least.
I wouldn't have minded the exploded Fantasy setting if it didn't mean that so many factions were being at best rolled together or at worst removed entirely.
But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?
I appreciate they are doing something about it, but I am still at a loss as to why anyone thought not having something there from day 1 would be in any way a viable approach.
Because over the past dozen years all the real rules writing and game playing talent in the design studio was driven out, leaving a lot of compliant yes men who fell into group think.
Ignoring the fact that the problems with points were caused by GW fething things up, the studio went with the theory that points are bad because only the wrong type of players like them.
It's sad that all existing books and war scrolls will become obsolete in less that a year from launch.
motski wrote: Makes me wonder how many points a stardrake, or Nagash or hell Archaon is going to be
In SCGT a Lord Celestant Stardrake is 28, Nagash is 55, and Archaon is 35. In comparison, 10 skeletons are 4 points and 5 Stormcast Liberators are 5 Points.
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
That's pretty cool. I wasn't expecting points, and working with tournament organisers is a really good move imo. Definitely a big step in the right direction.
But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?
I appreciate they are doing something about it, but I am still at a loss as to why anyone thought not having something there from day 1 would be in any way a viable approach.
Because over the past dozen years all the real rules writing and game playing talent in the design studio was driven out, leaving a lot of compliant yes men who fell into group think.
Ignoring the fact that the problems with points were caused by GW fething things up, the studio went with the theory that points are bad because only the wrong type of players like them.
It's sad that all existing books and war scrolls will become obsolete in less that a year from launch.
They won't. GW specifically stated on FB that no existing books will be outdated. The only thing you will be missing is the Points. And even if you consider that to be making them obsolete, the major part of the books are the new scenarios and Times of War, all of which will still be completely usable.
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Play the scenarios out of the books with points values to decide the forces. What's the downside?
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
what? I have no idea what you're talking about here. You mean folks in UK?
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Play the scenarios out of the books with points values to decide the forces. What's the downside?
The 'downside' is that they caved to the constant complaints about "I don't know how to play without points!".
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
what? I have no idea what you're talking about here. You mean folks in UK?
We've had this argument at great length about the Grand Alliance: Something book which doesn't contain all the Grand Alliance: Something units because some new ones were published shortly after the faction bible had been issued.
Existing books will be completely usable unless you want to include points values, in which case players will have to refer to some other books or downloads to obtain the necessary information.
It remains to be seen how the new narrative rules will retrofit into the already available books.
Open Play = 4-page rules
Narrative Play = The campaign books
Balanced Play = a comp pack similar to SCGT
With regards to it being a separate document. That would be preferable because it could be tweaked and amended without having to republish the warscrolls.
I'm guessing that sales are falling enough to make it worth doing this even if people feel short changed about books they have bought (some will even if they are not technically made redundant).
There is probably a much broader possible user base like myself, who bought the initial 2 player box and nothing since, who they are trying to get back. I also think they probably have lost a lot of players to kings of war, even if a lot of those use GW minis.
Kilkrazy wrote: We've had this argument at great length about the Grand Alliance: Something book which doesn't contain all the Grand Alliance: Something units because some new ones were published shortly after the faction bible had been issued.
Existing books will be completely usable unless you want to include points values, in which case players will have to refer to some other books or downloads to obtain the necessary information.
It remains to be seen how the new narrative rules will retrofit into the already available books.
I very much doubt that they will include points values in future books anyway, and if I'm right there will be nothing missing from the older books. Remains to be seen.
NoggintheNog wrote: I'm guessing that sales are falling enough to make it worth doing this even if people feel short changed about books they have bought (some will even if they are not technically made redundant).
There is probably a much broader possible user base like myself, who bought the initial 2 player box and nothing since, who they are trying to get back. I also think they probably have lost a lot of players to kings of war, even if a lot of those use GW minis.
As a 40k player, who went through excitement for a skirmish game and then total disinterest for a 'points less' system, I'm really really excited to see points coming to this game and to actually be contemplating playing it. Given that I'm mostly reliant on pick up games and events, I can finally start building a force to be able to carry about and say 'hey, fancy a game at XX points?'.
I am so pleased with how GW seems to be changing direction lately.
Open Play = 4-page rules
Narrative Play = The campaign books
Balanced Play = a comp pack similar to SCGT
With regards to it being a separate document. That would be preferable because it could be tweaked and amended without having to republish the warscrolls.
This is what I'm expecting. A separate document with Points values and tournament rules, while the Campaign books will remain as they are now.
And I think the local GW store is doing an AoS legaue/campaign sometime... damn it, now I have to really consider picking something up. I really like how the Stormcasts look, I mean really like them.
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Play the scenarios out of the books with points values to decide the forces. What's the downside?
The 'downside' is that they caved to the constant complaints about "I don't know how to play without points!".
You mean they took note of the biggest points of negative feedback and took steps to address it?
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Play the scenarios out of the books with points values to decide the forces. What's the downside?
The 'downside' is that they caved to the constant complaints about "I don't know how to play without points!".
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
what? I have no idea what you're talking about here. You mean folks in UK?
Do you know what "local" means?
It means people within my immediate area.
HAHA, duh. sorry. I see what happened. I'm reading so much between these forums a litany of complaining, much about UK, GW, tournament, blah that when I saw your post I read it in that context. Totally my mistake. sorry
NoggintheNog wrote: I'm guessing that sales are falling enough to make it worth doing this even if people feel short changed about books they have bought (some will even if they are not technically made redundant).
There is probably a much broader possible user base like myself, who bought the initial 2 player box and nothing since, who they are trying to get back. I also think they probably have lost a lot of players to kings of war, even if a lot of those use GW minis.
As a 40k player, who went through excitement for a skirmish game and then total disinterest for a 'points less' system, I'm really really excited to see points coming to this game and to actually be contemplating playing it. Given that I'm mostly reliant on pick up games and events, I can finally start building a force to be able to carry about and say 'hey, fancy a game at XX points?'.
I am so pleased with how GW seems to be changing direction lately.
As a disgruntled 8th edition WHFB player who enjoys the hell out of the "pointless" system--it really wasn't that hard to play pick-up games without a points system.
I can understand how it's offputting to some people, but I personally never had issues with getting/organizing games for AoS until the tournaments started doing these 'balancing' acts. Then all of a damn sudden, everyone's talking about limiting by Wounds or by number of unique Warscrolls or by tags or whatever other nonsense they come up with(had one guy try to say he wanted to limit based on the number of attacks a unit had!).
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Play the scenarios out of the books with points values to decide the forces. What's the downside?
The 'downside' is that they caved to the constant complaints about "I don't know how to play without points!".
You mean they took note of the biggest points of negative feedback and took steps to address it?
Crazy, I know
How many people actually playing AoS right now were complaining about lack of points? I can think of a few locally, but they were complaining because they're paranoid as hell about every little thing "potentially" being unbalanced.
I had a game yesterday where someone threw an entire Fyreslayer army(with multiple heroes) at my two Waywatchers and a Waystrider, complaining the whole time because he had wanted to 'balance' the game based upon the number of missile weapons in our lists.
How many people actually playing AoS right now were complaining about lack of points? I can think of a few locally, but they were complaining because they're paranoid as hell about every little thing "potentially" being unbalanced.
I had a game yesterday where someone threw an entire Fyreslayer army(with multiple heroes) at my two Waywatchers and a Waystrider, complaining the whole time because he had wanted to 'balance' the game based upon the number of missile weapons in our lists.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. They are listening to the negative feedback of players that may actually have been playing the game if such a balancing mechanism worked but that otherwise aren't touching the game at all. This is GW reaching out to the lost customer base.
They are taking nothing away from the current game, only adding to it. Adding to it something that may make the player/customer base grow.
NoggintheNog wrote: I'm guessing that sales are falling enough to make it worth doing this even if people feel short changed about books they have bought (some will even if they are not technically made redundant).
There is probably a much broader possible user base like myself, who bought the initial 2 player box and nothing since, who they are trying to get back. I also think they probably have lost a lot of players to kings of war, even if a lot of those use GW minis.
As a 40k player, who went through excitement for a skirmish game and then total disinterest for a 'points less' system, I'm really really excited to see points coming to this game and to actually be contemplating playing it. Given that I'm mostly reliant on pick up games and events, I can finally start building a force to be able to carry about and say 'hey, fancy a game at XX points?'.
I am so pleased with how GW seems to be changing direction lately.
Same here!
This is great and, I think, bodes well for the future too.
Yeah in a lot of ways the hysteria over "No points" was not as much of an issue as "No structure".
All points have even been as a way to price the killing/survival power of a particular set of wounds. In many way it could be easier to just cut out the middle man and go by wounds/keywords in the description for the purposes of balancing.
But whatever, GW is actually responding to criticism because they screwed up so bad. Hell, the last time they did that was the 6th Edition Dark Elf Army book.
But, but, all those rumormonger posts saying points were never going to happen!
Glad to see GW took a serious look at this. The lack of points (or indeed, *any* balancing instrument other than "eh, that'll work") was a serious impediment to the success of a game that replaced GW's previous flagship product which had a points system.
I'll have to see how this all pans out. I enjoyed the more skirmish feel of AOS, but there simply hasn't been a community here that plays it (short of the GW one-man store a ways up north). Hopefully we'll keep seeing positives for AOS like the new Orc release and point systems- it might not be that far off before I actually have to pick it up!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ziggurattt wrote: My local game store recently started selling all Age of Sigmar stuff at 30% off of retail price.
I wonder, with the new support from Games Workshop (referring to the FAQ, and now Matched Play) if he'll bump the prices back up to retail price.
Same here, I keep seeing AOS stuff going up for significant sales because there simply isn't a market for it (where I am). These steps might actually help create one.
How many people actually playing AoS right now were complaining about lack of points? I can think of a few locally, but they were complaining because they're paranoid as hell about every little thing "potentially" being unbalanced.
I had a game yesterday where someone threw an entire Fyreslayer army(with multiple heroes) at my two Waywatchers and a Waystrider, complaining the whole time because he had wanted to 'balance' the game based upon the number of missile weapons in our lists.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. They are listening to the negative feedback of players that may actually have been playing the game if such a balancing mechanism worked but that otherwise aren't touching the game at all. This is GW reaching out to the lost customer base.
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
They are taking nothing away from the current game, only adding to it. Adding to it something that may make the player/customer base grow.
Sure, they're not taking anything away from the current game.
But what they might end up doing is further fragmenting the playerbase. It's already become the case where people tried to spring these tournament systems into casual play, at least in my personal experience.
Too many people have delusions of being top grade tourney players these days.
I wish *I* could get 30% off Warhammer stuff. Or that they announced Silver Tower, points were not supposed to happen!
The lack of them was really baffling to me and a return is welcome, because it shows GW opening up a bit to fan demand. IF they manage to make a collaboration effort with a part of the community work in their favour (again) maybe we will see more support for fan favourites (again) outside of releases like Genestealer Cult and AdMech models.
How many people actually playing AoS right now were complaining about lack of points? I can think of a few locally, but they were complaining because they're paranoid as hell about every little thing "potentially" being unbalanced.
I had a game yesterday where someone threw an entire Fyreslayer army(with multiple heroes) at my two Waywatchers and a Waystrider, complaining the whole time because he had wanted to 'balance' the game based upon the number of missile weapons in our lists.
I think you're looking at it the wrong way. They are listening to the negative feedback of players that may actually have been playing the game if such a balancing mechanism worked but that otherwise aren't touching the game at all. This is GW reaching out to the lost customer base.
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
They are taking nothing away from the current game, only adding to it. Adding to it something that may make the player/customer base grow.
Sure, they're not taking anything away from the current game.
But what they might end up doing is further fragmenting the playerbase. It's already become the case where people tried to spring these tournament systems into casual play, at least in my personal experience.
Too many people have delusions of being top grade tourney players these days.
So? Let the customer base complain about the model prices, maybe (as improbable as that sounds) that will lead to GW actually doing something about. Customers have the right to complain, and companies should learn to listen to their customer base if they want to keep afloat.
As for the possible fragmentation of the playerbase, I don't understand how that can be a bad thing for GW if they are expanding the customer base and having more players overall playing the game. What you'll have is a new playerbase forming up, not a splintering of the previous one.
In the end, you play however the damn you want - isn't that the spirit of AoS?
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.
Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.
Really cool that they're working with Heelanhammer and Facehammer on this. That's how I dreamed it would go down. I like the suggestion earlier in annual point books. Also, I would expect this document would make base to base measuring and whatnot.
I'm personally excited. I love the idea of skirmish fantasy but with some units ala 40k. One of my current favorite games is Wrath of Kings. And this would make AoS a perfect middle ground between it and KoW.
This means more local events will play it. This means more locals will come out and play it at stores. I'm lucky that I live in an area that embraced AoS but for every person who embraced it there are 5-10 who have sat on the sidelines or only played it at a structured event. This brings those people back and I'm one of them.
I based my fantasy mini's on rounds once AoS came out because I could get custom regiment bases for KoW. Now I can use the models in both games and double the amount of tournaments/events I can play in.
Good job GW. Kudos. So many good moves in a year. Good Job Mr. Roundtree. Way to change the thinking model of a company that's head has been up it's own butt for almost a decade now.
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.
Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.
Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.
Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.
Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.
Price as a complaint made more sense under 8th edition, where battalion boxes were a joke(ooh boy, 24 Glade Guard and 12 Dryads plus 8 Glade Riders? Be still my beating heart!) in terms of actually starting an army. They made a concerted effort towards the end with the 'big' boxes(Dark Elf Warhost of Naggaroth, Dwarf Battleline, etc) to make a playable army in a single big box with a discount built-in.
Price as a complaint now, where many of the more irksomely priced units(Shadow Warriors, Executioners/Black Guard, Witch Elves, Black Orcs, etc) have either been reboxed with more models and a bit of savings built-in(Chaos Warriors, Chaos Knights, Skullcrushers, etc) or are part of the various "Start Collecting" sets that are stupidly good discounts.
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.
Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.
Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.
Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.
I think you're missing the point though.
Now AoS will not be exactly how Kanluwen wants it to be, and I wonder if that is not actually the most important consideration here?
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.
Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.
Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.
Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.
I think you're missing the point though.
Now AoS will not be exactly how Kanluwen wants it to be, and I wonder if that is not actually the most important consideration here?
That's what the "maybe ignoring " bit is there for
Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.
Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.
To an extent, maybe I'm being biased by my own experiences. The majority of people that I've played AoS with? They didn't give two craps about the lack of points.
The ones who would take the time to complain about the lack of points or who would talk about "boycotting" the system and playing 9th Age or 8th edition still?
They're the same people who during 8th would take the most broken friggin' stuff and acted as though they had won big tournaments. We all know those kinds of people, the "big fish" who would keep coming back to play in small ponds to keep being the big fish.
Those guys played AoS once or twice, and then stopped showing up when their "killer combo" lists got shut down by someone who just threw random models from their collection down.
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.
Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.
Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.
Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.
I think you're missing the point though.
Now AoS will not be exactly how Kanluwen wants it to be, and I wonder if that is not actually the most important consideration here?
I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.
In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.
Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,
My personal issue, and reason I didn't get into AoS out of the box, is that I have very limited gaming time. Events are best but if not events then I need to know I can get a game in. No structure is a lot of work for most people. Especially GW players who (in the seeming majority) have only really played GW so points and structure is something they've always been handed.
