Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

There is no limit on how much you can bring. If I spend $10,000 on models (and bring all of it every game) I have more stuff than you and I probably win every game. Obviously nobody would spend $10,000 on AoS instead of playing a better game, but on a smaller scale it gives a decisive advantage to players who can out-spend their opponents. The only way to have a "fair" game of no-points AoS is to implement third-party balancing systems (whether in the form of a pre-game negotiation or third-party points) and remove the "no points" part of the game.

And, again, the fact that it didn't happen because everyone looked at the rules and said " this stupid " while moving to Warmachine/KoW/etc doesn't change the fact that the game is bad. A bad game doesn't cease to be bad just because nobody plays it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can say that, locally for me? That was not the case. Several of those people dumped money into armies(I sold my Death army to one of those people during the initial few weeks of AoS) before they basically drifted off as they tended to play at "a different level".

So your counter-argument to the idea of people quitting is that... people quit. Makes perfect sense to me.

Why would any store not want to promote a product they're stocking?

Because the store has no incentive to "stock" no-points AoS. The models can be used with better games (KoW, third-party AoS variants with points, etc) and the rules aren't sold. Therefore the store makes just as much money if they say "here's a better way to use those models I'm selling you", except now the customer is playing a much better game and more likely to continue buying.

I saw a few people get effectively turned off from some of the local shops that did nothing but badmouth Age of Sigmar and try to push Warmachine/Kings of War(which is a joke) and instead head to a local GW during the launch week.

Ok, obviously you're never going to satisfy the hardcore GW fanboys if you do anything that isn't GW corporate dogma, but who cares about those people? I strongly suspect there's a lot more money to be made from the majority of people who don't enjoy no-points AoS than the GW loyalists, and the experience for a new customer is going to be a lot better if they're directed to a better game instead.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can say that, locally for me? That was not the case. Several of those people dumped money into armies(I sold my Death army to one of those people during the initial few weeks of AoS) before they basically drifted off as they tended to play at "a different level".

So your counter-argument to the idea of people quitting is that... people quit. Makes perfect sense to me.

I'd suggest you actually read what I wrote. Drifting off from a community is not the same as them quitting.

Why would any store not want to promote a product they're stocking?

Because the store has no incentive to "stock" no-points AoS. The models can be used with better games (KoW, third-party AoS variants with points, etc) and the rules aren't sold. Therefore the store makes just as much money if they say "here's a better way to use those models I'm selling you", except now the customer is playing a much better game and more likely to continue buying.

Or the customer is likely to just not buy anything because you tried to push them into something else.

Sure there's "no incentive to stock no-points AoS" as the rules aren't sold...but you know what? Big deal. You can sell them on the models instead.

I saw a few people get effectively turned off from some of the local shops that did nothing but badmouth Age of Sigmar and try to push Warmachine/Kings of War(which is a joke) and instead head to a local GW during the launch week.

Ok, obviously you're never going to satisfy the hardcore GW fanboys if you do anything that isn't GW corporate dogma, but who cares about those people? I strongly suspect there's a lot more money to be made from the majority of people who don't enjoy no-points AoS than the GW loyalists, and the experience for a new customer is going to be a lot better if they're directed to a better game instead.

The same can be said for the people "who don't enjoy no-points AoS" and wanted nothing more than 9th edition or whatever.

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

Saw it most times my old group tried AoS, we'd try to balance it on wounds and other methods but it just didn't work and one army would stomp the other.

After that there's no interest in AoS even with ghb, instead we are going to try 9th age because total war rekindled our love of the old world.

hobojebus wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

Saw it most times my old group tried AoS, we'd try to balance it on wounds and other methods but it just didn't work and one army would stomp the other.

After that there's no interest in AoS even with ghb, instead we are going to try 9th age because total war rekindled our love of the old world.

Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.

It works in general. The problem is, you can't design your army around wounds. It's too easy to break. Instead, you have an army that you want to use filled with models you want to play with, and you can use wounds as a general power level. There are places where it breaks down (horde armies, for example), but in general, it will give you a rough estimate of the relative power of that army to another. If you have too many wounds, drop a figure or two from a unit. Too little, add a figure or two to a unit. The resulting game will be close enough that both players will feel like they are contributing to a game rather than one player watching as the other player has fun breaking all his toys. You can mod it (horde armies have half wounds) or add additional limitations (keywords, summoning) in order to help where wounds alone don't work so well.

But as an army building limitation, it doesn't work because the peripheral cases where it doesn't work are obvious and easy to pick up on. If your goal is to break it, you won't have a hard time of it. Points are the same. If your goal is to break it, you will. Or someone else will and post how to the internet. It is better to use points to balance an already created army rather than to use it as the sole basis of one.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.

It works in general. The problem is, you can't design your army around wounds. It's too easy to break. Instead, you have an army that you want to use filled with models you want to play with, and you can use wounds as a general power level. There are places where it breaks down (horde armies, for example), but in general, it will give you a rough estimate of the relative power of that army to another. If you have too many wounds, drop a figure or two from a unit. Too little, add a figure or two to a unit. The resulting game will be close enough that both players will feel like they are contributing to a game rather than one player watching as the other player has fun breaking all his toys. You can mod it (horde armies have half wounds) or add additional limitations (keywords, summoning) in order to help where wounds alone don't work so well.

But as an army building limitation, it doesn't work because the peripheral cases where it doesn't work are obvious and easy to pick up on. If your goal is to break it, you won't have a hard time of it. Points are the same. If your goal is to break it, you will. Or someone else will and post how to the internet. It is better to use points to balance an already created army rather than to use it as the sole basis of one.

It also works awfully since it doesn't consider anything else, skavenslaves are certainly not going to compare up to anything else with the same amount but they still counted.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It also works awfully since it doesn't consider anything else, skavenslaves are certainly not going to compare up to anything else with the same amount but they still counted.

So you take that into account. Same with the likes of Ungors and Skinks.

We often use units like this to pad an army out - make it look bigger (and the game more impressive) without tipping the balance (no one is going to care if you put a unit of 20 Skinks on the table in your average-sized game...).

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance. MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.

Sorry, how is that any different from points games?

If I play my IG or Raptors using Raven Guard detachment at 2k versus Eldar or Tau at 2k, it's no real meaningful contest. I can general the hell out of things...and still lose, despite "equal points".

Points need to be properly balanced in order to be meaningful. Otherwise? They're just a crutch for people to claim "My army is balanced!" without having to actually look at their army and how they play it versus other armies.

MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.

Posts anecdote then posts that anecdote is clearly why AoS sold poorly at first...

Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact that for many people there was no interest in buying anything, right?
AoS had how many "new" armies and "new" units at launch? I didn't have to buy anything for my Wood Elves. I did, however, pick up some more Eternal Guard and Waywatchers. Hell, I bought four boxes worth of Fenrisian Wolves to run Orion and a swarm of Hunting Hounds to accompany my Wild Riders--something I never would have done in 8th.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.

Sorry, how is that any different from points games?

If I play my IG or Raptors using Raven Guard detachment at 2k versus Eldar or Tau at 2k, it's no real meaningful contest. I can general the hell out of things...and still lose, despite "equal points".

Points need to be properly balanced in order to be meaningful. Otherwise? They're just a crutch for people to claim "My army is balanced!" without having to actually look at their army and how they play it versus other armies.

MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.

Posts anecdote then posts that anecdote is clearly why AoS sold poorly at first...

Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact that for many people there was no interest in buying anything, right?
AoS had how many "new" armies and "new" units at launch? I didn't have to buy anything for my Wood Elves. I did, however, pick up some more Eternal Guard and Waywatchers. Hell, I bought four boxes worth of Fenrisian Wolves to run Orion and a swarm of Hunting Hounds to accompany my Wild Riders--something I never would have done in 8th.

We know anecdotally that sales of Fantasy models spiked briefly when AoS was originally released and then very quickly died off. The general understanding that I've seen over and over is that people gave it a shot, bought Stormcast and Khorne Bloodbound, bought new units for existing models and then quickly found the game unplayable... resulting in the drop off of sales. Sales picked up again once the General's Handbook was released.

My anecdote supports the post release drop in sales and interest. The game were all one sided massacres. The game felt unplayable out of the box. Hence, we chose not to continue playing it. It was very disappointing.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Putting it bluntly, balancing it on wounds was never really going to work...because people would do ridiculous things like claim it didn't count things you would summon or other things.

It works in general. The problem is, you can't design your army around wounds. It's too easy to break. Instead, you have an army that you want to use filled with models you want to play with, and you can use wounds as a general power level. There are places where it breaks down (horde armies, for example), but in general, it will give you a rough estimate of the relative power of that army to another. If you have too many wounds, drop a figure or two from a unit. Too little, add a figure or two to a unit. The resulting game will be close enough that both players will feel like they are contributing to a game rather than one player watching as the other player has fun breaking all his toys. You can mod it (horde armies have half wounds) or add additional limitations (keywords, summoning) in order to help where wounds alone don't work so well.

But as an army building limitation, it doesn't work because the peripheral cases where it doesn't work are obvious and easy to pick up on. If your goal is to break it, you won't have a hard time of it. Points are the same. If your goal is to break it, you will. Or someone else will and post how to the internet. It is better to use points to balance an already created army rather than to use it as the sole basis of one.

It also works awfully since it doesn't consider anything else, skavenslaves are certainly not going to compare up to anything else with the same amount but they still counted.

Yeah, just using Wounds is terribly inexact, since it suggests that a Skavenslave and an Ironbreaker, for example, are equal.

And even then, tarpit units like Skavenslaves or Goblins aren't all created equal. And once you have to start adding more metrics to judge a unit by... at that stage, isn't it just easier to use points?

I second the notion that points are useless unless they provide a meaningful balance mechanism. Non balanced points are to me the same as no points in that the end result can often be two forces that are no where near balanced to begin with.

I'm finding GHB points to be "ok" at best. The balance can be a lot tighter.

Points that provide actual balance are great IMO. GHB points are not really there right now though, but GW points have never really been there since as long as I can remember.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.

Sorry, how is that any different from points games?

If I play my IG or Raptors using Raven Guard detachment at 2k versus Eldar or Tau at 2k, it's no real meaningful contest. I can general the hell out of things...and still lose, despite "equal points".

Points need to be properly balanced in order to be meaningful. Otherwise? They're just a crutch for people to claim "My army is balanced!" without having to actually look at their army and how they play it versus other armies.

MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.

Posts anecdote then posts that anecdote is clearly why AoS sold poorly at first...

Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact that for many people there was no interest in buying anything, right?
AoS had how many "new" armies and "new" units at launch? I didn't have to buy anything for my Wood Elves. I did, however, pick up some more Eternal Guard and Waywatchers. Hell, I bought four boxes worth of Fenrisian Wolves to run Orion and a swarm of Hunting Hounds to accompany my Wild Riders--something I never would have done in 8th.

We know anecdotally that sales of Fantasy models spiked briefly when AoS was originally released and then very quickly died off. The general understanding that I've seen over and over is that people gave it a shot, bought Stormcast and Khorne Bloodbound, bought new units for existing models and then quickly found the game unplayable... resulting in the drop off of sales. Sales picked up again once the General's Handbook was released.

My anecdote supports the post release drop in sales and interest. The game were all one sided massacres. The game felt unplayable out of the box. Hence, we chose not to continue playing it. It was very disappointing.

You can claim that your anecdote supports what you want to think it supports, it does not necessarily actually support it.

Sales spiking when AoS was originally released could have nothing to do with "people giving it a shot" but everything to do with the panic buying that went on with AoS' launch because of shoddy sites like BoLS claiming whole ranges were going to be discontinued with no warning at all(which was demonstrably false, we got the "Last Chance to Buy" added in to try to deal with that crap). Sales slowing down could have nothing to do with people quitting the game but rather figuring out they don't need to have huge numbers of models like they used to.

Sales picking up once the General's Handbook was released could have absolutely nothing to do with people wanting to play points, but instead with people having to buy things they did not have in large numbers before since "points made them better" than the choices they did have.

Your anecdote is just that; an anecdote that you have attempted to fit with facts that exist(a sales spike when AoS was released which leveled out and then a sales spike with the release of General's Handbook). Your experience was not the same as mine. We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).

Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.

 auticus wrote:
I second the notion that points are useless unless they provide a meaningful balance mechanism.

I'm finding GHB points to be "ok" at best. The balance can be a lot tighter.

Points that provide actual balance are great IMO. GHB points are not really there right now though, but GW points have never really been there since as long as I can remember.

How can you say that the GHB points system doesn't provide a meaningful balance mechanism? There are some units that probably need to have their points shifted a little. The majority of units have reasonable points costs. You can take 100 pairs of randomized players, have them build lists out of the GHB, have them play one of the six matched play missions and the majority of the games will be fairly well matched. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good... FAR better than no points at all. Trusting in your opponent's sportsmanship level (the base AoS balancing mechanism) is just far too unreliable for many, many people.

There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some builds are stronger than others. There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some units are stronger than others. I can't think of a single competitive game (i.e. one winner and one loser per game) where the players get to pick their armies (lists, card decks, game pieces, etc) where there ISN'T some sort of meta saying certain choices are better than others. The meta will normally shift as new releases come out.

I don't get the sales thing at all. I bought a brand new AoS army for AoS. I'm still painting it. why would I buy more and more models for a game I have yet to play. My friends play they seem to be having a really good time, the club has something like 20 players on their challenge board. The board is so packed you can't get on the board until you've won a game against some one on the board!

 Kanluwen wrote:
We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).

Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.

First of all, you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon another copy. Sounds like you don't know the rules. But whatever. Pot, kettle.

Also sounds like you got lucky to not see many one sided massacres. That's uncommon for a community giving AoS a chance. I'm assuming it's related to your self admitted community policy of 'putting people in their place' when they don't conform and then seeing them driven away. Not gonna lie. Your community sounds awful. I'm not sure I'd want to be part of a group that can't accommodate a variety of players and actively ostracizes people who want to play a certain way.

Last time Kan was here he was boasting of a one-sided massacre he pulled on another player to "teach him a lesson", so interesting to see how he has changed his tune lol.

 Bottle wrote:
Last time Kan was here he was boasting of a one-sided massacre he pulled on another player to "teach him a lesson", so interesting to see how he has changed his tune lol.

I can only assume that's how his community 'puts people in their place'. Sounds like a fun crew.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).

Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.

First of all, you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon another copy.

If we're going to get nitpicky, your argument here supports exactly what I said. You should have stated "you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon a copy."

Sounds like you don't know the rules. But whatever. Pot, kettle.

In order for you to know the spell, you need to have taken the warscroll. For Regiments of Renown, we had a caveat in place that for you to be able to Summon a unit you simply had to have the Warscroll as part of your chosen Warscroll listings.

Summoning requires a Wizard to know the spell. How does a Wizard know the summoning spell? A Wizard knows the spell based on you having the unit.
Did the GHB or an FAQ change that? Because if so, cool for that--otherwise it was locally regarded as having you to require the Warscroll present in your army, since that was what 'unlocked' it until we started doing the RoR stuff.

Also sounds like you got lucky to not see many one sided massacres. That's uncommon for a community giving AoS a chance. I'm assuming it's related to your self admitted community policy of 'putting people in their place' when they don't conform and then seeing them driven away. Not gonna lie. Your community sounds awful. I'm not sure I'd want to be part of a group that can't accommodate a variety of players and actively ostracizes people who want to play a certain way.

There's a vast difference between someone wanting to play competitively and someone wanting to play a cheesefest game against new players exclusively.
There's a vast difference between someone wanting to play competitively and someone wanting to rules lawyer every single thing when the other player was just after a quick game.

Rules lawyering in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but continuing to argue the point when someone has already just agreed to compromise? That doesn't make you any friends.
The same thing goes for cheesefests; sometimes they're fun to do. But again not everyone wants to always just exclusively play cheesefests.

When 8th was a game that was fairly empty with few players? That was something else entirely. Those people were tolerated because, hey there wasn't much option.
When AoS hit and we had an infusion of new players?
Nope, they weren't tolerated as much. They knew people disliked playing against them but they continued in their behaviors.

 Kriswall wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I second the notion that points are useless unless they provide a meaningful balance mechanism.

I'm finding GHB points to be "ok" at best. The balance can be a lot tighter.

Points that provide actual balance are great IMO. GHB points are not really there right now though, but GW points have never really been there since as long as I can remember.

How can you say that the GHB points system doesn't provide a meaningful balance mechanism? There are some units that probably need to have their points shifted a little. The majority of units have reasonable points costs. You can take 100 pairs of randomized players, have them build lists out of the GHB, have them play one of the six matched play missions and the majority of the games will be fairly well matched. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good... FAR better than no points at all. Trusting in your opponent's sportsmanship level (the base AoS balancing mechanism) is just far too unreliable for many, many people.

There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some builds are stronger than others. There will ALWAYS be a 'tournament meta' wherein some units are stronger than others. I can't think of a single competitive game (i.e. one winner and one loser per game) where the players get to pick their armies (lists, card decks, game pieces, etc) where there ISN'T some sort of meta saying certain choices are better than others. The meta will normally shift as new releases come out.

Because the GHB has obvious broken builds. The majority of models seem fine but are flat out eviscerated against the obvious broken builds. Fix the broken builds and make monsters not so heavily discounted, and I think the GHB would be one of the better systems GW has ever endorsed. Until then, it still requires negotiation on players' parts if they want a fun game if someone wants to bring one of those busted builds to a casual game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

There is no limit on how much you can bring. If I spend $10,000 on models (and bring all of it every game) I have more stuff than you and I probably win every game. Obviously nobody would spend $10,000 on AoS instead of playing a better game, but on a smaller scale it gives a decisive advantage to players who can out-spend their opponents. The only way to have a "fair" game of no-points AoS is to implement third-party balancing systems (whether in the form of a pre-game negotiation or third-party points) and remove the "no points" part of the game.

And, again, the fact that it didn't happen because everyone looked at the rules and said " this stupid " while moving to Warmachine/KoW/etc doesn't change the fact that the game is bad. A bad game doesn't cease to be bad just because nobody plays it.

Or maybe because no one is slowed enough to spend that much money and the unholy amount of resources, effort, and time you'd need to spend in order to transport it, as well as deploying it. No one would play with you because of your insistence of brining that oversized army and the fact the you'd need a whole evening just to fething deploy and list the stuff you're bring, be it AoS or a "better" game. But hey, the slope wasn't slippery enough.
That didn't happen because people, unlike you, had enough brains (or they weren't directed at being a sneering ashhat) to figure out 300 bucks would (for example) do nice for an army.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
We did not have many "one sided massacres" in my local community, outside of the people who felt that they had to prove to everyone else that AoS was "broken" by taking ridiculous combination lists or just not understanding the rules(i.e. Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell argument that went on regarding the 13 result or people taking Summoners and not taking the units they want to summon).

Once they got put in their place, they either went away because of personality conflicts(those individuals also tended to get pretty salty when proven wrong) or because they found out there were people playing 9th Age elsewhere.

First of all, you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon another copy.

If we're going to get nitpicky, your argument here supports exactly what I said. You should have stated "you don't need to have a unit already in your list (or on the table) to be able to summon a copy."

Sounds like you don't know the rules. But whatever. Pot, kettle.

In order for you to know the spell, you need to have taken the warscroll. For Regiments of Renown, we had a caveat in place that for you to be able to Summon a unit you simply had to have the Warscroll as part of your chosen Warscroll listings.

Summoning requires a Wizard to know the spell. How does a Wizard know the summoning spell? A Wizard knows the spell based on you having the unit.
Did the GHB or an FAQ change that?

Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play...

"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the
appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll
are in my army?
A: Yes."

Just decided to unquote Bottle. We had this argument before; I don't want to get into it here.

 Kriswall wrote:

Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play...

"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the
appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll
are in my army?
A: Yes."

And what's the date on that, Kriswall?

Because that FAQ wasn't up the first few weeks of AoS' lifespan bud. That was one of the more hotly contested issues until the official FAQ.

Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.

 Ghaz wrote:
Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.

My question was more along the lines as to when that specific ruling was initially posted. The FAQ just says updated June 2016 in the document and updated July 2016 on the directory page.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just decided to unquote Bottle. We had this argument before; I don't want to get into it here.

 Kriswall wrote:

Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play...

"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the
appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll
are in my army?
A: Yes."

And what's the date on that, Kriswall?

Because that FAQ wasn't up the first few weeks of AoS' lifespan bud. That was one of the more hotly contested issues until the official FAQ.

Ok, so let me understand. You were wrong, yet decided to 'put people in their place', driving them away for taking a stand on a rule interpretation? Ok. Again, your community sounds awful.