This fixes that. Brings in people who were fence sitting. And most importantly will get people playing on game nights in stores because pick-up games can now happen again.
I get being unhappy with some of your local player base but less extrapolation to the entire community would probably be a good thing.
Hulksmash wrote: My personal issue, and reason I didn't get into AoS out of the box, is that I have very limited gaming time. Events are best but if not events then I need to know I can get a game in. No structure is a lot of work for most people. Especially GW players who (in the seeming majority) have only really played GW so points and structure is something they've always been handed.
This is part of it for me. I actually liked the look of the models out of the box so bought them (and getting a really good deal). The game as is was easy enough for my son to pick up so now this is all gravy for me.
I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.
In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.
Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,
Well there's the rub isn't it? As soon as an 'Official" point system comes in all other ways to play get thrown out the window and that becomes the default. I have quite a few beefs with AoS myself but the focus on narrative play is not one of them. It's actually something I wish was pushed more with WHFB.
That all being said GW have proven to be grossly incompetent at creating a balanced point system. I'd prefer a system based on Wounds and Keyword restrictions (0-2 Monsters, 0-3 Hero keyword etc), but well see what they come up with.
coldgaming wrote: Really cool that they're working with Heelanhammer and Facehammer on this. That's how I dreamed it would go down. I like the suggestion earlier in annual point books. Also, I would expect this document would make base to base measuring and whatnot.
I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.
In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.
Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,
Well there's the rub isn't it? As soon as an 'Official" point system comes in all other ways to play get thrown out the window and that becomes the default. I have quite a few beefs with AoS myself but the focus on narrative play is not one of them. It's actually something I wish was pushed more with WHFB.
That all being said GW have proven to be grossly incompetent at creating a balanced point system. I'd prefer a system based on Wounds and Keyword restrictions (0-2 Monsters, 0-3 Hero keyword etc), but well see what they come up with.
This is completely different since this is a community effort and not a GW designer sitting alone at his desk pointing things out.
Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.
Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.
To an extent, maybe I'm being biased by my own experiences. The majority of people that I've played AoS with? They didn't give two craps about the lack of points.
The ones who would take the time to complain about the lack of points or who would talk about "boycotting" the system and playing 9th Age or 8th edition still?
They're the same people who during 8th would take the most broken friggin' stuff and acted as though they had won big tournaments. We all know those kinds of people, the "big fish" who would keep coming back to play in small ponds to keep being the big fish.
Those guys played AoS once or twice, and then stopped showing up when their "killer combo" lists got shut down by someone who just threw random models from their collection down.
No doubt about that, I agree with you fully on that very specific point regarding overly competitive players
But there are others who simply looked at AoS (or played it a couple of times) and let it go simply because it lacked the structure they desired. Not every player that wanted a balance structure is exactly TFG. A lot of them even openly admitted that they don't need a perfect balancing system, just something that is as good as they can get. This will help GW hook them back in.
And do note a lot of the players won't be coming back anyway for several other reasons that aren't the need of a balancing tool for the system - no Old World anymore, no RnF combat, and we've already mentioned the price.
And in the end everyone plays AoS as they want to play it. This is just another option.
I always heard AOS works well in a closed group of friends who come to agreements with each other over the game, but doesn't work well in the pick-up environment. By adding points, how exactly does this negatively impact a group that was already arbitrating things to start with?
If anything, it seems like adding points is just drawing in more customers- something AOS needs dearly if the rumors about its success (and the price cuts I see in product) are to be believed.
Cruentus wrote: I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.
In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.
Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,
It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.
The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.
Now, I think it'll ultimately not be successful, but these new rules will almost certainly be at least a net gain in players, and may keep AoS alive for a few years extra.
Accolade wrote: I always heard AOS works well in a closed group of friends who come to agreements with each other over the game, but doesn't work well in the pick-up environment. By adding points, how exactly does this negatively impact a group that was already arbitrating things to start with?
Accolade wrote: I always heard AOS works well in a closed group of friends who come to agreements with each other over the game, but doesn't work well in the pick-up environment. By adding points, how exactly does this negatively impact a group that was already arbitrating things to start with?
If anything, it seems like adding points is just drawing in more customers- something AOS needs dearly if the rumors about its success (and the price cuts I see in product) are to be believed.
It doesn't, what it does impact is those groups where you have a few guys wanting to play narratively and a few who go along with it but would prefer to use an official points system if one existed... or people who play with new people often... Which I suspect is not that uncommon. It won't impact me (well it will, but positively, I will get more opponents!) but I can see how some people are miffed at this development. Changing the status quo WILL make many more players want to use points no matter what.
Mymearan actually puts it best. There are people who've been lamenting the lack of points but still playing; because hey it's still fun. But now those people can point to an 'official' points system and it can just become a cluster.
Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
.
Granted but the price was always part of it too. I mean premium pricing for a brand new game completely different from the one it was set to replace was....problematic. If your trying o build a new game with a new player base you need to price it in such a way to get people in the door. Then once you have that you can start raising the price.
Doesn't matter. Customers will always find a way to complain about a product. It's the seller's "job" to listen to the feedback and attempt to solve it accordingly, and this is what GW is doing.
Trying to diminish the first truly inclusive act that GW has done in years by simply saying that customers will never be pleased is failing to see the point (or maybe ignoring it altogether) on a catastrophic level.
I think you're missing the point though.
Now AoS will not be exactly how Kanluwen wants it to be, and I wonder if that is not actually the most important consideration here?
I still think you're missing the point. I'm in agreement with Kan here. In 40k they already had "apocalypse" in the game system as an 'optional' way to play. And no one did. So they rolled it into the main game to much "comping in tournament" and complaining. Then they release AoS without points, leaving it to the players to sort out their armies to play pick up games. Then tournaments try to "balance" it, and GW picks uthe mantle. But once they release an "official" points system for the game, no one, or very few people, will actually play the casual or original version. The "balanced" points system will be seen as "official" and thats all anyone will want to play.
In groups who have enjoyed playing the original AoS, their players will fragment as the original players will still play original, but some number will only play with points, thus fragmenting the system. Thats the point.
Even with external help, I'm going to be cautious around any claim of "balanced" as it pertains to AoS. It was nice to be able to play it with a handful of models if I wanted, now we'll see a growing "pool" as games get larger and larger to fit all the neat and balanced toys into army lists for tournaments. Again, cautiously optimistic, but I was already enjoying and will continue to enjoy the freedom of s pointsless system,
I don't get this. The argument is basically that groups that didn't use points, and I guess instead had gentleman's agreements on what constituted "fair", will fracture because points will come out and a bunch of people will be like "I only want to use points instead"? So what is being lost, the ability to field whatever one chooses because there's no points? Could there still not be a gentleman's agreement/scenario that let the person who really wanted to play something that they didn't have the points for use it in some fashion (maybe another unit comes on the board later to compensate, or similar)? I don't understand why suddenly having official points is such a bad thing when before you were doing what amounted to arbitrarily making up points even if you weren't specifically saying it.
It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.
The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.
Speaking for myself, I'm not buying much AoS stuff because there has been nothing new yet for Aelves. I have a pretty hefty chunk of cash set aside just for the first new Aelf faction release.
I had 3k points of Wood Elves in 8th. I was set before the great Wood Elf cull, and I'll be set for that army for awhile yet.
Mymearan wrote: It won't impact me (well it will, but positively, I will get more opponents!).
Apologies for the snippets beforehand, Mymearan.
This is the only real impact that will be seen. There honestly will be no fracturing in any community. People will still find ways to play AoS. They'll just need to decide beforehand, as it happened before.
And of course within the community one will already know what kind of game X player wants to play AoS like. E.g: "Lithlandis, that jerk, only likes to play with points. I guess I'll have to text him a date with the points value of the army i'm building so he can bring in a force of the same points value."
It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.
The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.
Speaking for myself, I'm not buying much AoS stuff because there has been nothing new yet for Aelves. I have a pretty hefty chunk of cash set aside just for the first new Aelf faction release.
I had 3k points of Wood Elves in 8th. I was set before the great Wood Elf cull, and I'll be set for that army for awhile yet.
I'm sure GW will be glad to hear that, but I'm afraid your future aelf-splurge will not do much to help the big picture. (and sitting on an old pile of Wood elfs certainly don't do anything for the AoS numbers)
If you (and others like you if such exist) had spent those money on sigmarines and fyreslayers instead, maybe GW wouldn't have felt it necessary to add a points system to regain some more of the lost WHFB players.
As it is now, they need to try something new, since the existing playerbase isn't buying enough.
I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.
Mymearan wrote: I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but the less than stellar initial releases did anything but help.
It may indeed end up fracturing existing communities, but that's an acceptable sacrifice for GW.
The existing AoS playerbase just doesn't buy enough for AoS to be sufficiently profitable. WHFB didn't bring in enough money for GW and the AoS playerbase is even smaller. This is probably an attempt from GW at getting back some of the people who stopped playing when AoS hit.
Speaking for myself, I'm not buying much AoS stuff because there has been nothing new yet for Aelves. I have a pretty hefty chunk of cash set aside just for the first new Aelf faction release.
I had 3k points of Wood Elves in 8th. I was set before the great Wood Elf cull, and I'll be set for that army for awhile yet.
I'm sure GW will be glad to hear that, but I'm afraid your future aelf-splurge will not do much to help the big picture. (and sitting on an old pile of Wood elfs certainly don't do anything for the AoS numbers)
Of course it doesn't do anything for the AoS numbers. I bought the Grand Alliance: Order book, and that was all I needed to run them. Didn't have to buy the book, but I did because hey. I like having a hard copy for the more recent stuff.
Because putting it rather bluntly? All the stuff that went to Last Chance to Buy for Wood Elves? I already had enough of the stuff I liked/wanted to begin with, to the point where I would never need more.
I have 16 Waywatchers under the new rules; 3 units of 5 and a Waystalker under the old.
I have Orion and a ton of Hunting Hounds under the old rules; they're nothing under the new.
Glade Lord on Great Stag? Got him--can't do anything with him under the new rules.
Glade Riders? Got 24 of them--and they're gone under the new rules.
Don't need more Glade Guard(got 100+), don't need more Eternal Guard/Wildwood Rangers or Sisters of the Thorn/Wild Riders.
I might at some point decide to pick up another Araloth to convert into a unique Nomad Prince, but that's about the only thing on my "Maybe Kinda?" list.
If you (and others like you if such exist) had spent those money on sigmarines and fyreslayers instead, maybe GW wouldn't have felt it necessary to add a points system to regain some more of the lost WHFB players.
I DID spend money on Fyreslayers. Magmadroth, the Battletome, and a Grimwrath Berzerker.
As it is now, they need to try something new, since the existing playerbase isn't buying enough.
Yeah no crap the playerbase "isn't buying enough", it's because out of everything that has come out? There's been only 4 "new" factions. Many people are waiting to see what the "new" version of their faction is.
Mymearan wrote: I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but the less than stellar initial releases did anything but help.
A big thing is that Stormcast prices were dumb.
$50 for 5 Stormcast Liberators...or $125 for an AoS starter which got you 10 Liberators, 3 Prosecutors, 3 Retributors, a lord on Dracoth and a Lord-Relictor(who still hasn't been released outside of that box btw).
Then you get into the $36-$40 characters on foot and it becomes more and more difficult for people to justify Stormcast.
Bloodbound were a bit easier to swallow, Bloodreavers with $58 for 20 and being able to mix them in with the starter guys easily, Heroes who were okay but not super necessary outside of formations, etc.
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Oh heavens no!
I'm getting recollection here of a certain South Park episode involving Kanye West....
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Oh heavens no!
Yeah, heavens fething forbid I don't want the group of people I play with--which keeps getting more new players--to start fracturing because the outspoken few who bring the most ridiculous crap to "prove" that AoS is absolutely broken(one brings a Nurgle army with Gaunt Summoners and Tzeentch Daemons while the other brings nothing but Dark Elf Dragons and a Cauldron of Blood) can now start trying to push points down everyone's throats.
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Oh heavens no!
Yeah, heavens fething forbid I don't want the group of people I play with--which keeps getting more new players--to start fracturing because the outspoken few who bring the most ridiculous crap to "prove" that AoS is absolutely broken(one brings a Nurgle army with Gaunt Summoners and Tzeentch Daemons while the other brings nothing but Dark Elf Dragons and a Cauldron of Blood) can now start trying to push points down everyone's throats.
Yup, keep on jumping through those mental hoops. This is all about you.
I would be happy to see something like this adapted to 40k- where th Codex just lists your units and their rules, with a separate online document listing all the points values that can be constantly updated. Most of the problems I've noticed have just been under/over costing units. The ability to update/change those whenever could be very beneficial to balancing armies.
You really want to congratulate them for doing something they should have done to begin with?
Well, I disagree that it was necessary from the start, I've been keen on the game long before this announcement. But it is worth congratulating a move that improves the game for a lot of the people that weren't happy with it, does nothing to negatively affect those that were and doesn't detract from the game in any way. GW have done a good job here, responding to feedback is great, actively working with the community is better, doing it in a way that isn't going to piss off anyone who was already involved and enjoying AoS is even better.
Mymearan wrote: I think the low sales were not mainly caused by the game itself, but by the unfortunate choice of releases at the launch of the game and the following 6 months... you had Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast, Bloodbound, Stormcast, Stormcast... and none of those armies proved very popular. If they had started with Elves, Dwarves, Orks etc I suspect we would not be talking about what a huge flop the game is and how many boxes are sitting on shelves... because my suspicion is that most of those boxes are indeed Stormcast and Bloodbound.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but the less than stellar initial releases did anything but help.
A big thing is that Stormcast prices were dumb.
$50 for 5 Stormcast Liberators...or $125 for an AoS starter which got you 10 Liberators, 3 Prosecutors, 3 Retributors, a lord on Dracoth and a Lord-Relictor(who still hasn't been released outside of that box btw).
Then you get into the $36-$40 characters on foot and it becomes more and more difficult for people to justify Stormcast.
Bloodbound were a bit easier to swallow, Bloodreavers with $58 for 20 and being able to mix them in with the starter guys easily, Heroes who were okay but not super necessary outside of formations, etc.
Not only but also - but that is a (rather heavily debated already) topic that belongs in a different thread.
Let's see what else GW has up their sleeves for 2016.
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Oh heavens no!
Yeah, heavens fething forbid I don't want the group of people I play with--which keeps getting more new players--to start fracturing because the outspoken few who bring the most ridiculous crap to "prove" that AoS is absolutely broken(one brings a Nurgle army with Gaunt Summoners and Tzeentch Daemons while the other brings nothing but Dark Elf Dragons and a Cauldron of Blood) can now start trying to push points down everyone's throats.
Yup, keep on jumping through those mental hoops. This is all about you.
You quote me, make a veiled little remark about "Kanye West on South Park" and then take the time to respond.
I've made no secret that my annoyance with this is solely based upon my personal experiences playing with my local group. So yeah, it does kinda feel like YOUR comments are "all about me".
Feel very ambivalent about this news. I really do not think it is possible to have your cake and eat it, too. I wish I could say - sure go ahead and point everything out, what could it hurt? But the truth is, it will just be one more thing that GW "doesn't do properly"/for posters to complain about. AoS will become another imbalanced game with models marketed by power creep.
I DID spend money on Fyreslayers. Magmadroth, the Battletome, and a Grimwrath Berzerker.
Apparently not enough
Zywus wrote:As it is now, they need to try something new, since the existing playerbase isn't buying enough.