Never understood why that was contested. It always seemed extremely straightforward. I never understood the argument and still don't. Of course, the FAQ shows I was right, so I don't really need to understand what was obviously an incorrect argument.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.

My question was more along the lines as to when that specific ruling was initially posted. The FAQ just says updated June 2016 in the document and updated July 2016 on the directory page.

That ruling first appeared HERE in the AoS Draft FAQ dated 21 April 2016. The drafts also contained the Grand Alliance FAQs so I would say the June date is correct, not July.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Just decided to unquote Bottle. We had this argument before; I don't want to get into it here.

 Kriswall wrote:

Yes. Maybe you should read the rules before putting people in their place and teaching them lessons about acceptable ways to play...

"Q: Can the summoning spells on some warscrolls be used by the
appropriate caster even if none of the models from the warscroll
are in my army?
A: Yes."

And what's the date on that, Kriswall?

Because that FAQ wasn't up the first few weeks of AoS' lifespan bud. That was one of the more hotly contested issues until the official FAQ.

Ok, so let me understand. You were wrong, yet decided to 'put people in their place', driving them away for taking a stand on a rule interpretation? Ok. Again, your community sounds awful.

Never understood why that was contested. It always seemed extremely straightforward. I never understood the argument and still don't. Of course, the FAQ shows I was right, so I don't really need to understand what was obviously an incorrect argument.

Really? You don't understand why that was contested?

Maybe because on the Warscrolls for a Wizard it did not list Summoning spells, nor did it say in the 4 page rules blurb?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Its the current FAQ. There are no 'old' FAQs for AoS.

My question was more along the lines as to when that specific ruling was initially posted. The FAQ just says updated June 2016 in the document and updated July 2016 on the directory page.

That ruling first appeared HERE in the AoS Draft FAQ dated 21 April 2016. The drafts also contained the Grand Alliance FAQs so I would say the June date is correct, not July.

So either way, a lengthy time span after the launch of AoS.

Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make.
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.

Lord Kragan wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make.
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.

Thank you for making my point.

It only states that on the unit's warscrolls.
It could have been solved early on by saying something to the effect of "Death Wizards have the ability to Summon units from the Death faction. Consult the Warscrolls for Death faction units to see what units can be summoned." being present on the Wizards' warscrolls.


Editor's note:
The way I stated we played it? That was during the first few months of Age of Sigmar. Before we ever saw any FAQs or tournament stuff. The way we played it came after we had a certain group of players continuously taking combinations that people were posting online as "gamebreaking" for the express purpose of trying to drive new players out of the community.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make.
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.

Thank you for making my point.

It only states that on the unit's warscrolls.
It could have been solved early on by saying something to the effect of "Death Wizards have the ability to Summon units from the Death faction. Consult the Warscrolls for Death faction units to see what units can be summoned." being present on the Wizards' warscrolls.


Editor's note:
The way I stated we played it? That was during the first few months of Age of Sigmar. Before we ever saw any FAQs or tournament stuff. The way we played it came after we had a certain group of players continuously taking combinations that people were posting online as "gamebreaking" for the express purpose of trying to drive new players out of the community.

You're not making a point, you're just rambling needlessly, They were under no obligation to make that just for the sake of satisfying your poor comprehension.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Yeah, I'm going to go on a leg and call you are being sorely mistaken, kan, in both points you make.
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard. Only by making mental gymnastics you could say that, not even resorting to rules lawyering could serve because the rules said they knew the spell all along.

Thank you for making my point.

It only states that on the unit's warscrolls.
It could have been solved early on by saying something to the effect of "Death Wizards have the ability to Summon units from the Death faction. Consult the Warscrolls for Death faction units to see what units can be summoned." being present on the Wizards' warscrolls.


Editor's note:
The way I stated we played it? That was during the first few months of Age of Sigmar. Before we ever saw any FAQs or tournament stuff. The way we played it came after we had a certain group of players continuously taking combinations that people were posting online as "gamebreaking" for the express purpose of trying to drive new players out of the community.

You're not making a point, you're just rambling needlessly, They were under no obligation to make that just for the sake of satisfying your poor comprehension.

And you're not adding anything to the discussion beyond making attacks.

Neither are you.

To begin with there's nothing to be said: death mages KNOW the summon spell. You're just whinning about them not listing the summon spell in their warscroll instead of the unit they summon. That's it.

Lord Kragan wrote:
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard.

It was on the warscroll, which meant that if you intended to summon that unit, you needed the warscroll. Early attempts at balancing AoS used warscroll limits, which meant that if you didn't bring the warscroll as part of your army, you didn't have the spell. The early debates were largely about whether the warscroll was part of your army if you fielded 0 units or if you needed at least one.

It feels a bit pedantic to argue over a rule the FAQ has now cleared up.

Pedantic or not, it is revisionist history to pretend that there was never any debate about a rule that needed to be clarified via a FAQ.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Pedantic or not, it is revisionist history to pretend that there was never any debate about a rule that needed to be clarified via a FAQ.

It's off topic, though. Maybe create a new thread for it?

 Mangod wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Pedantic or not, it is revisionist history to pretend that there was never any debate about a rule that needed to be clarified via a FAQ.

It's off topic, though. Maybe create a new thread for it?

Nah. That tangent's over with. It got FAQ'd now. I'm glad.

We can now go back to arguing why points weren't included on release and how points fixed every single problem with Age of Sigmar/how horribly written Age of Sigmar and all GW games are or whatever.


Points or not, I hope the people who enjoy AoS are still enjoying it. I hope the people who didn't enjoy it are finding games they enjoy instead.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
It says explicidly on each unit's warscroll's: Death wizards know the spell raise grave guard (or any other, for that matter), aside any other spell they know. It was never stated you needed to field grave guard.

It was on the warscroll, which meant that if you intended to summon that unit, you needed the warscroll. Early attempts at balancing AoS used warscroll limits, which meant that if you didn't bring the warscroll as part of your army, you didn't have the spell. The early debates were largely about whether the warscroll was part of your army if you fielded 0 units or if you needed at least one.

Of course, the core rules of Age of Sigmar tell you to show up with a bunch of stuff, deploy some of it and keep the rest aside unless the fates (or something like that) dictate they be brought on. The simple act of showing up with a unit of Skellingtons means you have their Warscroll. Should you choose not to deploy them and instead hold them in reserve... well, you still had the Warscroll. Always though the "you don't have access to the Warscroll" argument ran counter to the core rules. Turns out I was right.

The only legit argument I ever saw was around whether you could summon in specific models that had previously died or if you could only summon in units you'd showed up with a started with "in reserve". As an example... I show up with Nagash and 10 Skeletons. Nagash casts a summon spell and summons the 10 Skeletons. They then are killed and removed as casualties. Can I summon more? I don't have any more Skeletons in my "reserve pool". I only have the ones that died and were removed. I always read the rules as saying that if you wanted to be able to summon two units of Skeletons over the course of a game that you needed to show up with two units of Skeletons in reserve. Not that it really matters in a Matched Play context where you have reserve points, but it matters ENORMOUSLY in an Open Play game where you're basing your deployment on what your opponent brought with him... not just what he deployed. Seeing 5 units of Skeletons "in reserve" changes my deployment more than seeing 1 unit.

 Kriswall wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
What is your proof that it "encourages one-sided massacres" because I seriously fething doubt that anything like that ever happened.

I realize that this is just an anecdote, but EVERY game of no points AoS I've ever played ended in a one-sided massacre. Short of knowing every unit in the game and playing a kajillion games, I'm not sure how you'd be able to balance things meaningfully on the fly. I want a game that's ready to play today. I don't want a game that's ready to play after a long process involving trial and error, negotiation and a potentially long series of unbalanced games before you start to see balance.

My main game is Warmachine. And its generally (and rightly, IMO) regarded as one of the tightest, most well-written, and competitively designed games out there.

And I’ve had plenty one-sided massacres with it. There are plenty hard match ups, and unwinnable ones. Done it, and been on the receiving end of it. One of my last games in Mk2 had me playing my Khador versus a mate’s Cryx force. In the space of a single turn, I utterly annihilated his army with a combination of Winter Guard infantry blunderbuss sprays literally clearing half the board on one side, and my greylord Outrider ‘murder ponies’ clearing out the other half of the board. My mate didn’t have a chance, despite his list being comprised of some of the toughest, and nastiest infantry in the game (Banes). And equal points. I guess since it was a points based game, it was entirely down to me ‘completely outplaying him’ and no other factors. Or being frank, was it to do with the fact that I had simply hard-countered him with one of the afore mentioned hard match ups, and there was no other possible outcome from his perspective? Is it someone’s ‘fault’ or is it simply the consequence of a very limited medium (ie tabletop wargames) and that, basically, one sided massacres are simply a thing that happens that we all have to endure and deal with.

All your anecdote proves is that you didn’t learn from the process. This kind of play can, and does work. I will attest to that. We’ve been playing Flames of War like this- with no points - for three years, and have yet to have a one sided massacre.

You don’t need to know every unit in the game-you start small, and you build up. You don’t need to play a kajillion games either. You play what’s in front of you. Have some reinforcements to one side, just in case. If it is very obviously one sided, just reset it, and adjust as required. Its not hard. I mean, I assume you’re a smart guy. You can ‘read’ a units stats, right? And get a 'gut'!feeling for how they’re likely to perform? You probably do this in all your games. As I do in mine. You take it from there. And It is ‘ready to play’ today. You just need to approach it with a different perspective from what you insist on.

Trial and error is absolutely fine, and lets be fair – it’s a part of every wargame. If you don't want trial and error, you picked the wrong hobby! Unless you are the kind of person who only wants to play a single list all the time in a game after its been ‘solved’ so you don’t have to think, so you can download a netlist and have it hold your hand while it goes and plays your games for you. I mean, what you scoff at – trial and error, negotiation and a long series of unbalanced games before you see balance – I see almost no real difference in mist of my games of Warmachine or Infinity. Take a new caster/unit/synergy, or whatever, you,listbuild and and you need to get table time with it before you can see ‘how’ it plays, what it does well against (and what it doesn’t!), what does well against it (and how to mitigate it!) and ‘how’ to get as much as you can out of it, because theorymachine only goes so far. You could almost call this ‘trial and error’. There is every chance you will take it into one of the dozens of hard match ups like I described above and come away after three hours feeling all frustrated, see no results, and feel like all you’ve done is bang your head off a wall for three hours, and see the whole thing as an unbalanced mess before things start to click and you start to see all the pieces starting to come together. This can take dozens and dozens of games to 'git gud'. But I guess that’s OK, because ‘points’, and ‘but it’s a game about skillz!!!1!’ while the exact same situation with ‘no points’ in AOS is proof it's somehow terrible and unplayable. Ironic, really. Both approaches are learned skill sets.

In fact, I will go further and say when you are first learning a game, and first ‘exploring’ it – that’s when you have your most fun in your games, and NOT when the game been ‘solved’. When a game is new to you -that’s when everything is new, exciting and great. New models, units, faction, tactics, match ups and ways to play! Losing isn’t that big a deal. You Get on with it! Its all new ground. There are so many things to do, so many things to unlock, so many things to experience and see and try out! Literally, its entirely about ‘trial and error’ but its all good! When a game is ‘solved’, all you are doing is retracing old ground. You are not growing as a gamer. You are not learning anything. You are re-enacting. You are simply replaying the same game, over and over again. Like that guy who only ever watched the 2015 UEFA Cup final, over and over again. There is so much more out there. The secret , I find, is to always try to keep your games at the ‘new and exciting’ phase. The second they’re solved, the second that ‘trial and error’ stops being a thing, while its all comfortable safe and familiar, is the second you’ve stopped moving and started to stagnate. Your just start being uncreative. Ultimately, this leads to burnout and hobby apathy. Personally, I find the narrative and DIY approach that AOS tries to push (even though I prefer other games with this approach) is to be commended- it is fantastic for keeping things at the new and exciting phase, because there is always something new to try out because it makes the game ‘yours’.

 Kriswall wrote:
MOST people don't want that... which is why AoS sold poorly at first, but has seen a comeback since the General's Handbook was released.

Aos had a poor launch for a lot of reasons, many of which can get laid at the door of gw and their handling of the game, its predecessor, and the community. The community itself however is not without blame either. MOST people never really gave it a shot, to be fair. You say people didn't want that, I'd argue that that it's not that simple - MOST people think they didn't want that. MOST people are conditioned to think they don't want that because all they know is something else. MOST people are stuck in a box, and are conditioned into only accepting one dogmatic method of playing wargames, can't envision anything else and view anything else as heresy. For most people, if you introduce them to this way of play, show them it working in practice (and I have done this) and sell it as a positive, empowering way of paying wargames, a lot of people will get on board, and will, even if they don't play that way, recognise its value. It's the one thing I like about aos in how it's a lot of people's first experience of 'real' narrative and diy gaming, and I personally see that as a positive, even if aos isn't all that and a bag of chips.

I don't exalt things often...but damn. That's exalt-worthy.

Deadnight wrote:
My main game is Warmachine. And its generally (and rightly, IMO) regarded as one of the tightest, most well-written, and competitively designed games out there.

Warmachine also seems designed for combo based decisive victory, not two forces duking it out over the course of 5+ turns. I've also played Warmachine. I can't remember many games that came down to two models fighting each other. Most end in relatively one-sided massacres.

And I’ve had plenty one-sided massacres with it. There are plenty hard match ups, and unwinnable ones. Done it, and been on the receiving end of it. One of my last games in Mk2 had me playing my Khador versus a mate’s Cryx force. In the space of a single turn, I utterly annihilated his army with a combination of Winter Guard infantry blunderbuss sprays literally clearing half the board on one side, and my greylord Outrider ‘murder ponies’ clearing out the other half of the board. My mate didn’t have a chance, despite his list being comprised of some of the toughest, and nastiest infantry in the game (Banes). And equal points. I guess since it was a points based game, it was entirely down to me ‘completely outplaying him’ and no other factors. Or being frank, was it to do with the fact that I had simply hard-countered him with one of the afore mentioned hard match ups, and there was no other possible outcome from his perspective? Is it someone’s ‘fault’ or is it simply the consequence of a very limited medium (ie tabletop wargames) and that, basically, one sided massacres are simply a thing that happens that we all have to endure and deal with.

There is a huge difference between using a game's built in list building and balancing mechanisms to actively try for a one-sided massacre and sort of negotiating and guesstimating and inadvertently coming up with a one-sided massacre. Was the win because one player played better or because they'd mutually screwed up the balance by guessing wrong on what made for a fair match up? We'll never know.

All your anecdote proves is that you didn’t learn from the process. This kind of play can, and does work. I will attest to that. We’ve been playing Flames of War like this- with no points - for three years, and have yet to have a one sided massacre.

I'm happy for you. I don't know anything about Flames of War, so can't comment. The models simply don't appeal to me.

Trial and error is absolutely fine, and lets be fair – it’s a part of every wargame. If you don't want trial and error, you picked the wrong hobby! Unless you are the kind of person who only wants to play a single list all the time in a game after its been ‘solved’ so you don’t have to think, so you can download a netlist and have it hold your hand while it goes and plays your games for you. I mean, what you scoff at – trial and error, negotiation and a long series of unbalanced games before you see balance – I see almost no real difference in mist of my games of Warmachine or Infinity. Take a new caster/unit/synergy, or whatever, you,listbuild and and you need to get table time with it before you can see ‘how’ it plays, what it does well against (and what it doesn’t!), what does well against it (and how to mitigate it!) and ‘how’ to get as much as you can out of it, because theorymachine only goes so far. You could almost call this ‘trial and error’. There is every chance you will take it into one of the dozens of hard match ups like I described above and come away after three hours feeling all frustrated, see no results, and feel like all you’ve done is bang your head off a wall for three hours, and see the whole thing as an unbalanced mess before things start to click and you start to see all the pieces starting to come together. This can take dozens and dozens of games to 'git gud'. But I guess that’s OK, because ‘points’, and ‘but it’s a game about skillz!!!1!’ while the exact same situation with ‘no points’ in AOS is proof it's somehow terrible and unplayable. Ironic, really. Both approaches are learned skill sets.

When I play X-Wing, I build a 100 point list and then see how it works. If I get trounced, it's either because I picked a bad combination of abilities that don't work well together or because I played poorly. It's never going to be because I brought only 3 TIE Fighters when 5 would have been more balanced. I don't mind playing a series of games to learn the how to play better and which units work best for me. I don't like the idea that I have to also decide if the armies are THEORETICALLY balanced. In your example above, say you build a list, play a bunch of hard games, nothing clicks, so you start adding models. Then something clicks. You 'git gud'. You have to start taking away models to maintain balance. How do you know what the right number of models is to take away? What sort of handicap do you give yourself? If you take away models and lose is it because you took away too many or because you played poorly? Again, we'll never know because we don't even have a theoretical balancing mechanism to compare against.

In fact, I will go further and say when you are first learning a game, and first ‘exploring’ it – that’s when you have your most fun in your games, and NOT when the game been ‘solved’. When a game is new to you -that’s when everything is new, exciting and great. New models, units, faction, tactics, match ups and ways to play! Losing isn’t that big a deal. You Get on with it! Its all new ground. There are so many things to do, so many things to unlock, so many things to experience and see and try out! Literally, its entirely about ‘trial and error’ but its all good! When a game is ‘solved’, all you are doing is retracing old ground. You are not growing as a gamer. You are not learning anything. You are re-enacting. You are simply replaying the same game, over and over again.

I respectfully disagree. I prefer the mastery that comes with knowing a game well versus the uncertainty associated with learning something new. To use a World of Warcraft analogy, it seems like you prefer questing to end game raiding. I prefer the end game. Questing is a burden to be endured.

Like that guy who only ever watched the 2015 UEFA Cup final, over and over again. There is so much more out there. The secret , I find, is to always try to keep your games at the ‘new and exciting’ phase. The second they’re solved, the second that ‘trial and error’ stops being a thing, while its all comfortable safe and familiar, is the second you’ve stopped moving and started to stagnate. Your just start being uncreative. Ultimately, this leads to burnout and hobby apathy.

Sounds like you're speaking about your own reactions. Different people have different thresholds for when things feel stagnated. I have friends who've maintained the same army for literally decades. I have others who need something new every three months or they go mad. "Hobby ADD" is definitely a thing, but it doesn't affect everyone equally.

It sounds like you need the new and exciting. I don't. I work long hours and spend most of my free time NOT participating in the table top gaming hobby. The only reason I post so much here is that work gets slow quite often and this is a great diversion. I actively DON'T want constant new and exciting things. I play games when I can against who I can. I simply don't have the time or the desire to both learn to be a good player AND learn to balance the games. I expect a certain amount of inherent systemic balance with my role being to learn to be a good player and make good choices during list building.

Well put, Kriswall :-)

 Kriswall wrote:

Warmachine also seems designed for combo based decisive victory, not two forces duking it out over the course of 5+ turns. I've also played Warmachine. I can't remember many games that came down to two models fighting each other. Most end in relatively one-sided massacres.

Most of my games of Warmachine have ended with caster assassination, often with half of the units still on the board. I've had one turn assassinations where I didn't even get to play the game and the only casualty was my caster.

There is a huge difference between using a game's built in list building and balancing mechanisms to actively try for a one-sided massacre and sort of negotiating and guesstimating and inadvertently coming up with a one-sided massacre.

I believe the difference is between building a list to win and building a list to provide an enjoyable gaming experience. The former can resemble the latter when both players are on the same page - but that's the only time the former works at all, while building a list for both player's enjoyment always produces a good game.

I respectfully disagree. I prefer the mastery that comes with knowing a game well versus the uncertainty associated with learning something new. To use a World of Warcraft analogy, it seems like you prefer questing to end game raiding. I prefer the end game. Questing is a burden to be endured.

Seeking mastery is more fun than having achieved it. Exercising your mastery is a matter of rout patterns played out in a simplistic flow chart, while seeking mastery involves figuring out the existence of the flow chart and iterating on it until you've found the final, best version. And when the flow chart is simple enough, it can simply be given to someone who can enjoy the benefits of mastery (winning) without putting in the work. The unfortunately reality of a mature game system is that a large majority of the players end up just following flow charts that the community created over many years. It's why these games must have new editions and constant upgrades - it keeps the community from getting stagnant after it solves the mastery problem.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

There is a huge difference between using a game's built in list building and balancing mechanisms to actively try for a one-sided massacre and sort of negotiating and guesstimating and inadvertently coming up with a one-sided massacre.

I believe the difference is between building a list to win and building a list to provide an enjoyable gaming experience. The former can resemble the latter when both players are on the same page - but that's the only time the former works at all, while building a list for both player's enjoyment always produces a good game.