Kanluwen wrote:Yeah no crap the playerbase "isn't buying enough", it's because out of everything that has come out? There's been only 4 "new" factions. Many people are waiting to see what the "new" version of their faction is.
But how do you expect GW to know that?
As long as the existing playerbase (with some help from people buying the models for use in 9th age, KoW etc,) doesn't buy enough for GW to consider it worth their effort, then we can't be surprised they attempt to widen their playerbase can we?
Sure it might be a hassle for you and your local group, but you'll probably keep playing anyway. GW is going after the ones on the fence who won't even try the game, but might play if it has some kind of points structure, and they seem to be a surprisingly large bunch.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Why is it that so many people state that GW games will never be balanced when most every other wargame out there is?
They are? I've see tons of people complain about how Warmachine is only balanced if you use specific combinations of units, and how many units are just straight up bad no matter what. And that's the game that is usually lauded as having great balance.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Why is it that so many people state that GW games will never be balanced when most every other wargame out there is?
Because they've proven to be incompetent and/or unwilling to make a balanced system for the last years.
Also, many of the systems lauded for balance, often has some glaring imbalances too. The big difference is that others work to minimize them, while GW has shown a complete lack of care as of late. (though we might be seeing them turn around...maybe)
Manchu wrote: Feel very ambivalent about this news. I really do not think it is possible to have your cake and eat it, too. I wish I could say - sure go ahead and point everything out, what could it hurt? But the truth is, it will just be one more thing that GW "doesn't do properly"/for posters to complain about. AoS will become another imbalanced game with models marketed by power creep.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
That is a terrible argument Kan and you should feel shame for typing it. It might be the most pathetic thing I've seen you say in a while.
"But... but... but... they'll find something else to complain about!" - You're the one complaining about something that so many people have been asking for. You're the one complaining about styles of play being added to the game without replacing the method you like playing. If the people you play with prefer the newer methods, then really that's your problem, not a problem with them, the game, or GW.
"It's still too expensive!" - Not a new complaint. AoS stuff is prohibitively costed. Stop trying to act like this is the 'next step' for people complaining about AoS. That complaint has been there since day one.
Honestly Kan... this has never been more applicable to you.
All the same, there is no denying that how the units and options are pointed out will be no less a source of complaint than there being no points. In fact, it will likely drive even more complaints. There are only so many ways to say you don't like that a game doesn't use points. But every single points value assigned to every single option becomes a target.
I am really hoping GW will continue to write/publish whatever the hell they like, completely unrestrained in their creativity by the shackles of "balancing the game" and leave pointing it out to "some of the world’s biggest tournament organisers."
Honestly, I'm most happy that they're working with the big tournaments to develop this new points system. Shows that they're *gasp* actually engaging with the community in a much more substantive way than just social media chit-chats.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh please. Most of those people complaining online or in shops about the "lack of points" will find something else to complain about.
"There's no points!" has already become "Well, there's points--but the models are still too expensive!".
That is a terrible argument Kan and you should feel shame for typing it. It might be the most pathetic thing I've seen you say in a while.
"But... but... but... they'll find something else to complain about!" - You're the one complaining about something that so many people have been asking for. You're the one complaining about styles of play being added to the game without replacing the method you like playing. If the people you play with prefer the newer methods, then really that's your problem, not a problem with them, the game, or GW.
"It's still too expensive!" - Not a new complaint. AoS stuff is prohibitively costed. Stop trying to act like this is the 'next step' for people complaining about AoS. That complaint has been there since day one.
Honestly Kan... this has never been more applicable to you.
Woooo, unnecessary antagonism over plastic toy soldiers ftw!
What AOS with points will have over 40k with points is that AOS rules are free. So much of the frustration with 40k rules comes from the premium cost of the rules that get regurgitated every couple of years with little (if any) improvement and a nice new $50 tag.
As long as AOS rules are free, complaints about their quality will have significantly less merit.
Accolade wrote: What AOS with points will have over 40k with points is that AOS rules are free. So much of the frustration with 40k rules comes from the premium cost of the rules that get regurgitated every couple of years with little (if any) improvement and a nice new $50 tag.
That just furthers what I've said for years about GW's right hand not knowing that they even have a left hand. Everything they do is so silo'd. Forge World gets to act like a company run by adults, 40K gets driven into the ground with super-expensive supplements that barely last a year in production, Black Library keeps making store-day-event-limited books that no one cares about, and AoS goes "YOLO!" with a structure-less points-less rule set. Nothing is consistent.
Or nothing was, as the times appear to be changing.
Accolade wrote: As long as AOS rules are free, complaints about their quality will have significantly less merit.
Bad rules, be they free or expensive, are bad rules. The cost of said rules in no way changes the validity of the problems with them.
Manchu wrote: All the same, there is no denying that how the units and options are pointed out will be no less a source of complaint than there being no points. In fact, it will likely drive even more complaints. There are only so many ways to say you don't like that a game doesn't use points. But every single points value assigned to every single option becomes a target.
Absolutely, but adding it to the game harms no one. It's the same argument a lot of us have always made when it comes to balancing 40K - a balanced game penelises no one, even if you don't care about balance. For the people who like the unstructured points-less AoS, nothing changes, which is what makes Kan's leaps of (il)logic all the more foolish. Literally nothing has changed for him, yet he's acting like it's The End Times.
Accolade wrote: As long as AOS rules are free, complaints about their quality will have significantly less merit.
Caveat Mendicus? Hasn't the free stuff been slowly but surely replaced with not-free stuff?
I believe all of the warscrolls are still available for free on their website. The compendiums (to my knowledge) have the warscrolls, but they are not the sole providers of such (looking at the fyreslayer rules on the website right now).
Accolade wrote: As long as AOS rules are free, complaints about their quality will have significantly less merit.
Caveat Mendicus? Hasn't the free stuff been slowly but surely replaced with not-free stuff?
I believe all of the warscrolls are still available for free on their website. The compendiums (to my knowledge) have the warscrolls, but they are not the sole providers of such (looking at the fyreslayer rules on the website right now).
All of the Warscrolls are still available for free on the website, but the books contain the Warscroll Battalions or you can buy them as microtransactions.
I suppose if GW were to suddenly take all the rules down and start charging for them once the point system is in place, then AOS would be in the same gak hole that 40k is. But I really don't see that happening- they seem pretty focused on making AOS work (and doing that would certainly *not* help).
This is simply not true. Design is a matter of mechanics. Point-costed options is one such mechanic. A game designed to incorporate mechanic is fundamentally different from a game designed excluding that mechanic. So adding points will either change the game at a fundamental level or amount to nothing more than a tacked-on veneer. The latter should and will disappoint those who want a fantasy version of 40k and the former will disappoint those who like AoS from breaking out of the pick-up game model and returning to the scenario-driven approach.
This is simply not true. Design is a matter of mechanics. Point-costed options is one such mechanic. A game designed to incorporate mechanic is fundamentally different from a game designed excluding that mechanic. So adding points will either change the game at a fundamental level or amount to nothing more than a tacked-on veneer. The latter should and will disappoint those who want a fantasy version of 40k and the former will disappoint those who like AoS from breaking out of the pick-up game model and returning to the scenario-driven approach.
You'd be right, if you weren't wrong.
Or, to put it another way, one way isn't replacing the other way. Both exist, therefore both camps can be catered to. This points system does not replace the structure-less/points-less way to play AoS, so the people who want to play that way have lost nothing.
This is simply not true. Design is a matter of mechanics. Point-costed options is one such mechanic. A game designed to incorporate mechanic is fundamentally different from a game designed excluding that mechanic. So adding points will either change the game at a fundamental level or amount to nothing more than a tacked-on veneer. The latter should and will disappoint those who want a fantasy version of 40k and the former will disappoint those who like AoS from breaking out of the pick-up game model and returning to the scenario-driven approach.
You'd be right, if you weren't wrong.
Or, to put it another way, one way isn't replacing the other way. Both exist, therefore both camps can be catered to. This points system does not replace the structure-less/points-less way to play AoS, so the people who want to play that way have lost nothing.
Unless you have a group where the outspoken minority always gets their way, because otherwise they take their ball and go home.
Accolade wrote: As long as AOS rules are free, complaints about their quality will have significantly less merit.
Bad rules, be they free or expensive, are bad rules. The cost of said rules in no way changes the validity of the problems with them.
Did you ever once actually play a game of AoS?
The rules were far from "bad".
That wooshing sound is my point sailing over your head Kan.
My point - to make it as bleedingly obvious as possible - was that with the new points system, it being free does not mean criticisms of that points system will have less merit.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: A game can be friendly to both gaming "styles" and being so will only make it better overall.
One GW game shows this is possible - LotR/Hobbit/Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game. The huge caveat is the IP. The players tend to be Tolkien fans and therefore pretty concerned that their armies are fluffy. The same will not apply to AoS any more than it currently does to 40k. There is also a more theoretical reason that AoS cannot and should not be balanced in the same way as SBG:
Manchu wrote: For those looking for a more historical/technological approach to list writing in a "fantasy" game, I'd really recommend Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit Strategy Battle Game (soon to be rebranded as Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game). Every unit and every option is very rationally laid out. This of course is partly a result of the races all (or mostly) sharing a phenotype, as it were, as well as roughly the same kind of equipment. It's also a result of Tolkien's work being an explicitly Christian fantasy and therefore assuming an ordered, historical approach.
Contrast this to Warhammer Fantasy - either Old World or AoS - in which Chaos rather than Cosmos is the basis of the setting. In Warhammer Fantasy, the Psychic is preeminent over the Material. Technology is meaningless in the face of true magic, which ignores any and every natural law upon which science is even possible. In this kind of world, it matters less what something is than what it symbolizes - as in a dream. (The appearance of) heavy armor in AoS, for example, stands for toughness generally rather than being a literal constant X applied universally, as in SBG.
Accolade wrote: As long as AOS rules are free, complaints about their quality will have significantly less merit.
Bad rules, be they free or expensive, are bad rules. The cost of said rules in no way changes the validity of the problems with them.
I think cost has an impact on the vitriol related to rules issues. You look at a rules issue with AOS and can say "well, at least I didn't pay for this gak." With 40k, you have to ask yourself "why the hell did I pay for this gak?"
At least now I might try a game with my high elves , but while I like the way it looks the maw crusha isn't worth the price they're asking for to me. So yay
H.B.M.C. wrote: This points system does not replace the structure-less/points-less way to play AoS, so the people who want to play that way have lost nothing.
Again: games are designed with mechanics. A game designed to incorporate balance-through-points is different from a game NOT designed to do that. If some third party tacks points on after the fact (the current situation), that's one thing. That is a world apart from starting with a design "ecosystem" defined by points.
kodos wrote: So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.
Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.
Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.
Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.
Manchu wrote: Again: games are designed with mechanics. A game designed to incorporate balance-through-points is different from a game NOT designed to do that. If some third party tacks points on after the fact (the current situation), that's one thing. That is a world apart from starting with a design "ecosystem" defined by points.
Ah, I see. A game with an inherent balance built into it - or designed in a way that didn't use points to balance the matches - that then tacks on a points system would (theoretically) suffer from it. Fair enough. But I disagree that AoS was written with any sort of balance to begin with, so I cannot see this as a downside, especially for those (like Kan) who don't want to use the points system.
Accolade wrote: I think cost has an impact on the vitriol related to rules issues. You look at a rules issue with AOS and can say "well, at least I didn't pay for this gak." With 40k, you have to ask yourself "why the hell did I pay for this gak?"
As mentioned, I think the biggest takeaway here is how GW handled the situation - they saw the frustration/disappointment toward AoS and it's lack of balance, so they moved to fix it. Relying on outside experts to do so is icing on the cake. Sure, there are other problems, but at least their decision-makers are paying attention.
There are two main ways to do points in war games.
One way is to calculate a spreadsheet that gives the value of each type of weapon and armour, allowing players to work out any kind of unit they like and be reasonably sure it is fair within the game rules. This kind of system is used in various space navy games, which have the advantage that players can invent new units or adapt any existing SF universe to the rules. You can also use it to work out units, and not release the actual spreadsheet to players.
Another system is the opposite of the first one. You take all the values of the in-game effects of weapons and armour, and calculate backwards to a table of points. The disadvantage is that everything won't necessarily fit neatly, so you can end up with units worth 10.5 points. The second problem of this system is that it's harder to accomodate special rules that weren't invented with points balance in mind. This is what is liable to trip up the AoS points system, especially if GW continue to invent new units without trynig to fit them into the existing balance.
So, maybe it will be a failure for GW. One can only hope if that is what happens that the management at GW eventually will come to understand their additional mistakes and learn from them.
Clanan wrote: As mentioned, I think the biggest takeaway here is how GW handled the situation - they saw the frustration/disappointment toward AoS and it's lack of balance, so they moved to fix it.
The issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.
That sets a crummy precedent in the eyes of people who actually were playing the game and having an enjoyable time; i.e. "You're not as important to us as someone who will be buying the premade Tournament Packs we release based upon the top three players at X event".
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: A game can be friendly to both gaming "styles" and being so will only make it better overall.
One GW game shows this is possible - LotR/Hobbit/Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game. The huge caveat is the IP. The players tend to be Tolkien fans and therefore pretty concerned that their armies are fluffy. The same will not apply to AoS any more than it currently does to 40k. There is also a more theoretical reason that AoS cannot and should not be balanced in the same way as SBG:
Manchu wrote: For those looking for a more historical/technological approach to list writing in a "fantasy" game, I'd really recommend Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit Strategy Battle Game (soon to be rebranded as Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game). Every unit and every option is very rationally laid out. This of course is partly a result of the races all (or mostly) sharing a phenotype, as it were, as well as roughly the same kind of equipment. It's also a result of Tolkien's work being an explicitly Christian fantasy and therefore assuming an ordered, historical approach.
Contrast this to Warhammer Fantasy - either Old World or AoS - in which Chaos rather than Cosmos is the basis of the setting. In Warhammer Fantasy, the Psychic is preeminent over the Material. Technology is meaningless in the face of true magic, which ignores any and every natural law upon which science is even possible. In this kind of world, it matters less what something is than what it symbolizes - as in a dream. (The appearance of) heavy armor in AoS, for example, stands for toughness generally rather than being a literal constant X applied universally, as in SBG.
Interesting.
I would actually very interested in reading a more in-depth look at this.
Kanluwen wrote: The issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.
So not only do you not like this (optional) new system, you also claim to speak on behalf of the intent of everyone you disagree with?
Kanluwen wrote: The issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.
So not only do you not like this (optional) new system, you also claim to speak on behalf of the intent of everyone you disagree with?
Oh I'm sorry, do I need to preface every single post with "In my experience"?
Kanluwen wrote: IN MY EXPERIENCE, , the issue is that a lot of the "frustration/disappointment towards AoS and its lack of balance" were coming from people who either had no intention of playing the game or who refused to even try playing the game.
Happy now? Or do you have some prices to whine about?
kodos wrote: So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.
Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.
Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.
Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.
I would not be suprised to see all the new books reprinted with points whilke the free stuff would miss them.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But I disagree that AoS was written with any sort of balance to begin with, so I cannot see this as a downside, especially for those (like Kan) who don't want to use the points system.