I think this might actually be the core of the conflict here. If I'm playing a competitive game, which I'm defining as any game with a clear winner and a clear loser, I want to win. I hope the other person has fun, and if they don't we'll figure out why and try to 'correct course', but winning is the first priority. If I'm looking to simply have fun with my friends, I'll play one of any number of cooperative games, which I'm defining as any game where the players win or lose as a team and a loss can still be a 'win' if everyone enjoys the process. This is why Descent (with the Road to Legend App), Mansions of Madness, Zombicide, etc. are on my gaming shelf. Not everybody likes competitive games. I get that. But for those that do, I'll always bring my A game.

It sounds very much like some people are trying to take a competitive game, ignore the winner/loser mechanic and simply roll dice while charging at each other - acting out a narrative battle. That's awesome. I just think those people are in the minority. I think most players who play competitive games DO care about who wins and would generally prefer to A. win and B. do everything reasonable (not WAAC!) they can to be the winner.

Core Age of Sigmar lives somewhere between competitive and cooperative. It's clearly a competitive game. There is a clear winner and a clear loser. HOWEVER, Games Workshop seems to really want to it to be treated more like a cooperative game, where two players show up and sort of negotiate, drink some beers, eat some pretzels, throw some dice and specifically NOT care about who wins or loses, because hey... it's all about having fun, right? Age of Sigmar isn't Dungeons and Dragons. A narrative is fine, but at it's core it's a contest between (usually) two players with a clear winner and a clear loser at the end. When the narrative takes over, the competitive core suffers and people who enjoy competitive games will naturally walk away.

That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can. The game is one where you see who is better. The story and narrative are secondary if non existent things to care about. The mechanics, the math, the builds, those are the priority.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair. The story and narrative are primary. Forces are not created to be overbearing but reflective of the stories. The narrative, both sides being relatively well matched, and an enjoyable game take priority over who wins (though of course you are still trying to win, you just aren't putting that as the #1 facet of the game)

The root of many arguments I find.

Player A and Player B can never really coexist happily in the same space.

Well no, I mean kinda. I think that Warhammer (all varieties) is decidedly a competitive game, because it's "me vs. you". However, I think the issue is that it's intended to be very laid back competitive, not hardcore cutthroat (i.e. WAAC) style. I get the impression from GW that you are still meant to try and win, but you're meant to do so in a way that still adheres to the narrative and background material, not so much cooperative (like, I doubt you are meant to do stupid things in game just because, although I've seen it happen e.g. charging something you know you won't likely win, just because you have a Chaos Lord or something who won't back down from the fight). It's not so much trying to be a cooperative game, but there's no expectation on GW's end that you are going to push it to the extreme and degenerate the game into Math-hammer or statistics showing that Unit X is "proven" to be better than Unit Y, so stock up on Unit X and ignore Unit Y.

I think the problem is that many people seem to think competitive has only one setting, which is closer to WAAC (although even that's an extreme; I personally consider a true WAAC player to be essentially borderline cheating i.e. using dubious rules interpretations that could be correct, but likely isn't, and arguing until blue in the face that it is, or abusing the fact some rules are vague; basically a WAAC player is a powergamer + rules lawyer, what would be called a "munchkin" in D&D), and as a result they build "filth" lists that are designed to push the extreme of competitive. This is the issue.

For example, GW expects balanced armies on both sides; one or two may use a specific theme (e.g. all cavalry), but nothing too egregious, and overall a balance. A competitive player looks at what does the most damage/has the best survivability/etc. and builds a list that maxes out on those aspects, army background and composition be damned, while GW's expectation is that you are going to be more interested in fielding a "realistic" force even if that means taking, for example, a core of troops that aren't as good, because the core troops make up the bulk of the army.

If you look at any GW battle report, they are almost always very balanced forces. You almost never see just the most powerful units taken, you see a solid mix but the armies always look balanced and, more importantly, in tune with the background material of the faction.

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair.

The root of many arguments I find.

Game Style B is just so hard for someone who prefers A. It feels like you're saying "still try to win, but don't try too hard because we want to make sure that everyone has fun". It feels like a grade school lecture. "Timmy, I know you're the fastest kid in the 6th grade, but I need you to slow down and just run with everyone else. You can still come in first, but make sure you only beat the second place person by a few steps. We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Remember, all kids are above average and everyone deserves to be a winner." How is Timmy supposed to feel? Will he still want to race if he's not allowed to give it his all? Don't be surprised when Timmy throws a tantrum, says racing is stupid and joins the wrestling team. For him, racing IS stupid. It's not a challenge anymore. For him, the challenge of doing his best, doing better than everyone else is the rush.

 Kriswall wrote:

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair.

The root of many arguments I find.

Game Style B is just so hard for someone who prefers A. It feels like you're saying "still try to win, but don't try too hard because we want to make sure that everyone has fun". It feels like a grade school lecture. "Timmy, I know you're the fastest kid in the 6th grade, but I need you to slow down and just run with everyone else. You can still come in first, but make sure you only beat the second place person by a few steps. We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Remember, all kids are above average and everyone deserves to be a winner." How is Timmy supposed to feel? Will he still want to race if he's not allowed to give it his all? Don't be surprised when Timmy throws a tantrum, says racing is stupid and joins the wrestling team. For him, racing IS stupid. It's not a challenge anymore. For him, the challenge of doing his best, doing better than everyone else is the rush.

Wouldn't it be more like telling Timmy to save being the "fastest kid in 6th grade" for the racing competition, not during gym class? In other words, the Type A player can still be as competitive as possible, but at a tournament (or a tournament-esque practice game) not at a friendly game where it's just to have fun. As an example when I would play Warmachine, one of the things we often asked was if this was going to be a Steamroller (tournament) prep game or just for fun; if it was a Steamroller type game, it gets all the tournament stuff (two lists, timers, A-game, specifically asking your opponent to field/proxy X so you can test your list against it, etc.), but if it was for fun, then it might be okay to say well I really want to try this idea out and see how it works, and play more laid back and experiment with things that weren't hardcore competitive. As a factual example I once played a friend of mine, he was preparing for a tournament that weekend so specifically said he was going to bring epic Haley and a Stormwall (very powerful caster and warjack in MkII of Warmachine), and specifically asked me to field a tournament-level army because he wanted to see how his list performed. I later played someone I knew was not a competitive player and fielded mostly what they wanted/thought was cool, with only a cursory glance towards synergies. I created a list I was genuinely curious about how it played, and used it against him in a more laid back setting; the list wasn't really something I'd bring to a tournament, but some concepts and ideas from it I wanted to try out.

Why can't that work in Warhammer too? Tournament or a game to prepare for an upcoming tournament? Sure, expect all the "filth" in the world. Friendly game at a shop with someone who clearly doesn't have the same caliber list (generally not hard to see, or *gasp* to ask what sort of army they have)? Tone it down, bring something more balanced, maybe even try out something and see if it's viable so you can adapt your competitive gaming as a result.

I guess that doesn't really seem that weird to me, since it happens frequently in Warmachine, so I'm not sure why Warhammer has to be either or, and it's no way dude I'm fielding my filth tournament list regardless, get rekt scrub.

Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

Wayniac wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair.

The root of many arguments I find.

Game Style B is just so hard for someone who prefers A. It feels like you're saying "still try to win, but don't try too hard because we want to make sure that everyone has fun". It feels like a grade school lecture. "Timmy, I know you're the fastest kid in the 6th grade, but I need you to slow down and just run with everyone else. You can still come in first, but make sure you only beat the second place person by a few steps. We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings. Remember, all kids are above average and everyone deserves to be a winner." How is Timmy supposed to feel? Will he still want to race if he's not allowed to give it his all? Don't be surprised when Timmy throws a tantrum, says racing is stupid and joins the wrestling team. For him, racing IS stupid. It's not a challenge anymore. For him, the challenge of doing his best, doing better than everyone else is the rush.

Wouldn't it be more like telling Timmy to save being the "fastest kid in 6th grade" for the racing competition, not during gym class?

That's not really how Timmy works. He either tries his hardest or he does something else. Which I think is why so many people walked away from Age of Sigmar. It's so wide open that "trying your hardest" results in some truly horrendous experiences. I don't think anybody wants that. But then, I also don't think that most people want to put in the free time and effort to fix it. I salute the PPC, Azry Comp, etc people, but I don't understand them. You're effectively working as an unpaid, freelance rules writer for GW. Why not just play a different game with more complete rules?

 auticus wrote:
That is indeed the core conflict.

Game Style A) play to win. Winning is the overall objective. Crush your opponent if you can. The game is one where you see who is better. The story and narrative are secondary if non existent things to care about. The mechanics, the math, the builds, those are the priority.

Game Style B) play to win, but create a game that is fun for both sides and actively seek to avoid a one sided affair. The story and narrative are primary. Forces are not created to be overbearing but reflective of the stories. The narrative, both sides being relatively well matched, and an enjoyable game take priority over who wins (though of course you are still trying to win, you just aren't putting that as the #1 facet of the game)

The root of many arguments I find.

Player A and Player B can never really coexist happily in the same space.

Actually, I believe player A is a subset of player B. They want to create an enjoyable game for both players - it's just that they assume their opponent has the same singular idea of fun (competitive to win). I get the feeling that most of them wouldn't enjoy a game where they brought their competitive list and their opponent decided to bring a fluffy non-competitive list. Some players are jerks with low self esteem and don't mind trouncing others, but I think that most competitive players want a bit of a challenge to make their lists worth the effort. They want to win, but they want to win against a worthy opponent. It would almost be insulting to win against a non-competitive player (maybe more insulting to lose to one).

I think Player B is probably more fun to play against because they are tailoring their list to and with their opponent, whatever their opponent wants. If their opponent is competitive, Player B can be competitive (though perhaps not at high levels of competitiveness). If their opponent is experimental, fluffy, or silly, they can be experimental, fluffy, or silly. If Player B wants silly and his opponent wants competitive, perhaps a compromise can be reach where they play two games - one silly, one competitive.

But the competitive player only seeks one expression of the game, stubbornly so, and they quickly get frustrated with those who don't. And I think Player A gets frustrated with them taking this wide open, varied gaming experience and refusing to experience anything but a very small part of it - usually in the most bitter way possible. Have you ever seen a happy Warhammer competitive player who actually likes the game/faction they play?

I, personally, get tired of them complaining about the games and blaming everybody else - game designers, other players, rules, points - for why they aren't having as much fun as they think they deserve, and being the squeaky wheels, they inevitably steer the ship towards more competitive ventures (as with AoS and the GHB). AoS was fine without points, but they couldn't have fun their way and dammit, they are the one true stewards of miniature gaming and without them AoS would die and all of miniature gaming would die and the sun would die and everybody would be dead, so damn right AoS better release some points, mother fether.

Meanwhile, the non-competitive players are all like, I'm having fun. My group is having fun. We make it work. Hey, did you see the new Sylvaneth models? Man, I can think of a dozen different ways to paint and play them. Gives me all sorts of ideas for a new campaign. Next Friday, Jimmy is bring over his Fyreslayer army and... NO! YOU SHUT UP! says the competitive player. THERE ARE NO POINTS! YOU AREN'T HAVING FUN! WE ARE THE TRUE STEWARDS! OUR WORD IS LAW! BITCH, THE SUN WILL DIE!

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

 Sqorgar wrote:
But the competitive player only seeks one expression of the game, stubbornly so, and they quickly get frustrated with those who don't. And I think Player A gets frustrated with them taking this wide open, varied gaming experience and refusing to experience anything but a very small part of it - usually in the most bitter way possible. Have you ever seen a happy Warhammer competitive player who actually likes the game/faction they play?

Right. But to be fair, I've also met Type B players who refuse to play competitive at all, usually equating it with "netlisting" and deriding those who do so. I am genuinely curious why it's such a hard divide, why the Type A player can't try something new or fun that maybe isn't "the best", or why the Type B player can't understand that some people care less about the fluff/narrative and more about the game. Although I will admit, in my experience it's usually the Type A player who is the worst of the two, and derides anything other than their way as being bad, usually while insulting the Type B player for "playing badly". Usually, not always.

As i said, i think there can be a compromise, but it's hard to find mature enough people to know when to bring out the big guns, and when to have fun in a more low-key and less competitive environments.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

EXACTLY. The comment I keep seeing is that Type A players have some sort of obligation to tone down their game play and accommodate casual players. I RARELY hear of a Type A player saying that Type B players need to "man up" and "bring the thunder" to accommodate hardcore competition. Maybe it's because Type A players can just go to any number of tournaments or organized events to get their fix and respect that some people just don't like top level competitive play.

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

Because usually the competitive player is the one who can ruin the other person's fun, so IMHO more of the responsibility needs to be put on them. The competitive player is typically the outlier, who is more likely to bring a cutthroat list against casual players, than vice versa. You normally don't find casual players going to tournaments, but far too often you find a competitive player showing up to a regular game night with a list designed for a tournament, with the intent to steamroll opponents.

Kriswall wrote:
It sounds like you need the new and exciting. I don't. I work long hours and spend most of my free time NOT participating in the table top gaming hobby. The only reason I post so much here is that work gets slow quite often and this is a great diversion. I actively DON'T want constant new and exciting things. I play games when I can against who I can. I simply don't have the time or the desire to both learn to be a good player AND learn to balance the games. I expect a certain amount of inherent systemic balance with my role being to learn to be a good player and make good choices during list building.

No, I've simply learned the value of new and exciting. I've burned out before with this hobby when I focused exclusively on the competitive. With both 40k and warmachine. I still enjoy all those things you do. I've just broadened my horizons. By accident. I fell in with a couple of crotchety old historical gamers after demoing them infinity. And frankly, learning to balance games and learning the art of 'gamebuilding' has done nothing but enhance my hobby for me.

I play pick up games, and diy/narrative. I also play competitive, and love me my tournaments, when I can get to them, I also work long hours, and frankly, in terms of hours spent, gaming is down there at the bottom of the list,I'm afraid. Alas, it happens when you get older! Too much crap to do!

Thing is, since I don't get to go gaming all that often, it's value increases as a result. I won't waste my limited gaming time playing when I can against who I can. That's 'settling for scraps'.i rather plan it. And play against people I know, and enjoy playing. To me, putting time and effort into my hobby is just something I do to make it worth my time. I've learned to enjoy the process for its own sake.

Kriswall wrote:
It sounds very much like some people are trying to take a competitive game, ignore the winner/loser mechanic and simply roll dice while charging at each other - acting out a narrative battle. That's awesome. I just think those people are in the minority. I think most players who play competitive games DO care about who wins and would generally prefer to A. win and B. do everything reasonable (not WAAC!) they can to be the winner.

Core Age of Sigmar lives somewhere between competitive and cooperative. It's clearly a competitive game. There is a clear winner and a clear loser. HOWEVER, Games Workshop seems to really want to it to be treated more like a cooperative game, where two players show up and sort of negotiate, drink some beers, eat some pretzels, throw some dice and specifically NOT care about who wins or loses, because hey... it's all about having fun, right? Age of Sigmar isn't Dungeons and Dragons. A narrative is fine, but at it's core it's a contest between (usually) two players with a clear winner and a clear loser at the end. When the narrative takes over, the competitive core suffers and people who enjoy competitive games will naturally walk away.

Why does the competition have to dominate? Insistence on this is where the block is.

I think it's more complicated than just Having a winner and a loser. Or cooperative and competitive. Winners and losers happen, the perspective shift is that it isn't the over riding goal. It's as important to bring the narrative to life. The trick is to realise that you can combine both. co-operative game building first, based on a mutual understanding rather than each player taking a 'blind' list against another 'blind' list. That's where the 'game building' comes into play, and there is no reason to see this as an either/or antagonistic action where it's me vs you. You are both responsible for both sides of the game, rather than each responsible for one half.

There isn't no reason thst after this fact, that you can't have a go. It's a Wargame. The idea is to go out and try to beat the other guy after all. 'Simply rolling dice and charging at each other' is a very short sighted and rather condascending view of an alternative way of playing. Please, don't be so dismissive. Narrative gaming is a lot more empowering than this.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I say Player A and Player B cannot coexist.

The first decade or so of my wargaming was strictly Player A, so I understand the disconnect because I could never enjoy myself playing Player B because thats not what I wanted out of the game at all.

I wanted to stomp mud holes in people and destroy them as quickly as possible. My lists reflected that. All my mates were the same way. Our games were fun, we drank beers, laughed, had a good time, were playing within the confines of the rules, but we were after a vicious and fast tabling of each other.

I switched over to player B because I got bored of facing the same forces all the time and chasing the meta.

Neither is more right than the other. I will say, however, that player A is much more common than player B and still to this day would never dream of putting those two at the same table because it will be nothing but hard feelings, anger, vitriol and resentment afterward.

But why though? Is it just that the ideals are on opposite ends of the spectrum? As I said, I've seen in Warmachine where the "Type A" players have no problem trying out fun/casual lists against a "Type B" player; in fact I've read a few anecdotes where some "hardcore" Type A players prefer that once in a while as a way to do something different and also as a testbed for those "unorthodox" list ideas that may end up having something that can be used in a Type A setting come out of it.

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

Why can't the casual player bring out the toned down/odd combination list against likeminded players, and crank it up/bring their hardcore cutthroat lists in a more competitive setting? Same answer: why should I/we have to accomodate someone else who clearly isn't gonna gel with our group?

EXACTLY. The comment I keep seeing is that Type A players have some sort of obligation to tone down their game play and accommodate casual players. I RARELY hear of a Type A player saying that Type B players need to "man up" and "bring the thunder" to accommodate hardcore competition. Maybe it's because Type A players can just go to any number of tournaments or organized events to get their fix and respect that some people just don't like top level competitive play.

I think it's mainly because the Type A player has an outlet for their desire, i.e. tournament events. The Type B player usually doesn't have "narrative events" or sometimes even campaigns, and those things are generally advertised as "all comers" so you can still attract the Type A player who shows up with a power list to a casual game.

Let me see if I can explain better. If the game shop advertises a tournament, it can reasonably be expected that it's going to be very competitive (that's basically the definition of a tournament). The competitive players have a reason to go to the event, the casual ones don't (they can, but would reasonably not expect to do well because they're casual players). So a tournament excludes Type B (they won't sign up because it's a tournament and not for them) and includes/encourages Type A (it's a tournament, they want to play competitively).

If the game shop advertises a campaign, or a league, or even just regular old "Warhammer Night", both kinds of players show up, and you run into the personality clash. There is no dedicated event, typically, for Type Bs (since many Type As will join campaigns or leagues with the express intention to "crush" the opposition), while Type As get their own dedicated type of exhibition (i.e. tournaments). Therefore I feel more of the onus is on Type A to play accordingly, because they get the freedom to do so. A Type A who ONLY wants to play competitive games can more often than not find other Type As to group with on game nights, and have tournaments where it's very unlikely they'll run into a Type B. A Type B who NEVER want to play competitive games is much more restricted in what they can do, because they always have the chance to run into Type A, since there's nothing stopping a Type A from showing up to a regular game with a powerlist or joining a league and running a powerlist, while a Type B will look at an upcoming tournament and likely choose not to attend because it doesn't suit them, thereby removing themselves entirely from the equation; you could reasonably expect to see a majority of Type A players at a tournament, but a league or campaign you could see Type A or Type B in equal measures.

Therefore, I feel that Type A needs to be the one to adjust, because Type A can more readily change than Type B. Speaking as a Type A player in Warmachine (can't speak for Warhammer) I had no problem playing competitive when needed or casual when I wanted a change or played someone casual; on the contrary it was next to impossible to expect a Type B player to "man up" and bring a power list, so I felt more responsible for ensuring a fun game since I was the one who was more comfortable with changing my way of playing. I could have (and did for a bit) gone around crushing "scrubs" and then telling them to suck it up when they asked me to not keep using the power combos (and this was still the time of "play like you've got a pair" Warmachine), but then nobody would have fun.

Wayniac wrote:
Right. But to be fair, I've also met Type B players who refuse to play competitive at all, usually equating it with "netlisting" and deriding those who do so.

Once bitten, twice shy? People who have had bad experiences don't tend to want to repeat them.

I am genuinely curious why it's such a hard divide, why the Type A player can't try something new or fun that maybe isn't "the best", or why the Type B player can't understand that some people care less about the fluff/narrative and more about the game. Although I will admit, in my experience it's usually the Type A player who is the worst of the two, and derides anything other than their way as being bad, usually while insulting the Type B player for "playing badly". Usually, not always.

We've seen exactly that sentiment repeated in this very thread from multiple people.