I think you are correct that AoS has been designed pretty much without considering "balance" in the sense most of us are familiar with from playing 40k, WHFB, WMH, or other games designed for pick-up play. But beyond the pick-up play perspective, the lack of points is a feature rather than a flaw. The idea is, the actual people playing a given game will do the "balancing" - defined as, using whatever they think will result in a fun game. For lots of people, fairness is a condition of fun - but it is not the only condition. The brilliant idea of AoS (whether intentional or otherwise) is that the parties best situated to judge what will be fun in a given instance of play are the people playing that particular instance. When you design units to be "balanced" for pick-up gaming (e.g., with points costs) first and foremost, you are stepping in as a designer and telling players, "this is the best way to have fun." And designing rules from that perspective will result in a completely different game.
Once you start looking at AoS accepting that the basis of the setting is Chaos, the rules start to make a lot more sense: it seems to me that a game of AoS is meant to simulate a duel between lucid dreamers.
kodos wrote: So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.
Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.
Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.
Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.
I would not be suprised to see all the new books reprinted with points whilke the free stuff would miss them.
Well, if THIS happens, I'll be right back on the picket lines
Gotta send GW a clear message about their business decisions, good or bad.
The rancor really isn't needed, guys - GW listened, they're making a way to play with points that is separate from the warscrolls themselves. Should be great for people who want to play all styles. Just great to see GW respond to the feedback!
Those who don't want to use the points will have the narrative and other organized play methods released simultaneously. Win-win!
This will greatly broaden the playerbase, which is great for everybody who wants to see more AoS releases . I ordered the Maw Krusha and would love to see more like that!
Manchu wrote: I think you are correct that AoS has been designed pretty much without considering "balance" in the sense most of us are familiar with from playing 40k, WHFB, WMH, or other games designed for pick-up play. But beyond the pick-up play perspective, the lack of points is a feature rather than a flaw. The idea is, the actual people playing a given game will do the "balancing" - defined as, using whatever they think will result in a fun game. For lots of people, fairness is a condition of fun - but it is not the only condition. The brilliant idea of AoS (whether intentional or otherwise) is that the parties best situated to judge what will be fun in a given instance of play are the people playing that particular instance. When you design units to be "balanced" for pick-up gaming (e.g., with points costs) first and foremost, you are stepping in as a designer and telling players, "this is the best way to have fun." And designing rules from that perspective will result in a completely different game.
Whilst the rest of what you're saying makes sense, I can't agree with the "this is the best way to have fun" thing, because then we're entering the area of "Why even have rules? That's just someone telling someone else how to play the game!!!".
Take RPGs as an example. They have rules - often quite extensive rules - yet part of what makes RPG's work is that you can ignore all of it. You can house rule everything, change anything, and play the game in ways completely unintended by the designers (eg. people using the Rogue Trader rules to play Ork-based campaigns). But the games still have rules, and those rules are important. They're what grounds the game, and what gives it its foundations. Everything stems from those rules.
I don't see them as dictating the 'best' way to have fun, I see them as giving a framework from which to play those games. In this instance, AoS appears to be introducing three frame-works, one which is no frame-work (the current one), one which drives games based around narrative and story (which, presumably, would lead specifically to unbalanced/asymmetrical styles of play), and a structured one that puts everyone on a level playing field as everyone starts with the same basis of army construction (X points, with everything having points to balance it within that system).
Now, of course, that latter one won't ever actually be balanced - perfect balance is impossible + this is GW we're talking about - but I just cannot see this harming the game at all.
Magic does obey rules, they just aren't the ones that modern science has identified as the actual basis of the world. That's why there isn't any real magic in the world,a nd why when something happens that we can't explain from knowledge, we often ascribe to supernatural powers.
For example, two important rules in academic theories of sympathetic magic are similarity, or correspondence, and contagion. These were developed as a way of explaining how primitive' man's genuine belief in magic might have developed.
In this theory the wall paintings of caveman hunts don't depict real hunts, they depict an imaginary hunt that the painter hopes will become true because he has painted the scene showing his success. By magic of similarity, the depicted prey will be struck by the hunter.
However this is perhaps going off at too much of a tangent.
Some RPG rulesets are merely guidelines for the referee to use to help her make her own calls during play. Other rulesets, especially ones with complicated rules for movement and relative position, are meant to be played as written. IME miniatures wargames tend to be closer to the latter end of the spectrum as a whole - and that includes AoS, even without points costs. What we are discussing here is a separate issue - how to make a match-up fair. AoS reminds us that fun and fair are not necessarily the same thing (something historicals miniatures gamers never forgot). That does not mean AoS cannot be fair. But fun in a wider sense is a higher priority than strict (albeit purely theoretical) fairness, as in pick-up gaming.
@usernamesareannoying: Probably would have been easier not posting as to save further derailment (and look at me go doing the same thing!)
I think AOS will be better off with this 3-tiered system. 40k Apocalypse was not super well-received because it played at a scale that people were not interested in for a 28mm skirmish game. The Narrative and Open gaming for AOS should be more engaging because they are about different ways to the play the game, as opposed to (sloppily) scaling it up.
Good for GW, this is a great move for them both for AoS and as a brand/customer relations. They listened, and moved quickly.
It seems a lot of current AoS players are nonchalant about it, but I remember the complaints of the hordes of players giving the entire system a pass because of the no points model. Gw has taken nothing away from current players, but opened up the possibility of attracting those who skipped into the kind of game they were looking for. That's a win-win in my book. Good job.
Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".
Oh heavens no!
Yeah, heavens fething forbid I don't want the group of people I play with--which keeps getting more new players--to start fracturing because the outspoken few who bring the most ridiculous crap to "prove" that AoS is absolutely broken(one brings a Nurgle army with Gaunt Summoners and Tzeentch Daemons while the other brings nothing but Dark Elf Dragons and a Cauldron of Blood) can now start trying to push points down everyone's throats.
Just asking, sincerely, but do you not realize your group may be atypical, and that many of us our excited for a reason?
I have visited, or am a regular at maybe ten game shops in the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area, and I can tell you that not one even plays AoS in its current incarnation. Some of those stores even had semi-loyal WHFB groups who moved on to 9th Age, and Kings of War, but no one wanted to play AoS.
Now, I have always tried to stay open-minded, and am thrilled that this one change may be enough to get the game a shot in the arm.
I don't know if my experiences, or yours better reflect the community on the whole, as we're both just speaking to our perspectives, but to me it sounds like you refuse to believe that maybe your fun, fluffy, growing AoS community is in the minority versus what many others see happening in their towns.
Kilkrazy wrote: Magic does obey rules, they just aren't the ones that modern science has identified as the actual basis of the world.
I think you are approaching this from the perspective of understanding magic as a pre-modern "groping in the dark" for science. But we are concerned here with the magic of fantasy rather than the "magic" of history. While it is true that fantasy magic does conform to some "rules" (for example, the rule of causality, to the extent that a sorcerer is able to reproduce a given spell), these "rules" are really a matter of narrative rather than being substantive natural laws. The substance of fantasy magic is rather defiance of natural law; the idea that what is normally (that is, as a matter of nature) impossible can somehow be possible. AoS takes this a lightyear farther: the natural world itself was blown up. Therefore, whatever remains of that regime of law and order is now adrift on an ocean of Chaos. Magic rather than science, Chaos rather than Cosmos, is the principal of this setting. I think rationalized systems of balancing forces is more suitable to games set in historical or at least low-magic settings, settings where "magic" is really just a matter of some higher order of nature (as in Tolkien), while AoS benefits from a different approach.
kodos wrote: So GW was too lazy to develop a balanced game, skiped the points stuff (the cwhole alpha and beta test) and let players do the work for free.
Now they came, take the finished product and let the players celebrate them actually doing nothing.
Hey, as long as they're not charging for it, I'm all good with it.
Plus this is a huge improvement over their typical MO.
I would not be suprised to see all the new books reprinted with points whilke the free stuff would miss them.
There's no way this will happen. It wouldn't make sense for anyone, even GW.
We had one guy at our local store excited about AoS and he wanted to play with no points. Didn't see him for about 4 months (his schedule and mine not meeting up), ran into him yesterday, and asked if he'd been able to get games in. He said he'd be happy to play, but stated the game desperately needs a point system. So somebody who didn't want points...now wants points. Sounds like ill actually be able to get AoS games in with points! I like the mechanics. I think combat is better than old Warhammer, as you really have to decide what you can chance ponying up as a loss of your opponent can crush a unit of yours based on the new combat turn order. I look forward to playing with points, and I think people in my store will start looking at it again. With points. Just wanna hammer that home for the people who are pissed that points are coming and bringing some of us back in.
Accolade wrote: I always heard AOS works well in a closed group of friends who come to agreements with each other over the game, but doesn't work well in the pick-up environment. By adding points, how exactly does this negatively impact a group that was already arbitrating things to start with?
If anything, it seems like adding points is just drawing in more customers- something AOS needs dearly if the rumors about its success (and the price cuts I see in product) are to be believed.
It's more about just being on the same page in what you're looking for out of the game. If your group is used to using a comp pack or common house rule like measure from bases its pretty simple. Don't believe the nonsense that any game involves a negotiation as if you're buying a car. Admit it's not to say any two strangers meeting will instantly approach the game the same way but it's really not hard and you probably can tell right away If this opponent is going to give you an enjoyable experience worthy the time.
MajorTom11 wrote: Good for GW, this is a great move for them both for AoS and as a brand/customer relations. They listened, and moved quickly.
It seems a lot of current AoS players are nonchalant about it, but I remember the complaints of the hordes of players giving the entire system a pass because of the no points model. Gw has taken nothing away from current players, but opened up the possibility of attracting those who skipped into the kind of game they were looking for. That's a win-win in my book. Good job.
Fantastic post Tom, and totally agreed!
It makes sense to appeal to as many customers as possible - Warmachine / Hordes is doing this with their rules tweaks, too.
It's awesome to have multiple ways to play AoS - people can keep playing without points, but now you have more customers and can make the system more sustainable. It's definitely a good move for the health/adoption of the game!
Kanluwen wrote: How many people actually playing AoS right now were complaining about lack of points? I can think of a few locally, but they were complaining because they're paranoid as hell about every little thing "potentially" being unbalanced.
How many players are playing(or rather buying) AOS though? If it's not multiplying FB's sales GW isn't happy.
If lack of points was driving more players away than kept...
And having points isn't away from anybody. Lack of points is. You don't need rules to play without points.
If you can't find people play pointless game afterwards that just shows people WANT points. GW is giving players what the players want. That's smart business move. You don't do business by putting out what you want. You put in what customers want.
After seeing the SCGT result winners and GW posting the army for purchase I feel even more discouraged to play this game. It feels like, take the most expensive models from a few different armies and see what happens. Hopefully with a points system games can be dialed into a more reasonable size. That Goblin army with 3 Thundertusks, 1 Stonehorn and 3 Arachnarok spiders... i just dont even know.
Well, there will actually be rules to play both ways (including Narrative, which sounds interesting and was a needed element).
No need to ostracize one playerbase or another, GW clearly wants to make a bigger tent / embrace more customer types. I for one am all for this, if you look at 40k you've got a whole range from casual to competitive and all can use the system. Really smart of GW to broaden the appeal of AoS
Of course my main personal goal is for them to have the support needed to keep making awesome models like the Maw Krusha, and more players has to help
Sinful Hero wrote: I would be happy to see something like this adapted to 40k- where th Codex just lists your units and their rules, with a separate online document listing all the points values that can be constantly updated. Most of the problems I've noticed have just been under/over costing units. The ability to update/change those whenever could be very beneficial to balancing armies.
This is BRILLIANT. It's exactly what they should do.
timetowaste85 wrote: We had one guy at our local store excited about AoS and he wanted to play with no points. Didn't see him for about 4 months (his schedule and mine not meeting up), ran into him yesterday, and asked if he'd been able to get games in. He said he'd be happy to play, but stated the game desperately needs a point system. So somebody who didn't want points...now wants points. Sounds like ill actually be able to get AoS games in with points! I like the mechanics. I think combat is better than old Warhammer, as you really have to decide what you can chance ponying up as a loss of your opponent can crush a unit of yours based on the new combat turn order. I look forward to playing with points, and I think people in my store will start looking at it again. With points. Just wanna hammer that home for the people who are pissed that points are coming and bringing some of us back in.
So, did this guy play any games of AoS during that four months, or just come to the conclusion it 'desperately needed points' based on...?
With regards to the points, does anyone have any idea how they stay "current"? If GW puts out new units, or units with new abilities, how long does it then take to rebalance the whole thing based on new stuff? I doubt you'd just be able to point the new stuff, because you'd end up with unintended consequences like now in 40k. So, how long of a lag are we talking before the "tournament organizers" update it? And then how long before the scrolls are updated, or wherever the points are stored. Seems like a lot of work.
Nailed it on the head there RiTides, with the coming summers "reinvention" of AOS it seems like GW are trying to make the game as accessible as possible to a wide range of players. So whether a dedicated member of a gaming club, a tourney player,a casual player or just two games a year with friends hopefully this will expand and develop the player base.
WayneTheGame -I was thinking the same thing - could be a good solution! Rather than being stuck with undercosted Wraithknights or the like for years...
tneva82 wrote: You don't need rules to play without points.
You don't need rules to play AoS without a deck of cards.
What has a deck of cards got to do with anything? AoS is not designed with any mechanics that require a deck of cards. Now GW could add some kind of mechanic using a deck of cards but that will change the game.
Replace "deck of cards" with "points."
Now imagine there was a web forum where most posters assumed you need a deck of cards to play a miniatures game. That is what's going on here, except with points.
It makes sense to appeal to a larger customer base in the same way they needed to move on from WHFB's exclusive customer base. They're a business, and in the end need player adoption to keep the game going. For anyone who wants the game to continue to see strong support and new model releases for the long term, this is a very good thing!
You seem to be assuming that this announcement amounts to evidence for the proposition that the game was not doing well enough without a points system. Making the exact same kind of assumption, we can take the decision to ax WHFB as evidence for the proposition that a points system did not appeal to enough players to produce an adequate customer base for that game.
Now, I'm not saying that is unlikely. But the proper conclusion to draw would not be that this is good news for AoS - rather this just shows that GW does not really know how to get more customers interested in a Fantasy line.
That sets a crummy precedent in the eyes of people who actually were playing the game and having an enjoyable time; i.e. "You're not as important to us as someone who will be buying the premade Tournament Packs we release based upon the top three players at X event".
Probably because the number of people who fit this category was so vanishingly small on the global marketplace scale to make them a non-viable customer base upon which to keep the line in existence. Their options were most likely, based upon their response, to attempt to come up with something to pander to the more competitive and/or balance oriented potential customer base or allow the game to go the way of the dodo.
Also - it makes more sense to design a game that is not tailored to playing in stores than vice versa. And tailoring to "competitive players" implies a business model GW has never been prepared to undertake (emphasizing rules quality).
WayneTheGame wrote: All I know is that I hated AOS. This makes me re-evaluate it and seriously consider starting it up at the local GW store. For me, that's HUGE.
Exactly! The point is actually not one or the other - this can appeal to both groups, which from a business standpoint makes complete sense. Why exclude part of your customer base if you don't have to?
I know not everyone is excited by it, but I think it's brilliant. Looking forward to seeing where they go with it!
Sinful Hero wrote: I would be happy to see something like this adapted to 40k- where th Codex just lists your units and their rules, with a separate online document listing all the points values that can be constantly updated. Most of the problems I've noticed have just been under/over costing units. The ability to update/change those whenever could be very beneficial to balancing armies.