I think Type B players understand competitive players, and on occasion can enjoy their company, but it has a high potential to create unfun games, which is the very thing Type B players actively work against. If the type B player actively want to have an enjoyable gaming experience, competitive gamers would be the last person you would seek out without some assurances.

You're effectively working as an unpaid, freelance rules writer for GW. Why not just play a different game with more complete rules?

Speaking as the author of azyr comp - because there is no fantasy game on the market today that appeals to me.

7th edition - busted daemon codex aside, was too sterile
8th edition - i stopped liking it a few years ago.
Kings of War - to me is garbage.
9th age - too sterile.
LOTR/Hobbit - no players though I like it.

I do like games like Saga but there is nothing out there that really appeals to me. AoS was the closest thing. So I put the time in to make it work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Why is it either or? What prevents a Type A player from doing that, and being able to bring out the hardcore cutthroat lists against like-minded players, and tone it down/try odd combinations in a more casual setting?

From my own experience, because that would mean I wasn't trying my hardest and when I was that player A, I wanted a test of skill at all times. If either side is gimping themselves, I'm not getting what I want. I'm not testing my skill.

If you aren't bringing the "A" lists then to me you weren't trying hard, or you just didn't care about winning and I had no fun stomping you to death with my tournament list if you weren't trying to smack me back (and non tournament lists were not able to do that)

I didn't want to have to tone it down. That was stupid to me (but that was also because in my younger days I couldn't see past my own wants and things that attracted me, so anything that I didn't want or was antithesis to me was "wrong")

I will say I have seen many competitive players in person and on these forums and other forums tell other players to "sack up" and "learn to play". "Learn to play" was the warseer mantra for a while, as those threads were everywhere.

I do really like the point that Type A players are pretty much always spoiled for choice for events, and Type B players are not. I think that plays a role for sure in the animosity you see.

I know in my own area that getting competitive guys to not bring tournament lists to open game night is an exercise in frustration, which bleeds into the casual guys' games because the competitive guys won't ever bring something that isn't designed to outright emasculate their opponent (because they want competitive cut throat games).

Casuals don't go to tournaments usually and if they do they understand the groin stomping about to befall them, but there are no "casual nights" for them to fall back to. Even campaigns tend to be very competitive, I've found.

When you have no outlet really to explore, things can get heated. We saw that with AOS not catering to competitive gamers and the liquid white hot magma of rage that followed because of it. Without an outlet for a play style, people get disenfranchised, frustrated, annoyed, and angry.

Deadnight wrote:
Why does the competition have to dominate?

Well, duh. Competitive gamers are the one true stewards of miniature gaming and without their support, the games would die.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I didn't want to have to tone it down. That was stupid to me (but that was also because in my younger days I couldn't see past my own wants and things that attracted me, so anything that I didn't want or was antithesis to me was "wrong")

That attitude is what I don't understand. I throw games all the time. When I play games with my kids, I have to play at a much lower level than I am capable of - but I still have fun.

That attitude is what I don't understand. I throw games all the time. When I play games with my kids, I have to play at a much lower level than I am capable of - but I still have fun.

Different approaches, different desires. Competitive players are all about competition. Playing at a lower level is not competition to them, barring intro games with new players.

Its like playing on a soccer team or football team or whatever and not trying your best to them.

To player A - warhammer is a sport and is played like a sport.

To player B - warhammer is a recreational fun casual game.

When you mix the players its like having a saturday afternoon pickup soccer game at the park and everyone is for the most part just playing for fun but that one or two guys that play for the pro team show up and trounce everyone.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Why does the competition have to dominate?

Well, duh. Competitive gamers are the one true stewards of miniature gaming and without their support, the games would die.

Hmm, as well, I think it's a bit of a gamer thing too. A lot of gamers have attitudes that stink of entitlement. That they're 'owed' something. And shouldn't have to do anything themselves, or for anyone else. The fact that a small subset of players online generates such a massive volume in proportion to their numbers doesn't really help matters. It skews the narrative (hey! Pun!) in an unhealthy direction.

I was more commenting on the viewthat since something has a winner and a loser, then that somehow needs to define it absolutely and completely. I just see them as aspects of a greater whole, not the whole.

Here's the other thing. How often does a Type A player get completely steamrolled and tabled? How often do they feel like they had absolutely little or no chance to win? Usually since Type A players are expecting the "filth" lists, they are usually prepared for it already (e.g. think to themselves before the event "How do I deal with X" where X is specific filth list) so I think it's pretty rare for a Type A player to just get completely crushed in a onesided game, and when it happens it's usually because they happened to get very unlucky and come up against the "perfect counter" to their own brand of cheese.

How how common is it for a Type B player to get absolutely steamrolled with little or no chance at resistance? Pretty common, I'd wager, doubly so against a Type A player. A Type B player goes into the game expecting a balanced, fun, enjoyable game. A Type A player goes in expecting a cutthroat game, which to them is often enjoyable and fun, but has completely different expectations out of it. Also very few Type A players want to just obliterate an opponent that has no chance against them (and the ones that do are often also the Donkey-caves), they want a cutthroat game but a hard fought one. Besides, is it not the epitome of skill to win with "subpar" choices, to prove that it's the player not the army?

This is why I feel more of the responsibility has to be on the Type A player, because they often have less to lose. A crushing defeat for a highly competitive player is often not taken as badly (barring the occasional Type A Donkey-cave who is a sore loser and throws a tantrum), and typically just approached as something to watch out for (e.g. totally did not expect X Y and Z in that combination, but wow it was brutal, better keep it in mind for next time) but for a Type B player it's often completely demoralizing and soul-crushing because they aren't even in the same league; it's akin to a soapbox derby racer going against a NASCAR driver.

Besides, is it not the epitome of skill to win with "subpar" choices, to prove that it's the player not the army?

That tends to be where I come from as well. I wonder whether it due to coming from a wider wargame background first; mainly historical where it was probably a given you were exposed to one sided fights balanced by victory conditions, because that is what actually happened and it was about doing better than history.

I never grasped the idea that to show you 'wanted to win' or that you are the 'uber skillz player' you had to have some uber power list. You can be just as keen to win and show your ability by playing the Cooks and Lorry drivers of the logistics company as they try to fend off the armored spearhead that broke through. Set the win condition accordingly, so the armored spearhead is expected to quickly overrun with zero loss, anything less is an embarrassing 'defeat'. Equally your full time cooks and lorry drivers may find themselves facing the hastily raised raw recruits of the enemy in a somewhat more balanced game, but nether player has the uber list.

I think it comes down to the difference between seeing list building as pat of the game, or not. I see the game as starting on turn 1 and have never really seen list building as part of the game. Not to say it can't be interesting doing the theory hammer, and I often even write simulators to help work out a variety of stuff and discuss such, but I never really see it as part of the actual game.

Not that I'm into them nowadays, but going back to some of the earlier MMOs there was often these discussions as well - class/race X is overpowered, or another is the Gimp. MMOs have to be the ultimate non-competitive game that you can't win or lose as such (even death nowadays is nothing), yet it was (is?) still full of the uber competive players who seemed to want to make max level ASAP and refuse to team up with anyone playing certain classes for reasons of being 'sub-optimal'. For the most part I usually went for the classes rated as the worst, as presumably they would be where the interest and challenge was.

Still I find it amusing that GW consistently shows that points aren't needed. Their battle reports often kind of just agree what looks good and would make for a fair fight; see the September White Dwarf's AOS battle report (they chose about 10 units and 4-5 heroes each) and even this months' for 40k with Deathwatch vs. Genestealer Cults, they:

Before the game we didn't agree on a points limit, but assembled armies that we'd like to field, both of us picking three Formations from our respective Codex, plus a few extra units and heroes. As you can see [over the page], our army lists ended up pretty balanced anyway, a good sign that we'd be in for a fair fight.

That seems like the intended way for Warhammer to be played, not worrying about specific points but actually talking with your opponent to see what you field makes for a fun game.

You know they replay battle reports until they get the result they want right?

As in until the new army wins.

That's right. It's rumored they'll play hundreds of games until the new army finally wins. They then quickly snap some photos and write it up as though it were the first game played.

One hopes they've never thought of writing up whatever game they're playing with the result they want OR not even playing a game at all and just taking photos and "forging" a narrative by writing up a battle report that never even occurred.

hobojebus wrote:
You know they replay battle reports until they get the result they want right?

As in until the new army wins.

Funny because that's basically been proven to be BS. Like this month, Genestealers lost. It was close, but they didn't win.

I also hear they use multiple types of loaded dice to get the exact result they want and then they burn the dice to make sure no evidence is left behind of their heinous acts.

@Wayniac, I really like that they embrace that sort of attitude. I think players respecting eachother and the hobby is the best way to put the fun back into the hobby and what allows the models to be so unique unlike 9th and KoW's method of balance which waters them down into fancy chess pieces.

In response to why not use a weaker list to prove your skill:

Its about maximizing return while putting in little effort. If my primary goal is to win, then fielding a weaker list makes the odds of that happening smaller. I am farther away from my goal.

It isn't really about proving overall skill as much as it is proving high score. High score is what one is after.

Yes absolutely a person that gets high score with a "C" or "B" list is definitely more skilled than a person that gets high score with an "A+" list that takes advantage of bad points balance.

However at the end of the day, much like in professional sports, a "W" in the result column is really all that matters, and in an event winning the trophy with a "C" list is for all intents and purposes seen as the same as winning the trophy with an "A" list.

Its boiled down to just plain old winning period. You do everything you can to maximize wins which maximizes the cost of money and time you put into the event.

The game and everything else is second in priority.

Thats why you see people fold early on in games when they don't think they can win any longer. To them there's no point in continuing since the game is secondary to the end result, so to maximize return on cost, they'd rather reset a new game instead of play out what would be to them a loss.

To a competitive player, the "W" is the end result and the thing that matters most. (so long as you follow the rules, we're not talking WAAC cheating or anything like that)

Wayniac wrote:
Still I find it amusing that GW consistently shows that points aren't needed. Their battle reports often kind of just agree what looks good and would make for a fair fight; see the September White Dwarf's AOS battle report (they chose about 10 units and 4-5 heroes each) and even this months' for 40k with Deathwatch vs. Genestealer Cults, they:

Before the game we didn't agree on a points limit, but assembled armies that we'd like to field, both of us picking three Formations from our respective Codex, plus a few extra units and heroes. As you can see [over the page], our army lists ended up pretty balanced anyway, a good sign that we'd be in for a fair fight.