This is BRILLIANT. It's exactly what they should do.
Nah. They should take it level further. Separate RULES into upgradable section as well leaving fluff for separate books.
All I know is that something was wrong, otherwise they wouldn't have made such sweeping changes. I can't say for certain what exactly was "wrong" enough that it made Games Workshop put in all this work.
Cruentus wrote: With regards to the points, does anyone have any idea how they stay "current"? If GW puts out new units, or units with new abilities, how long does it then take to rebalance the whole thing based on new stuff? I doubt you'd just be able to point the new stuff, because you'd end up with unintended consequences like now in 40k. So, how long of a lag are we talking before the "tournament organizers" update it? And then how long before the scrolls are updated, or wherever the points are stored. Seems like a lot of work.
Yes. But if there's no organized source doing that work then every player has to do basically same work...
But organized that work is spread and is overall lesser.
tneva82 wrote: You don't need rules to play without points.
You don't need rules to play AoS without a deck of cards.
What has a deck of cards got to do with anything? AoS is not designed with any mechanics that require a deck of cards. Now GW could add some kind of mechanic using a deck of cards but that will change the game.
Replace "deck of cards" with "points."
Now imagine there was a web forum where most posters assumed you need a deck of cards to play a miniatures game. That is what's going on here, except with points.
I feel that maybe GW should have just gone with points at the start..
GW didn't design the game with points in mind, but they also didn't really design the game with much structure at all.
They expected people to wing it, and maybe In the end they haven't been seeing much of that at all.
If the game had a solid structure to build army's outside of points, maybe this wouldn't be happening today.
I am happy to see points return, since there really wasn't much other to go on.
tneva82 wrote: You don't need rules to play without points.
You don't need rules to play AoS without a deck of cards.
What has a deck of cards got to do with anything? AoS is not designed with any mechanics that require a deck of cards. Now GW could add some kind of mechanic using a deck of cards but that will change the game.
Replace "deck of cards" with "points."
Now imagine there was a web forum where most posters assumed you need a deck of cards to play a miniatures game. That is what's going on here, except with points.
You can play without points just as fine wether there's points in rules or not. If you didn't want to play with points in FB but rather with narrative YOU COULD DO SO! Only thing stopping you was _you_.
You can't play with points if there isn't.
Therefore having points doesn't limit game from anybody. Not having limits. Ergo having points is superior as long as there's players who want points. That way there's more players who get what they want compared to no points which limits players. Unlike points.
This is a great move for GW. They simultaneously please all the gamers who don't know how to play games without being told how to, while also passing the buck of "official" points to the unpaid community.
They can continue to produce AoS unhindered, let someone else figure out the "official" points. No more complaints about lack of points, and any complaints about points values are directed to a non-GW entity.
Meanwhile you can continue to play AoS as intended, as narrative campaigns - which will be greatly expanded.
Also - it makes more sense to design a game that is not tailored to playing in stores than vice versa. And tailoring to "competitive players" implies a business model GW has never been prepared to undertake (emphasizing rules quality).
The bad assumption is thinking that sales of GW's Fantasy line hasn't suffered since the release of AoS. Which is actually a pretty impressive feat considering how sales of that line had dropped off since the advent of 8th edition.
Just because it doesn't agree with your narrative doesn't make it a "bad assumption."
It's a reasonable assumption. A large company wouldn't make such a massive change in design paradigm, only to abandon it less than a year later, if that change in design paradigm hadn't hurt their bottom line. Making the change cost money, and big companies don't make such changes without having real, financial motivation to do so. If the change in paradigm had resulted in an increase in sales, there would have been no subsequent change announced today.
You can play with the X-Wing models without using any of the points costs for the pilots and upgrades. No one would say you are playing X-Wing, however.
AoS is not just "playing a game without using the points." AoS is not a ruleset missing its points system. Balancing options with points costs is not a design-neutral mechanic. It is a fundamental basis for any game. It is the kind of mechanic you choose to incorporate or not at the beginning of the design process because it will affect everything else; it will in large part determine what kind of game you are designing.
The AoS design does not incorporate a points mechanic. Absent considerable redesign, adding one now amounts to tacking points on. This is what third parties have already been doing. There is a good chance that this is all GW intends to do. This will not suddenly transform AoS into a competitive pick up game that, for example, WMH players will love. It's much more likely that the result will be a rickety contraption that satisfies no one. See also 40k.
Also note they're keeping this in a separate "competitive play" document - it's Not going on the warscrolls. If someone wants to use the Narrative document instead, they'll be able to and not have to worry with points. I think it's about as elegant a solution as they could have made to the current ruleset.
So again, well done to GW for listening and to SCGT for helping make the structure. Really appreciate the GW folks being more active and responsive lately, whether it's this, FAQs, more support for events, etc. Some really great signs
That sets a crummy precedent in the eyes of people who actually were playing the game and having an enjoyable time; i.e. "You're not as important to us as someone who will be buying the premade Tournament Packs we release based upon the top three players at X event".
Sorry but that seems like a pointless complaint to make with all due respect. The only repercussion this should have on you as someone who liked things 'as is' is that more people around you will have models for the system and maybe be willing to play an 'unbound' game with you. Otherwise, what difference does it make???
' I heard they changed the color in the seafood restaurant to purple. I hate purple.'
' I thought you were allergic to seafood and would never go in anyways?'
' I wouldn't, but I hate purple.'
I absolutely do not see the link you are making that as-is AoS people are being treated with disrespect by leaving them with no changes they don't want and then adding more players to the system if not the game-type. That's like saying I hate my older son because we had another kid. That's not what is happening here, at all. In fact, I love my first son so much, I wanted to make sure he had a best friend he could play with, and company, and to never be alone with a big loving family type thing is probably more what is going on.
Saldiven wrote: It's a reasonable assumption. A large company wouldn't make such a massive change in design paradigm, only to abandon it less than a year later,
In that GW release, the first two things I see are how AoS is intended to be played - as you choose, and as narrative campaigns. In fact, there's more fun stuff coming for campaigns!
The last item in that release is that some non-GW people will be making rules that GW will sanction as "official" for points based tournaments etc.
Please show me the abandonment of the massive change in design paradigm
tneva82 wrote: You can't play with points if there isn't.
Sure you can. Just design them. The only thing stopping you is _you_. Now if I take points out of a game designed to use them, I just have a broken game on my hands until I design some way to deal with the way I broke it. This happens all the time when people write scenarios for games designed for pick-up play.
I can guarantee sales are higher than pre-end times WFB for AoS. Pre-end time WFB got outsold in it's entirety by the SM Tactical Squad. It account for something like 5% of actual sales for the company.
AoS is doing better but probably not great. This could also just be the CEO going "What the hell? Why didn't we have an actual rule system in place for this game?" or "See, told you dingles that the increase wouldn't be enough to be sustainable without rules. now I've got the sales numbers to show it. FIX IT!"
I can easily see either of these from the current management from GW. You know, the one who has actually admitted they have a decent way to come to get back to where they want and has taken so many positive steps in a relatively short period of time. Just look at a lot of the tone even on Dakka lately. GW isn't instantly bemoaned and slammed by the masses on everything now. That's some pretty solid work in a year.
You can play with the X-Wing models without using any of the points costs for the pilots and upgrades. No one would say you are playing X-Wing, however.
AoS is not just "playing a game without using the points." AoS is not a ruleset missing its points system. Balancing options with points costs is not a design-neutral mechanic. It is a fundamental basis for any game. It is the kind of mechanic you choose to incorporate or not at the beginning of the design process because it will affect everything else; it will in large part determine what kind of game you are designing.
See also adding a points system to Chess. It is no longer Chess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: This could also just be the CEO going "What the hell? Why didn't we have an actual rule system in place for this game?" or "See, told you dingles that the increase wouldn't be enough to be sustainable without rules. now I've got the sales numbers to show it. FIX IT!"
What game are you speaking of? I played Age of Sigmar last Thursday - a Nurgle Blightking force led by Gotrut Spume against a Duardin Fyreslayer force, and there were rules aplenty, and it was quite fun.
tneva82 wrote: You can't play with points if there isn't.
Sure you can. Just design them. The only thing stopping you is _you_. Now if I take points out of a game designed to use them, I just have a broken game on my hands until I design some way to deal with the way I broke it. This happens all the time when people write scenarios for games designed for pick-up play.
Yes but that means multiple groups doing same work _which will result in less quality_. Everybody doing it separately will result in multiple bad version.
Organized single entity combining data from multiple sources will result in better result.
Only reason to hate including points is wishing game to be INFERIOR in quality. Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative. But not having points will mean group specific ones will never be as good as they could be. There simply isn't enough data generated by small group to make good enough job.
Now lots of groups combined providing data...That will result in quality.
Meanwhile ignoring points and playing no point narrative game doesn't have that issue.
Points from get-go is THE most "cover all players" solution. No points just limits players away. That's very bad commercially as GW seems to have found out. No points will never have as high potential sale target as point one has. X+Y is always bigger than just X.
tneva82 wrote: Yes but that means multiple groups doing same work _which will result in less quality_.
First, this is not necessarily true.
Second, there does not need to be an "official" points system in order for players to organize to design one (which by the way has already happened). The best possible designers for any points system are tournament organizers and tournament players. As per this announcement, even GW knows that.
tneva82 wrote: Only reason to hate including points is wishing game to be INFERIOR in quality.
Absolute, 100%, unqualified nonsense. Miniatures games do not require points in order to work/be fun/be good.
tneva82 wrote: Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative.
The points mechanic is inherently restrictive. The basic point of this mechanic is to restrict.
Manchu - I understand your view - I just don't share it. I play Warmahordes (casually), 40K and played a heck of a lot of WHFB. I also purchased things from the last two AoS releases just because I liked the models.
So, I know you think that GW can only appeal to one group or the other (those who like points or don't) with this game... but I politely agree to disagree on that.
I find myself in between camps in a lot of games, and while I don't care for 40K, it certainly does appeal to a broad market. If GW can achieve anything remotely close to that with AoS, I'm sure they'd be all for it. For myself, AoS as it was didn't interest me (although the models did) and now it might. I can't speak for you or for others - only for myself, and for myself I think this was a fantastic move on GW's part - and I'm excited by it.
Again I totally get that you aren't... but I'd appreciate agreeing to disagree as there are plenty of us interested who would like to discuss the ramifications of this, who don't share your view that it's a bad move on GW's part.
You can play with the X-Wing models without using any of the points costs for the pilots and upgrades. No one would say you are playing X-Wing, however.
AoS is not just "playing a game without using the points." AoS is not a ruleset missing its points system. Balancing options with points costs is not a design-neutral mechanic. It is a fundamental basis for any game. It is the kind of mechanic you choose to incorporate or not at the beginning of the design process because it will affect everything else; it will in large part determine what kind of game you are designing.
See also adding a points system to Chess. It is no longer Chess.
Except chess has a specific number and type of pieces. It is hardly the same thing.
If AoS specified the number of models you could have and what type of models they are, you'd have a point.
But it doesn't, does it?
tneva82 wrote: Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative.
The points mechanic is inherently restrictive. The basic point of this mechanic is to restrict.
I agree with you on this point.
Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.
Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
RiTides wrote: I find myself in between camps in a lot of games, and while I don't care for 40K, it certainly does appeal to a broad market. If GW can achieve anything remotely close to that with AoS, I'm sure they'd be all for it. For myself, AoS as it was didn't interest me (although the models did) and now it might. I can't speak for you or for others - only for myself, and for myself I think this was a fantastic move on GW's part - and I'm excited by it.
So you went from a total disinterest in the game, to a healthy interest in the game, because GW will pluck someone's comp system and slap the word "official" on it?
Doug - I know it's not true for all groups, but with my local group saying "Let's start a new game system and build armies based on this tourney's comp system" doesn't get much response. We actually had folks pushing back on all the "new shiney" waves we went through as a gaming group, and many want to see pretty solid adoption before they're willing to start.
So for my group, yeah, having GW make an "official" way to play with points makes all the difference in whether local folks might adopt it. Again, I know that's not true everywhere... but it is here, and means I might actually be able to get a game in!
I'm still more likely to go heavy on Kings of War, and will hopefully be making it down your way for that for some events but it's awesome to have options.
Like I said earlier, it's brilliant. GW can keep designing Age of Sigmar as they want and hoist all the worries about assigning "points" and attempting to add "balance" (as we all know, points do not equal balance) to a non-GW entity. Complains about lack of "balance" and bad "points" are directed to this non GW entity and GW eliminates a huge percentage of it's customer base's complaints.
I only hope this is what is in store for 40k 8th edition: GW releases models and rules, and some other entity that actually _wants_ to bother with "points" and also "balance" can take it on.
Especially since GW hasn't internally cared about trying to "balance" anything in it's systems since the Demons army book for Warhammer 7th edition.
What makes me optimistic about this news is the SCGT (and Ben Curry I suppose) guys' involvement. From their podcasts, I know that they like the spirit of AoS and are very much on board with the things that make AoS great. They've also consistently said what's missing is that framework for pickup and tournament games. SCGT is a great system, and really very close to the base rules. I believe they will be able to retain the spirit of AoS while making the game conducive to pickup gamers, which is the best of both worlds.
I embraced the pointsless new world, but there's absolutely no arguing it's been a barrier to people adopting the game. That GW is picking up the people who turned their game into one conducive to those gamers is great news.
I love Warhammer, I want it to survive, I want GW to thrive and grow, because it just means more Warhammer content for me, models, books, armies, boxes, lore progression, etc.
I also want more people playing the game, talking about it, playing with me, posting their models, making videos, podcasts, etc.
The narrative play interests me, and I would love a full campaign system to be developed. It sounds like they're even going to make edits to the base rules for open play.
In all, you can look at the first year of AoS like a beta test that was never called a beta test. The community gave its feedback, developed its own systems, and GW decided where to go. I think this is nothing but a good thing. There will, of course, always be complaints, and I am sure the SCGT guys are bracing for the coming storm of any imbalance that might be in the new system.
I find all of the uproar somewhat amusing myself. At my flgs we have been playing AoS with points and tight balance for six months now. Really its not that players want points; they want reasonably balanced matchups and points is a common way to do that. The amount of comp systems and at the very least wounds-count going on shows that the basic AoS ruleset was not sufficient to provide the balance people were looking for. Also note the most popular comps all use points (or points with a different name). Further, if everything with AoS was working fine then GW would not change anything so the rational assumption is indeed that AoS has not been performing well enough in their eyes.
And please please please for the love of my sanity do not claim AoS isn't a 'broken' ruleset in the gaming sense. Straight from the RAW it relies on players to create reasonable matchups, and I won't even go into the dozens of instant-win combos that exist.
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares? There is no wrong fun here. I DO play with points and this release is unlikely to affect me at all because I'll still use the same comp because it will offer the better balance I am looking for.
Like I said earlier, it's brilliant. GW can keep designing Age of Sigmar as they want and hoist all the worries about assigning "points" and attempting to add "balance" (as we all know, points do not equal balance) to a non-GW entity. Complains about lack of "balance" and bad "points" are directed to this non GW entity and GW eliminates a huge percentage of it's customer base's complaints.
I only hope this is what is in store for 40k 8th edition: GW releases models and rules, and some other entity that actually _wants_ to bother with "points" and also "balance" can take it on.
Especially since GW hasn't internally cared about trying to "balance" anything in it's systems since the Demons army book for Warhammer 7th edition.
Doug - I'd just like to say that I agree with every word in this post
Kicking the balancing of 40K over to another entity would be one of the best things for the game, and this will likely result in a more balanced competitive "fantasy" ruleset than we've had in several editions. So, yeah... agreed on all counts!
And yes, as odd as I guess it might sound that was indeed the answer to your question for myself / my gaming group, and I'm guessing might be for quite a few other groups, too.
tneva82 wrote: Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative.
The points mechanic is inherently restrictive. The basic point of this mechanic is to restrict.
I agree with you on this point.
Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.
Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
Chopxsticks wrote: After seeing the SCGT result winners and GW posting the army for purchase I feel even more discouraged to play this game. It feels like, take the most expensive models from a few different armies and see what happens. Hopefully with a points system games can be dialed into a more reasonable size. That Goblin army with 3 Thundertusks, 1 Stonehorn and 3 Arachnarok spiders... i just dont even know.
Worth noting that this is probably why GW wants to base things of SCGT; it favors expensive models. This is also why I won't be switching over to whatever points values they launch, because I see the writing on the wall for how balanced they will be.
tneva82 wrote: Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative.
The points mechanic is inherently restrictive. The basic point of this mechanic is to restrict.
I agree with you on this point.
Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.
Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
This is pretty much exactly how it will go.
Instead of adding the extra step where they don't have points to start, player B gets slaughtered, and then doesn't play.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But I disagree that AoS was written with any sort of balance to begin with, so I cannot see this as a downside, especially for those (like Kan) who don't want to use the points system.
I think you are correct that AoS has been designed pretty much without considering "balance" in the sense most of us are familiar with from playing 40k, WHFB, WMH, or other games designed for pick-up play. But beyond the pick-up play perspective, the lack of points is a feature rather than a flaw. The idea is, the actual people playing a given game will do the "balancing" - defined as, using whatever they think will result in a fun game. For lots of people, fairness is a condition of fun - but it is not the only condition. The brilliant idea of AoS (whether intentional or otherwise) is that the parties best situated to judge what will be fun in a given instance of play are the people playing that particular instance. When you design units to be "balanced" for pick-up gaming (e.g., with points costs) first and foremost, you are stepping in as a designer and telling players, "this is the best way to have fun." And designing rules from that perspective will result in a completely different game..
Sorry but that argument doesn't hold water. You're not telling players how to have fun, you're providing a framework for players who find fun in structure. That's particularly true of GW games, which have always had a fairly strong "if you don't like this or that rule, just ignore it/roll a dice" attitude going on. Designers are supposed to design the experience, that's literally their job.
Which is really the key point - players who dislike structure are free to ignore any structure the designer provides, but it's much harder to create structure out of nothing especially on a game-to-game basis - beginning with structure allows both types of player to have fun, designing an inherently unstructured system can only ever provide fun for people who like unstructured systems.
Manchu wrote: But fun in a wider sense is a higher priority than strict (albeit purely theoretical) fairness, as in pick-up gaming.
Hold on, I thought we weren't supposed to be dictating what's fun? If someone finds fairness to be the primary determinant of whether they have fun, why is their fun somehow less pure, less worthy?
tneva82 wrote: You can't play with points if there isn't.
Sure you can. Just design them. The only thing stopping you is _you_. Now if I take points out of a game designed to use them, I just have a broken game on my hands until I design some way to deal with the way I broke it. This happens all the time when people write scenarios for games designed for pick-up play.
And here the biscuit is taken. That you can sit there with a straight face and suggest that ignoring points and writing a wee scenario is even remotely equivalent to the amount of effort that is required to design, test, and implement a game-wide points system is farcical.
Anyway, as for the news itself - meh. I'm happy for the non-contrarian, non-buzzkilly AoS fans, I suppose. It just saddens me to think that if GW had pulled their thumb out of their arse and implemented all this new stuff(discount bundle boxes, re-engaging with the internet, trying to fix the rules in partnership with the community etc) a few years ago, they probably never would have had to can proper Warhammer Fantasy in the first place.
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
coldgaming wrote: What makes me optimistic about this news is the SCGT (and Ben Curry I suppose) guys' involvement. From their podcasts, I know that they like the spirit of AoS and are very much on board with the things that make AoS great. They've also consistently said what's missing is that framework for pickup and tournament games. SCGT is a great system, and really very close to the base rules. I believe they will be able to retain the spirit of AoS while making the game conducive to pickup gamers, which is the best of both worlds.
I embraced the pointsless new world, but there's absolutely no arguing it's been a barrier to people adopting the game. That GW is picking up the people who turned their game into one conducive to those gamers is great news.
I love Warhammer, I want it to survive, I want GW to thrive and grow, because it just means more Warhammer content for me, models, books, armies, boxes, lore progression, etc.
I also want more people playing the game, talking about it, playing with me, posting their models, making videos, podcasts, etc.
The narrative play interests me, and I would love a full campaign system to be developed. It sounds like they're even going to make edits to the base rules for open play.
In all, you can look at the first year of AoS like a beta test that was never called a beta test. The community gave its feedback, developed its own systems, and GW decided where to go. I think this is nothing but a good thing. There will, of course, always be complaints, and I am sure the SCGT guys are bracing for the coming storm of any imbalance that might be in the new system.
Also just wanted to say this is a great post. I like seeing folks' take on it who actually adopted AoS and have "skin in the game" as it were... and it's been pretty encouraging so far!
RiTides - I take no issue with your prediction that GW will technically broaden its player base by recognizing a tacked-on points system. It's true that pinning a badge of officialdom on the existing tournie scene may attract a few more players. Whether that is meaningful to GW's bottom line is, of course, another matter. My objection instead relates to the assumption that using a tacked-on points system will fool people who want a real pick-up game into liking AoS.
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
You mean like players had been doing for decades before AoS showed up? I guess people who want to play without points will just have to take the time to discuss things with their opponent and hash out how they want to play - fans of the structure-free method have been been telling everyone it's dead easy, afterall.
@Yodhrin, now there will be balanced play have you considered using the AoS rules for some skirmish games set in the Old World? (If you wanted to go for a slightly bigger scale than Mordheim offers). I hope you give it a try. :-)
RiTides wrote: Doug - I know it's not true for all groups, but with my local group saying "Let's start a new game system and build armies based on this tourney's comp system" doesn't get much response. We actually had folks pushing back on all the "new shiney" waves we went through as a gaming group, and many want to see pretty solid adoption before they're willing to start.
So for my group, yeah, having GW make an "official" way to play with points makes all the difference in whether local folks might adopt it. Again, I know that's not true everywhere... but it is here, and means I might actually be able to get a game in!
I'm still more likely to go heavy on Kings of War, and will hopefully be making it down your way for that for some events but it's awesome to have options.
I've got to say, I am in the exact same camp. I love miniatures war-gaming, PERIOD and can be enthused about trying and giving a fair shake to anything, but our local stores are filled with some capricious as hell players. If a game doesn't check oddly specific boxes, it won't even find a small group. And God help me, i've seen GREAT, universally lauded games, fail to take hold because of said capriciousness.
My local players may now actually give AoS a look, and for that, at the very least, I am grateful, and increasingly excited.
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
It's honestly even hard with historicals that then have points values. One plays Hail Caesar without points values just fine; but once you get a copy of the "army lists" with "points", it becomes your mental framework - despite the fact that Hail Caesar is a system not designed for points values, just like Age of Sigmar, so the points values are - as admitted - totally tacked on.
However, GW exists to make money, and I agree with their absolutely correct best amazing decision to have a non-GW entity do the work for them. Then they'll attract a new playerbase who absolutely cannot play without a number being assigned to models - who will then buy said models, thus sending them lots and lots of dollars, but the torrent of complains about "balance" are directed to another non-GW entity. Let the great wallet-milking begin.
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
It sounds like you are unhappy because you feel players prefer having a points structure. So then, you admit that AoS has a better majority appeal with points?
You can either say AoS is fine without points and not be afraid of the fallout from this, or accept that most people prefer points and thus have a legitimate concern for how you play. You can't have both.
tneva82 wrote: Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative.
The points mechanic is inherently restrictive. The basic point of this mechanic is to restrict.
I agree with you on this point.
Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.
Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
This is pretty much exactly how it will go.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Instead of adding the extra step where they don't have points to start, player B gets slaughtered, and then doesn't play.
It's not an extra step - it's a different game.
Let's go back to the chess example: "Instead of taking a 9-point Queen, I'll just take nine more 1-point pawns." This is just by way of showing the problem with points-based balancing. Chess has an extremely fine-tuned system of points values for pieces but that point value of each pieces is strongly based on a static set up. Nine more pawns will always be worth more than the sum of their points. The same thing is true in miniatures games. Designers mitigate this by incorporating force organization systems. So right there you can see how using points is a basic mechanic that implies/evokes other derivative ones because the primary goal of the design was balance.
Now let's leave the world of games design upon a points cost mechanic. Having a balanced game was never the primary intention. That in turn qualifies the player base. The players do not have the same expectations as they would if they were playing a points-based pick-up game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: My local players may now actually give AoS a look, and for that, at the very least, I am grateful, and increasingly excited.
Prepare yourself for disappointment. They will take a look at AoS "+ points" and if they are smart they will figure out that it's still AoS, after all. Now, this won't be an issue if the real problem is simply that they are so narrow-minded that they have to be tricked into trying anything even slightly outside of their comfort zone.
RiTides wrote: Doug - I know it's not true for all groups, but with my local group saying "Let's start a new game system and build armies based on this tourney's comp system" doesn't get much response. We actually had folks pushing back on all the "new shiney" waves we went through as a gaming group, and many want to see pretty solid adoption before they're willing to start.
So for my group, yeah, having GW make an "official" way to play with points makes all the difference in whether local folks might adopt it. Again, I know that's not true everywhere... but it is here, and means I might actually be able to get a game in!
I'm still more likely to go heavy on Kings of War, and will hopefully be making it down your way for that for some events but it's awesome to have options.
I've got to say, I am in the exact same camp. I love miniatures war-gaming, PERIOD and can be enthused about trying and giving a fair shake to anything, but our local stores are filled with some capricious as hell players. If a game doesn't check oddly specific boxes, it won't even find a small group. And God help me, i've seen GREAT, universally lauded games, fail to take hold because of said capriciousness.
My local players may now actually give AoS a look, and for that, at the very least, I am grateful, and increasingly excited.
Haha, well yes that's another way of saying it
Manchu - That's a fair point, thanks for the great reply to my post earlier. I can agree to that!
tneva82 wrote: Having points doesn't limit anybody from playing no points/narrative.
The points mechanic is inherently restrictive. The basic point of this mechanic is to restrict.
I agree with you on this point.
Here's a sample scenario I think will probably occur.
Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
This is pretty much exactly how it will go.
Instead of adding the extra step where they don't have points to start, player B gets slaughtered, and then doesn't play.
That's playing into my point though. If Player B is going to stop playing because he lost, it indicates his mindset was already predisposed towards "that match wasn't fair" thinking instead of "so that's how that plays out". Player B has been conditioned by years of experiencing games through only the prism of balanced competition. The mindset of points and balance prevented Player B from enjoying the game just because he lost. Once that mindset takes root deeply enough across the AOS player base, even the people who enjoyed playing Classic AOS will start to internalize the points values of the minis, eventually subconsciously tailoring their games to be more fair regardless of their intentions. The mere existence of the points system will have a chilling effect upon the one aspect of the game that made it so unique (and admittedly unpopular with the competitive crowd).
Essentially, AOS With Points will kill AOS Classic. All that will be left is the kludgy Frankenstein's Monster created by forcing points onto a game designed almost to antagonize competitive players. Then AOS W/P will fall right into the WHFB 8th rut and die.
Manchu wrote: It's not an extra step - it's a different game.
Let's go back to the chess example: "Instead of taking a 9-point Queen, I'll just take nine more 1-point pawns." This is just by way of showing the problem with points-based balancing. Chess has an extremely fine-tuned system of points values for pieces but that point value of each pieces is strongly based on a static set up. Nine more pawns will always be worth more than the sum of their points. The same thing is true in miniatures games. Designers mitigate this by incorporating force organization systems. So right there you can see how using points is a basic mechanic that implies/evokes other derivative ones because the primary goal of the design was balance.
Now let's leave the world of games design upon a points cost mechanic. Having a balanced game was never the primary intention. That in turn qualifies the player base. The players do not have the same expectations as they would if they were playing a points-based pick-up game.
I'm sorry but you've lost me. What is the point you are making here?
RiTides wrote: I find myself in between camps in a lot of games, and while I don't care for 40K, it certainly does appeal to a broad market. If GW can achieve anything remotely close to that with AoS, I'm sure they'd be all for it. For myself, AoS as it was didn't interest me (although the models did) and now it might. I can't speak for you or for others - only for myself, and for myself I think this was a fantastic move on GW's part - and I'm excited by it.
So you went from a total disinterest in the game, to a healthy interest in the game, because GW will pluck someone's comp system and slap the word "official" on it?
I can say for myself yes. I play Warmachine (on break until new edition), have repeatedly considered 40k, and looked at AoS and was like "What on earth did they do? Is this a bad joke?" but thought the models were really cool (especially the guy on the Stardrake). Would not touch it with a 10-foot pole since the game seemed like it was absolute trash, and the old Warscrolls with silly crap like if you play Settra and you kneel you lose automatically because SETTRA DOES NOT KNEEL made it seem even more pathetically weird. However, now it seems GW is going to try and have some kind of balance. So I for one am getting an (un)healthy interest in the game and might very well consider dropping the cash this summer to pick up some stuff for it. I'm paying more attention to GW again, after swearing them off years ago.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That's playing into my point though. If Player B is going to stop playing because he lost, it indicates his mindset was already predisposed towards "that match wasn't fair" thinking instead of "so that's how that plays out". Player B has been conditioned by years of experiencing games through only the prism of balanced competition. The mindset of points and balance prevented Player B from enjoying the game just because he lost. Once that mindset takes root deeply enough across the AOS player base, even the people who enjoyed playing Classic AOS will start to internalize the points values of the minis, eventually subconsciously tailoring their games to be more fair regardless of their intentions. The mere existence of the points system will have a chilling effect upon the one aspect of the game that made it so unique (and admittedly unpopular with the competitive crowd).
Essentially, AOS With Points will kill AOS Classic. All that will be left is the kludgy Frankenstein's Monster created by forcing points onto a game designed almost to antagonize competitive players. Then AOS W/P will fall right into the WHFB 8th rut and die.
...but the AoS scene is already dominated by points-derived comps, so it shows that people tried the 'no points' mindset, didn't like it, and went back to points. You can talk psychology all you like but to me it reads like you are saying flashlights are bad because people have been too conditioned by light bulbs; they should use torches instead. Again, if AoS without points really does have mass appeal then you have nothing to worry about. Now if what the majority actually want is points then you have a legitimate fear for difficulty in finding games without them. But those two things are mutually exclusive.
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
You mean like players had been doing for decades before AoS showed up? I guess people who want to play without points will just have to take the time to discuss things with their opponent and hash out how they want to play - fans of the structure-free method have been been telling everyone it's dead easy, afterall.
You miss my point. People have been playing with points for decades and will continue to. There are dozens of games catering to them, better games than AOS could ever be. AOS was never meant to cater to them. In fact, AOS tried to claim its own space instead of competing in a market it couldn't win by becoming something rarely seen, a game designed for the nontourny crowd.