That seems like the intended way for Warhammer to be played, not worrying about specific points but actually talking with your opponent to see what you field makes for a fun game.

WD battle reports are known to be fake. They re-roll anything that doesn't produce a "fun" result, or even outright fake the results of the game by lining up models in a way that looks interesting and taking some pictures. And no, this isn't some tinfoil hat theory, it's just basic game journalism. You don't publish the boring one-sided games where nothing interesting happened, you post some idealized version of what a fun game in your system looks like. People want to read a story about heroic deeds, glorious comebacks, etc, even if it isn't 100% accurate by the rules. But holding up a WD battle report as an example of a successful no-points game is really not convincing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Still I find it amusing that GW consistently shows that points aren't needed. Their battle reports often kind of just agree what looks good and would make for a fair fight; see the September White Dwarf's AOS battle report (they chose about 10 units and 4-5 heroes each) and even this months' for 40k with Deathwatch vs. Genestealer Cults, they:

Before the game we didn't agree on a points limit, but assembled armies that we'd like to field, both of us picking three Formations from our respective Codex, plus a few extra units and heroes. As you can see [over the page], our army lists ended up pretty balanced anyway, a good sign that we'd be in for a fair fight.

That seems like the intended way for Warhammer to be played, not worrying about specific points but actually talking with your opponent to see what you field makes for a fun game.

WD battle reports are known to be fake. They re-roll anything that doesn't produce a "fun" result, or even outright fake the results of the game by lining up models in a way that looks interesting and taking some pictures. And no, this isn't some tinfoil hat theory, it's just basic game journalism. You don't publish the boring one-sided games where nothing interesting happened, you post some idealized version of what a fun game in your system looks like. People want to read a story about heroic deeds, glorious comebacks, etc, even if it isn't 100% accurate by the rules. But holding up a WD battle report as an example of a successful no-points game is really not convincing.

TLR It's tinfoil hat theory.

 Peregrine wrote:


WD battle reports are known to be fake. They re-roll anything that doesn't produce a "fun" result, or even outright fake the results of the game by lining up models in a way that looks interesting and taking some pictures. And no, this isn't some tinfoil hat theory, it's just basic game journalism.

Here's the thing.

I have taken part in one of the White Dwarf battle reports. My photo is in the magazine and everything.

You are talking complete rubbish. Utter rubbish.

MongooseMatt wrote:
Here's the thing.

I have taken part in one of the White Dwarf battle reports. My photo is in the magazine and everything.

You are talking complete rubbish. Utter rubbish.

So, let me get this straight: if you had won the game on the first turn (through sheer dice luck, failed leadership tests, etc) in the most one-sided massacre ever they would have published the battle report exactly as it happened on the table, without any changes at all to make it more interesting? I find this hard to believe.

 Peregrine wrote:


So, let me get this straight: if you had won the game on the first turn (through sheer dice luck, failed leadership tests, etc) in the most one-sided massacre ever they would have published the battle report exactly as it happened on the table, without any changes at all to make it more interesting? I find this hard to believe.

I imagine there is a great deal you find hard to believe.

Why are you so angry?

MongooseMatt wrote:
Why are you so angry?

I'm not. I'm just skeptical that GW would be the lone exception to what most companies would do with a battle report, in contrast to all of the other stories over the years of GW "enhancing" the games to make them more interesting for the magazine article.

 Peregrine wrote:


I'm not. I'm just skeptical that GW would be the lone exception to what most companies would do with a battle report, in contrast to all of the other stories over the years of GW "enhancing" the games to make them more interesting for the magazine article.

Well... my company has never done that with a battle report...

I suppose people also think newspapers and channels don't ever put spin and bias on stories.

Every word Fox news and cnbc report has never had conservative or liberal bias right?

The whole point is to sell toys so of course they fudge battle reports so the new shiny army doesn't get destroyed.

Employ a little sceptical thinking to everything.

First off, MongooseMatt you're awesome.

Secondly, what companies do you know that change up battle reports in their gaming magazines, Peregrine? You make it sound like common practice.

hobojebus wrote:

Employ a little sceptical thinking to everything.

I was there. I have actually done one of these things,

Baron Klatz wrote:
Secondly, what companies do you know that change up battle reports in their gaming magazines, Peregrine? You make it sound like common practice.

I don't know any specifically, but it's just such an incredibly obvious thing to do that I'm extremely skeptical of any claim otherwise. The goal of a battle report in a magazine is to be entertaining, whether by telling an interesting story, demonstrating and discussing a strategy idea, etc. If the battle report is not interesting, as many games tend to be, you don't print it unless you want your magazine to be the kind of garbage that nobody bothers to read. So you either play lots of games and only publish the one that was interesting, or you "enhance" the results to remove stupid mistakes, fluke dice leading to boring outcomes, etc. There is no way that anyone is getting magazine-worthy battle reports every time on the first try without having to play the game again and/or fudge the actual events a bit.

hobojebus wrote:
I suppose people also think newspapers and channels don't ever put spin and bias on stories.

Every word Fox news and cnbc report has never had conservative or liberal bias right?

The whole point is to sell toys so of course they fudge battle reports so the new shiny army doesn't get destroyed.

Employ a little sceptical thinking to everything.

Or instead of trying to wake up the genie, listen to people who've made batreps for White Dwarf. I mean, I was there too and the closest thing to dice-fudging we did was when I re-rolled a dice after it falled down the table (and to me if it doesn't fall in the table, it doesn't count.)

Lord Kragan wrote:
Or instead of trying to wake up the genie, listen to people who've made batreps for White Dwarf. I mean, I was there too and the closest thing to dice-fudging we did was when I re-rolled a dice after it falled down the table (and to me if it doesn't fall in the table, it doesn't count.)

So if you won the game at the start of turn 1, before your opponent even got a turn, because of fluke dice and a bunch of failed leadership tests too close to the table edge you honestly think that would have been published in WD? That they wouldn't have said "you know, this is going to suck to read, let's pretend that didn't happen"? You know just as well as I do that they would discard that game and print something more interesting instead.

@Peregrine, Sooo assumption and baseless speculation is the reason to call foul on GW...

I mean, I can easily see them redoing one bad game like the one you described to Kragon but you're piggybacking the claims that they constantly change results and that their games are unable to have a good first playthrough.

@Lord Kragon, I think he needs to listen to Wayniac first since he just disproved his "shiny new army always wins" theory.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Or instead of trying to wake up the genie, listen to people who've made batreps for White Dwarf. I mean, I was there too and the closest thing to dice-fudging we did was when I re-rolled a dice after it falled down the table (and to me if it doesn't fall in the table, it doesn't count.)

So if you won the game at the start of turn 1, before your opponent even got a turn, because of fluke dice and a bunch of failed leadership tests too close to the table edge you honestly think that would have been published in WD? That they wouldn't have said "you know, this is going to suck to read, let's pretend that didn't happen"? You know just as well as I do that they would discard that game and print something more interesting instead.

Peregrine, how many games you've seen that end on turn 1? Like seriously, aside from facing an A+ list with a VERY bad list I can't imagine such one sided massacre that would need a turn. But hey, keep with the dream!

Lord Kragan wrote:

Or instead of trying to wake up the genie, listen to people who've made batreps for White Dwarf. I mean, I was there too

Hey Kragan, which one were you involved in? Mine was a match up against Andy Chambers, Black Templars vs. Orks after Ghazghkull ran from Aramgeddon...

I've heard of one turn victories happening.

Once in 8th when a Bretonnian lord killing blowed a Slann that the opponent put all of his points into beefing up with some skinks on the side.

The other time is more dubious since it was a quick AoS story of one fellow's general being sniped with the "kill enemy general" objective. Though that was likely due to incompetent placing since they were both using large armies and he never described the set-up or why his general was so close as to be killed that quick..

Baron Klatz wrote:
@Peregrine, Sooo assumption and baseless speculation is the reason to call foul on GW...

It's not "calling foul" because I'm not saying there's anything wrong with editing the outcome of the game to make it more interesting. It's the obvious thing to do to make your magazine article entertaining enough that people want to read it, and GW would be pretty stupid if they don't edit anything. My point is only that "it worked in a WD battle report" is not a very convincing argument that no-points AoS can work because GW is never going to publish a battle report where no-points AoS leads to a one-sided massacre. Aside from making their product look bad it just isn't going to be entertaining to read it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:
Peregrine, how many games you've seen that end on turn 1? Like seriously, aside from facing an A+ list with a VERY bad list I can't imagine such one sided massacre that would need a turn. But hey, keep with the dream!

Not many, but it's possible. For example, it can happen in 40k if a reserves-heavy army (such as an IG air cavalry list with lots of units in Valkyries) loses the token units it has on the table on turn 1 (something that is very possible if the dice go badly enough against you), which results in the player losing the game immediately under the "no units on the table at the end of a turn" rule. And, for a less extreme example, it's certainly possible for the first turn to be such a one-sided massacre that the game is effectively over by then even if it takes a few more turns for the winner to mop up the last remaining survivors and officially win.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

Or instead of trying to wake up the genie, listen to people who've made batreps for White Dwarf. I mean, I was there too

Hey Kragan, which one were you involved in? Mine was a match up against Andy Chambers, Black Templars vs. Orks after Ghazghkull ran from Aramgeddon...

I got one against matt ward. T'was fun and we got some laughs, though I may say he went a bit overboard with his list. When was it? Around 2010-2011 but I don't recall well. I know it involved his ultramarines.

In WD 241 they actually say they repeated the battle report several times to get the conclusion they wanted (Colonel Schaeffer's Last Chances winning vs a Chaos Space Marine combat patrol).

I'd quote it but it's a long paragraph explaining the 2 battles before hand where Chaos won. The first game only 1 Last Chancer remained and failed to win the mission because of a single bad dice roll. They called that an anti-climatic finish and so played the game again and again until on the third try the Last Chancers won.

 Peregrine wrote:
My point is only that "it worked in a WD battle report" is not a very convincing argument that no-points AoS can work because GW is never going to publish a battle report where no-points AoS leads to a one-sided massacre.

Then how about a blog that has 40-odd AoS battle reports which did not use points, and where none were replayed?

(see sig)

It might not work for you, Peregrine, and that is just fine. But it plainly works for others.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
In WD 241 they actually say they repeated the battle report several times to get the conclusion they wanted (Colonel Schaeffer's Last Chances winning vs a Chaos