Now that's gone. AOS is now trying to compete with games built from the ground up the same way a greyhound my try to compete with sharks by tying flippers to his paws. Good luck, AOS.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Essentially, AOS With Points will kill AOS Classic. All that will be left is the kludgy Frankenstein's Monster created by forcing points onto a game designed almost to antagonize competitive players. Then AOS W/P will fall right into the WHFB 8th rut and die.
Correct. And this is why the change is not "good news" for anyone - except for people who just take pleasure in GW not knowing what they are doing/flip-flopping and/or who want to see AoS specifically and GW generally fail.
When people say "at least GW are listening" - this is not always a good thing. Having an opinion does not require exercising judgment, especially when you have no skin in the game.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
It's honestly even hard with historicals that then have points values. One plays Hail Caesar without points values just fine; but once you get a copy of the "army lists" with "points", it becomes your mental framework - despite the fact that Hail Caesar is a system not designed for points values, just like Age of Sigmar, so the points values are - as admitted - totally tacked on.
However, GW exists to make money, and I agree with their absolutely correct best amazing decision to have a non-GW entity do the work for them. Then they'll attract a new playerbase who absolutely cannot play without a number being assigned to models - who will then buy said models, thus sending them lots and lots of dollars, but the torrent of complains about "balance" are directed to another non-GW entity. Let the great wallet-milking begin.
AOS was losing ground to KOW, so GW tore a page right out of Mantic's playbook. That's some competition that isn't balanced.
Manchu wrote: It's not an extra step - it's a different game.
Let's go back to the chess example: "Instead of taking a 9-point Queen, I'll just take nine more 1-point pawns." This is just by way of showing the problem with points-based balancing. Chess has an extremely fine-tuned system of points values for pieces but that point value of each pieces is strongly based on a static set up. Nine more pawns will always be worth more than the sum of their points. The same thing is true in miniatures games. Designers mitigate this by incorporating force organization systems. So right there you can see how using points is a basic mechanic that implies/evokes other derivative ones because the primary goal of the design was balance.
Now let's leave the world of games design upon a points cost mechanic. Having a balanced game was never the primary intention. That in turn qualifies the player base. The players do not have the same expectations as they would if they were playing a points-based pick-up game.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm sorry but you've lost me. What is the point you are making here?
(1) a points system is a basic mechanic that affects the rest of the game's design
(2) players enjoy (and even agree to try) a game in large part based on what they expect out of the game
(3) player expectations are heavily influenced by the basic elements of the game's design
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
It sounds like you are unhappy because you feel players prefer having a points structure. So then, you admit that AoS has a better majority appeal with points?
You can either say AoS is fine without points and not be afraid of the fallout from this, or accept that most people prefer points and thus have a legitimate concern for how you play. You can't have both.
Sort of. I think the majority of players want a game with a points structure and tight, competitve play. I think AOS was never that game and never will be. In marketing it towards them, GW will kill it for its intended market. Then exposure will breed disdain for the "real" players, and AOS will be abandoned to die, cold, broken and alone.
I just hope that the points structure doesn't subsume everything.
I completely get why it's needed, but without careful handling over time I can see the ToW, scenarios etc. becoming sidelined by players because they introduce 'imbalance', and the game slowly becomes homogenised again.
As someone above said, once the genie is out of the bottle it can be difficult to get back in.
I'm optimistic, but waiting to see how this is handled.
Manchu wrote: It's not an extra step - it's a different game.
Let's go back to the chess example: "Instead of taking a 9-point Queen, I'll just take nine more 1-point pawns." This is just by way of showing the problem with points-based balancing. Chess has an extremely fine-tuned system of points values for pieces but that point value of each pieces is strongly based on a static set up. Nine more pawns will always be worth more than the sum of their points. The same thing is true in miniatures games. Designers mitigate this by incorporating force organization systems. So right there you can see how using points is a basic mechanic that implies/evokes other derivative ones because the primary goal of the design was balance.
Now let's leave the world of games design upon a points cost mechanic. Having a balanced game was never the primary intention. That in turn qualifies the player base. The players do not have the same expectations as they would if they were playing a points-based pick-up game.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm sorry but you've lost me. What is the point you are making here?
(1) a points system is a basic mechanic that affects the rest of the game's design
(2) players enjoy (and even agree to try) a game in large part based on what they expect out of the game
(3) player expectations are heavily influenced by the basic elements of the game's design
End of the day, players who feel AoS is fine without points have nothing to fear because you will have no issues continuing to play as such. Again, you should be neutral at the worst towards this decision because it will not affect you at all. If other players somewhere else enjoy playing with points, who cares?.
That is hilariously wrong. Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
just try to play without points in a world dominated by the paradigm of "balanced list building".
It sounds like you are unhappy because you feel players prefer having a points structure. So then, you admit that AoS has a better majority appeal with points?
You can either say AoS is fine without points and not be afraid of the fallout from this, or accept that most people prefer points and thus have a legitimate concern for how you play. You can't have both.
Sort of. I think the majority of players want a game with a points structure and tight, competitve play. I think AOS was never that game and never will be. In marketing it towards them, GW will kill it for its intended market. Then exposure will breed disdain for the "real" players, and AOS will be abandoned to die, cold, broken and alone.
I can see that, but the community as it stands looks like the majority of AoS players took the game and made it into a structured one, and are enjoying it. Certainly I do, more than WHFB even. So the disagreement comes down to "AoS was never that game and never will be" from what I see it already is that game.
A newly minted "official" points system sends the wrong message to gamers: "you should expect a balanced pick-up game experience." Then this happens:
ziggurattt wrote: Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X. Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points. Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter. Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
As opposed to:
Player A: I want to use Nagash. Player B: Cool, this could be a crazy ride for me!
Player A: I want to use Nagash. Player B: Can we play something more grounded this time?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ziggurattt wrote: What if there are more "complex" rules in the Matched Play version?
I expect there might be. Remember, points costs are almost always accompanied by force organization requirements/restrictions.
Yeah, I think points are the way to go personally but this absolutely will effect players who like and play with the current system. Players aren't forced to play no-points with you if they would prefer otherwise.
Personally I really dislike the current unbalancedness of the 40k points system. Just because points are introduced into AoS doesn't mean the game will improve because of it. I can definitely understand the motivation for abandoning it all together in favor of a narrative only system where players decide what to play against each other - even if I don't agree with it. Its kind of ironic but I think 40K is only playable with a similar attitude - where players work together to have fun games against each other without relying on the illusion of balance based on points values.
I guess this is a good thing for the competitive players.
Personally I've been wanting to try the no points stuff out, and have been plugging away at finishing some of my boxes of Fantasy stuff to give it a spin.
I'm certainly one of those players who would happily try fighting some crazy one- sided battle as well, especially if points aren't involved.
NinthMusketeer wrote: but the community as it stands looks like the majority of AoS players took the game and made it into a structured one
You have to look at what your evidence is for this kind of claim. Generally, it tends to be pretty heavily biased. "Most people on a forum dedicated to pick-up game rulesets have tried to turn AoS into a pick-up game." Well, sure.
Sort of? Absent other major changes, the points system will probably leave nobody satisfied. Most likely result is, players who want points check back in long enough to have an even worse opinion about their attempt to play a game that is not designed for pick-up gaming as if it was a game designed for pick-up gaming.
A newly minted "official" points system sends the wrong message to gamers: "you should expect a balanced pick-up game experience." Then this happens:
ziggurattt wrote: Player A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
As opposed to:
Player A: I want to use Nagash.
Player B: Cool, this could be a crazy ride for me!
Player A: I want to use Nagash.
Player B: Can we play something more grounded this time?
The result didn't change. We went from this:
Player A: I want to use Nagash.
Player B: Cool, this could be a crazy ride for me!
*game ensues, player B gets slaughtered and doesn't have much fun*
Player A: I want to use Nagash.
Player B: Can we play something more grounded this time?
To this:
Player A: I want to use Nagash.
Player B: That's a 750 point model which isn't balanced with what I brought, can we even this out?
The bit where the player throws his hands up and leaves is just a strawman.
NinthMusketeer wrote: but the community as it stands looks like the majority of AoS players took the game and made it into a structured one
You have to look at what your evidence is for this kind of claim. Generally, it tends to be pretty heavily biased. "Most people on a forum dedicated to pick-up game rulesets have tried to turn AoS into a pick-up game." Well, sure.
True, most of my evidence is internet-based. What's your evidence?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Player A: I want to use Nagash. Player B: Cool, this could be a crazy ride for me!
*game ensues, player B gets slaughtered and doesn't have much fun
In the words of Bertie Wooster, that is where you make your bloomer.
With AoS, the players did not get together for a test of skill that is wrecked by unbalanced forces. They got together for a crazy fantasy battle where the overwhelming forces of necromancy are challenged by a forlorn hope.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Player A: I want to use Nagash.
Player B: Cool, this could be a crazy ride for me!
*game ensues, player B gets slaughtered and doesn't have much fun
In the words of Bertie Wooster, that is where you make your bloomer.
With AoS, the players did not get together for a test of skill that is wrecked by unbalanced forces. They got together for a crazy fantasy battle where the overwhelming forces of necromancy are challenged by a forlorn hope.
That's a nice narrative, but if you want to argue that the average player is going to enjoy getting slaughtered in a pick up game then I really don't need to give a response.
I haven't made fact claims, I have made arguments. They are derived from reason.
You claimed that people who would previously have played AoS without points wouldn't do so with points. Now, evidence?
It will be hard for it to be worse than 40k is currently for pickup gaming, at least . If anything, it might be much better, given that the balancing was "outsourced"!
Warmachine was actually terrible for this towards the end of Mk2, too. Points are just part of it - hopefully the SCGT guys did their homework! Has anyone played in one of their events / tried their system and can give an account?
NinthMusketeer wrote: That's a nice narrative, but if you want to argue that the average player is going to enjoy getting slaughtered in a pick up game then I really don't need to give a response.
You are pitching me some lovely ones today. AoS is not for playing pick-up games. That is why it doesn't have points. This is sort of exactly what we have been discussing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You claimed that people who would previously have played AoS without points wouldn't do so with points.
NinthMusketeer wrote: That's a nice narrative, but if you want to argue that the average player is going to enjoy getting slaughtered in a pick up game then I really don't need to give a response.
You are pitching me some lovely ones today. AoS is not for playing a pick-up games. That is why it doesn't have points. This is sort of exactly what we have been discussing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You claimed that people who would previously have played AoS without points wouldn't do so with points.
Would you mind terribly quoting me on that?
No problem:
A: Let's play Free Play. I'm taking Unit X.
Player B: But Unit X costs 750 points.
Player A: But we're not playing with points. It doesn't matter.
Player B: But obviously Unit X is an expensive, good unit, and my army cannot compete. I don't want to play anymore.
AoS is not for playing a pick-up games. That is why it doesn't have points.
Well actually ... just the one problem ... that you missed my point. And failed to distinguish between an argument and a fact claim. So just the two problems then. But we will set them aright via reiteration - the argument is that tacking an "official" points system onto AoS will not transform it into a satisfying pick-up game but it will convey that people should expect a pick-up game experience out of AoS, which in turn will prove disappointing.
First, this isn't a move to allow pick-up games. Pick-up games can already be played, however much the players may find them lacking, because any number of systems for balancing the forces by points already exist and it looks like at least one of them will eventually be promoted by GW to official status. But in any case, the actual issue is that the game itself is not designed for pick-up gaming and tacking on whatever points system is not going to change that. This is why I used the chess example: the fact that you can quantify how many points a piece is worth does not make the game suitable for playing pick-up games with list building.
What this comes down is do you believe points will poison the pot or not? GW obviously don't think so, but they could be wrong.
Maybe AoS really has been a bit of a commercial disaster? I always said that GW would give it a year and if it's not doing well, another year after making some changes.
Here are those changes, coming a year after launch, and already half the people who actually liked AoS think it's going to be terrible. Not a good sign, considering the pig's earGW have made of balance in 40K and how that's been shedding players.
Speaking for myself, I don't care whether it's got points or not. I think it would have been better to implement a basic balancing system right from the start, based on power ratings for each unit, but I'm not going to rush out and play it once it has got points.
Manchu wrote: the argument is that tacking an "official" points system onto AoS will not transform it into a satisfying pick-up game but it will convey that people should expect a pick-up game experience out of AoS, which in turn will prove disappointing.
Can you explain why? Preferably without the passive-aggressive jabs.
[edit] Specifically, why AoS with points will not be a satisfying pick up game.
RiTides wrote: Has anyone played in one of their events / tried their system and can give an account?
You might find some info from this THREAD covering their South Coast Grand Tournament if you haven't seen it already.
Thanks for that, Ghaz - much appreciated!
Also, I didn't realize they had 140 AoS players at the event - that's impressive! Really smart to use their system since that's the biggest event I've heard of, so they've probably got more playtesting than anyone else (and also seem to be really enthusiastic about it and working with GW - all good things ).
Short term it's probably the best decision that GW could make (especially as the balancing has been done externally and they've not had to devote much studio time to it)
it's going to bring back some of the people who depended on points/balanced pickup games in order to play at all and that will give a boost to player numbers (probably not so much to sales as I suspect a fair few who'd bailed on AoS were still buying GW for KoW or ninth age)
but long term I think InquisitorBob & Manchu have it right in that it's going to push out the people who had started to pick up AoS just because it wasn't a balanced game with points (possibly the biggest opportunity for growth in future as it's a category that isn';t well served by any of the big/medium sized gaming companies)
as while it can currently still be played like that it's going to be harder and harder to do as new players will end up expecting points/balance
AOS was losing ground to KOW, so GW tore a page right out of Mantic's playbook. That's some competition that isn't balanced.
Hah. Well, except KoW was designed from the ground up for tournament/pick up and play/hyperbalance. AoS, at no point during it's creation and execution, had any design goal of a points-based balancing mechanic. It will be amusing to see everyone argue about whatever random slapped on numbers get applied to units. AoS is so inherently random that it is impossible to balance (much like 40k is now)
Manchu wrote: the argument is that tacking an "official" points system onto AoS will not transform it into a satisfying pick-up game but it will convey that people should expect a pick-up game experience out of AoS, which in turn will prove disappointing.
Can you explain why?
I honestly have been. But again: The point of AoS is NOT to test the relative skill of the players. It is not designed to do that. Hence there is no substantive mechanic to balance the opposing forces ... which is the heart of pick-up gaming. How do you tell if a game is designed for pick-up play? Points-based balance is a huge tell. So when you add points to AoS, the implication is that now AoS can handle pick-up games. But actually nothing has changed. The units were never designed to be balanced. The game was never designed to pit balanced forces against one another. Tacking on a points system is therefore an empty promise bound to disappoint the unwary.
For me it looks like the new leadership that is trying to right the ship realised that many people want points or just some kind of balancing system, because of the number of people who asked for it in the FAQ question request.
Doug - I think he meant more the fact that it took the Rules Committee to really makes the KoW ruleset more balanced / solid (so Mantic basically outsourced that). Honestly, that part was a really good idea so I wouldn't mind seeing others go that route
It's definitely an open question as to how this will fall out with the playerbase / potential playerbase / etc. Will be interesting to see! I do agree with Orlando that it was the best decision they could make right now - we'll see if it helps or hurts in the long term.
DarkBlack wrote: new leadership that is trying to right the ship
Plausible explanation - but executives are rarely game designers or even gamers. "Let them have points" in this case is as naive and unknowingly facetious as "let them eat cake."
DarkBlack wrote: For me it looks like the new leadership that is trying to right the ship realised that many people want points or just some kind of balancing system, because of the number of people who asked for it in the FAQ question request.
I didn't make that connection - it would be really interesting if this was prompted by the FAQ request! I have a feeling it might have been longer coming than that, though... couldn't have hurt that they were actively soliciting feedback on the Facebook page, though.
I am really happy with the responsiveness from GW and the trend of their decisions lately (bringing back specialist games, responding to feedback, being more involved, etc). Rountree has definitely made some great strides in his time at the helm so far
Manchu wrote: I honestly have been. But again: The point of AoS is NOT to test the relative skill of the players. It is not designed to do that. Hence there is no substantive mechanic to balance the opposing forces ... which is the heart of pick-up gaming. How do you tell if a game is designed for pick-up play? Points-based balance is a huge tell. So when you add points to AoS, the implication is that now AoS can handle pick-up games. But actually nothing has changed. The units were never designed to be balanced. The game was never designed to pit balanced forces against one another. Tacking on a points system is therefore an empty promise bound to disappoint the unwary.
So because AoS was not designed to be balanced, points can never make it so? Or that GWs points won't/are unlikely to make it so? I agree with the latter, while my personal experience with point-balanced AoS discounts the former.
RiTides - I think it has to do with noticing how self-organized gamers can generate impressive sales. Adam Troke all but said as much in his Middle-earth Strategy Battles Game presentation. The well-attended AoS tourney mentioned earlier was actually reported ITT before it happened. GW took note of that and made arrangements to be there. I'd say there seems to be some "reawakening" in Nottingham as to the sales potential in holding/supporting organized events.
I certainly will dust off my models now that a point system is being introduced. I do hope however that there is some sort of limit on the amount of model spam you can have. I think that is one of the nicer features of WarmaHordes. With how AoS allows for taking models from any army I think it would add to strategy and diversity of models to not allow multiple's of things, to an extend.
I view points as a system that people who dont know one another can come to an agreement on a common ground. Its hard to play a pick up game when you dont know where to start. Bring what you want is not a viable solution imo.
NinthMusketeer wrote: So because AoS was not designed to be balanced, points can never make it so?
Correct. It takes more than points. Even games that use points don't only use points in order to balance options.
Chopxsticks wrote: I view points as a system that people who dont know one another can come to an agreement on a common ground. Its hard to play a pick up game when you dont know where to start. Bring what you want is not a viable solution imo.
All true and correct - BUT the issue is that AoS was not designed for pick-up games in the first place. The model of gamers primarily meeting up in stores to play against strangers may not be the most lucrative, not least of all because the future of retail is online rather than in the brick and mortar shops that have traditionally hosted pick-up gaming.
RiTides wrote: Doug - I think he meant more the fact that it took the Rules Committee to really makes the KoW ruleset more balanced / solid (so Mantic basically outsourced that). Honestly, that part was a really good idea so I wouldn't mind seeing others go that route
It's definitely an open question as to how this will fall out with the playerbase / potential playerbase / etc. Will be interesting to see! I do agree with Orlando that it was the best decision they could make right now - we'll see if it helps or hurts in the long term.
Yes, I know, and it worked admirably, because Kings of War was designed from the ground up to be balanced. Notice the system is far more elegant, with the vast majority of probabilities being level, producing predictable results. This is something GW only partially achieved in the Tuomas Pirinen renaissance of 6th edition and abandoned completely with 8th edition, but kept up the pretense of "balance" by including points that were impossible to "balance" anyway because of the inherent nature of the unpredictability of event core aspects of the ruleset.
None of Age of Sigmar's design goals had any sort of balancing or points based mechanic built in. There is no foundation to work on as there was no thought to giving it one.
RiTides wrote:Points are just part of it - hopefully the SCGT guys did their homework! Has anyone played in one of their events / tried their system and can give an account?
It's the only way I've played my last few games of AOS. GeeDub really could not have endorsed a better comp pack / balancing system, SCGT has been quite enjoyable. (And of course the Dub couldn't really have balanced this thing themselves, even the new Dub that listens to its community from time to time So all the smarter the decision to invest in the folks most dedicated to bridging Oldhammer with Nü.)
Manchu wrote:You would be best served not to, unless there is a lot more to it than simply adding points.
I'd recommend having a look at the rest of the SCGT pack as well, not just the army balancing bit. Not as many house rulings as you'd expect, and the ones made are decent. Good scoring schemes too, balance of scenario and killing, etc, etc.
As for the current AOS open gamers lamenting the return of the match players, I don't know what to say, except that competitive WHFB players are not as WAAC as you may think. Sure some are, but plenty of us are in event play for very different things beyond crushing our enemies and feasting upon their tears ... And I still don't get why open gamers can't just have their open games alongside those of us who want match play pickup games, as narrative gamers set up their narrative games back there in the corner All of these flavors of gaming have existed throughout Warhammer's long life, people!
And one more thought: These fears I'm hearing from current AOSers about the return of the vets makes me wonder who most open gamers are. Locally, AOS is played largely by folks who fled 40k 1-2 editions back because it got WAAC-y and stupid (for the record, I fled 40k 2-3 editions back because of the same), but never played WHFB for one reason or another - generally ridiculous model investment / they were playing other stuff / they didn't play mini games until recently. Match play isn't here to help the vets or 40k players or *shudder* Warmahorders steal this game from you, it's more like GW acknowledging that this game you play with a relatively small pool of players is part of a long lineage of fantasy gaming, with all the flavors of gamers that have gone with that.
judgedoug wrote: None of Age of Sigmar's design goals had any sort of balancing or points based mechanic built in. There is no foundation to work on as there was no thought to giving it one.
I wonder how a game designer would feel reading these posts about AoS. Did you know the secret to balancing a game is finding the correct arbitrary number to assign as a points value? So easy!
I expect the matched play will follow the SCGT style of being geared to a number of specific scenarios rather than just a strict point list for units. The SCGT guys have talked about how their pool choices were determined by considering the scenarios. With or without points, I don't think AoS makes for a good "battleline" game.
I'm not as worried about the impact this will have on the spirit of AoS as some people. I'm particularly interested in the narrative rules, and I feel like I'd be even more enthused to get a group narrative campaign going (beyond just the book scenarios, but with progression and all that) than just playing tourney-style games.
Plus, and this idea has been talked about on some of the podcasts with these guys already, there's great potential in a constantly updating "matched play" system that goes through seasons of say monsters being half points, or playing in the Realm of Fire (so shooting is better), etc. I don't think this system is going to be as rigidly stuck in place as it was when you'd print an army book and that was it for years.
Manchu wrote: The model of gamers primarily meeting up in stores to play against strangers may not be the most lucrative, not least of all because the future of retail is online rather than in the brick and mortar shops that have traditionally hosted pick-up gaming.
This is probably the actual reason from GW's new executives on high - game stores are on life support, as Asmodee/FFG and Privateer Press' recent diversionary defribillation attempt made that way more apparent that it is the case. GW must be raking in money hand over fist with direct sales and Asmodee/FFG & PP are moving to match that model. Once the average FLGS is gone, most sales will be online, direct, and sans discount. It's incredibly forward thinking of GW.
@Boss Savage - I don't think that the people who like the game AoS actually is are afraid of the "vets returning" or whatever because ... well, that is unlikely to be relevant to them. Where would they run into those players? The people we are talking about don't play at stores because they aren't looking for pick-up games. And they don't play in tournaments because they aren't playing in order to test their skill. People who like AoSfor the game that it is are interested in the drama of the conflicts. That is why they value - not just tolerate - the randomness of AoS special rules. That is why they the like - not just put up with - the ruleset generally. Now those who want to play in AoS tournaments are doing that - and lo and behold there are already comp systems produced by folks who are exactly the most qualified to make them: TOs and tournament competitors. The best thing GW can do is just pin an "official" badge on the tournament comp of the tournament that attracts the most players. The problem is, folks who think this means AoS is a pick-up game system will be sorely disappointed.
Ya, I cant vouch for other area's but in my area we dont have pick up games of AoS. Several of the game shops located within 30-40miles of me do however have designated nights for Warmahordes and I can show up with a 25/35/50 point list and meet up with someone else that night to play.
Either side of the coin I cant see how this is gonna work out honestly. Didnt prior points balance also take into account what your army had access too, and how your own units buffed itself. AoS is so open, its nice, but ya I dont think it has the foundation for a balanced point system.
Doug - Well you don't have to sell me on KoW, I am totally sold . It seems like the system SCGT implemented worked really well at their event though to attract so many players! I'm not saying it's ideal - but it has generated a ton of interest and they were able to hold a very successful / well attended event. If it can generate some momentum for AoS, that would be awesome.
Manchu - Agreed, awesome on the "awakening" GW has undergone regarding organized events. That was sorely missed for a long time and it's great to see it being implemented for AoS, too! Whether it takes the form of prize support, just acknowledging the event's existence (they used to advertise all the GTs in White Dwarf, etc), or even adopting the comp system. I honestly wish they had done that back in WHFB when it became nearly unplayable =/
Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.
Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.
Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.
This post is the definition of accidental sarcasm.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces
Your ignorance is showing.
RiTides - My guess is the timeline of this "reawakening" was asynchronous to the development of AoS. The promise of "Match Play" strikes me as GW's attempt to align the marketing goals of AoS with their rediscovered interest in organized events (maybe especially events organized by players).
Manchu wrote: @Boss Savage - I don't think that the people who like the game AoS actually is are afraid of the "vets returning" or whatever because ... well, that is unlikely to be relevant to them. Where would they run into those players? The people we are talking about don't play at stores because they aren't looking for pick-up games. And they don't play in tournaments because they aren't playing in order to test their skill. People who like AoSfor the game that it is are interested in the drama of the conflicts. That is why they value - not just tolerate - the randomness of AoS special rules. That is why they the like - not just put up with - the ruleset generally. Now those who want to play in AoS tournaments are doing that - and lo and behold there are already comp systems produced by folks who are exactly the most qualified to make them: TOs and tournament competitors. The best thing GW can do is just pin an "official" badge on the tournament comp of the tournament that attracts the most players. The problem is, folks who think this means AoS is a pick-up game system will be sorely disappointed.
well if thats the case you never play with strangers or pick up games nothing changed. Put what ever mpdel you want down say its fair and go for it. The points only effect pickup gamers. Which you said you are not. Thats like a fish complaining about road traffic.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces
Your ignorance is showing.
RiTides - My guess is the timeline of this "reawakening" was asynchronous to the development of AoS. The promise of "Match Play" strikes me as GW's attempt to align the marketing goals of AoS with their rediscovered interest in organized events (maybe especially events organized by players).
Yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with the crap fiscal years GW has had recently.
OgreChubbs wrote: well if thats the case you never play with strangers or pick up games nothing changed
You are joining a long conversation in which this point has already been extensively covered.
Uriels_Flame wrote: So... Are there some points being made or are there just folks not happy GW is giving the people what they have asked for?
Well it's about the same as usual. A bunch of folks who admit to not playing AoS weigh in extensively on the subject ...
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with the crap fiscal years GW has had recently.
Dunno what your point is. GW wants to make money? Agreed but so what? It doesn't mean they know how to do it. Again - if we can assume that GW wants to add points to make AoS profitable then we can also assume that GW axed WHFB because WHFB was unprofitable despite it having points. The conclusion is not that points make a game profitable; the conclusion is GW does not know how to make a profitable game.
RiTides wrote:Points are just part of it - hopefully the SCGT guys did their homework! Has anyone played in one of their events / tried their system and can give an account?
It's the only way I've played my last few games of AOS. GeeDub really could not have endorsed a better comp pack / balancing system, SCGT has been quite enjoyable. (And of course the Dub couldn't really have balanced this thing themselves, even the new Dub that listens to its community from time to time So all the smarter the decision to invest in the folks most dedicated to bridging Oldhammer with Nü.)
Manchu wrote:You would be best served not to, unless there is a lot more to it than simply adding points.
I'd recommend having a look at the rest of the SCGT pack as well, not just the army balancing bit. Not as many house rulings as you'd expect, and the ones made are decent. Good scoring schemes too, balance of scenario and killing, etc, etc.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.
Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.
They don't. I've just discovered Guild Ball for example - no points at all, you just take 6 team members, one has to be a captain and one a mascot.
Hey Manchu, would you be interested in playing any of the thousands of other wargames that exist that do not have points values? It seems like between the two of us, we own at least half of them all, and about - no exaggeration - ten thousand non-GW miniatures of all manufacturers and scales.
Wait, hold on, we can't, there's no points systems in any of those rulesets. And what does a unit of Dutch Grenadiers from 1701 counts-as in 40k, the Only Wargame Ever?
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Literally every wargame on earth either uses a points system or has every player begin the game with the same set amount of pieces (Chess, Risk) and people are STILL defending AoS' lack of any balance.
Dat GW Stockholm Syndrome. So glad the new management is ignoring these people.
They don't. I've just discovered Guild Ball for example - no points at all, you just take 6 team members, one has to be a captain and one a mascot.
so there is a stucture, in AoS one guy could take 9 guys 3 captians and 6 mascots because...reasons.
Fair points Manchu, including the quotes on vets stampeding back to GeeDub's embrace that I barely held back adding myself. There's a fair bit of panic on the FB site for the local AOSers ... but as you say, it's not like they come out to the LGS much any more. Funnily enough I may be the most active public player of AOS out here, and I play pretty infrequently and heavily rely upon comp packs when I do
RiTides wrote:Well you don't have to sell me on KoW, I am totally sold
Yea, pretty much, as are my club mates (that and Malifaux / X-Wing). I might convince one or two of the dudes to try SCGT with me, however I feel like we'd all be better off spending that time practicing these not-GW offerings, as NE events are heating up.
coldgaming wrote: I expect the matched play will follow the SCGT style of being geared to a number of specific scenarios rather than just a strict point list for units. The SCGT guys have talked about how their pool choices were determined by considering the scenarios.
This kind of summarizes my split view of them adding points being a good idea while also having little faith in the execution. I believe points can be used to make AoS good for pick up play, but I think they will instead add in points designed for tournament play; which I don't believe is what the majority of people actually want. A subtle difference that will cause a lot of headaches, in other words. But I think it will work out in the end because the comp community will pick up the slack and now have a minimum baseline that they have to exceed in order to draw an audience. We'll end up with SCGT becoming the official tournament comp in the form of GW's official system (I expect that the two will be the same thing) with a handful of others recognized by the community to suit different preferences.
Manchu wrote: (1) a points system is a basic mechanic that affects the rest of the game's design
BattleTech introduced (and later even refinded) a points based system. Hasn't changed the way they design the game one iota. They're still making hyper-inefficient designs and amazingly good designs and new weapons that are genuinely better than previous versions to this day. Hell, this is a game where one faction is objectively better than the other in every respect, yet the game still functions.
Actually, I do expect at this point going on the very little we have that Matched Play will indeed be very big but I hardly see any "scene" I end up in with no option for Open an Narrative. Maybe do a Match game to prep for a Match event but we are quite happy using SCGT or Clash comp now without anything else. We shall see. But this announcement is good news. 
. Shouldn't have been chicken!!
. I ordered the Maw Krusha and would love to see more like that!
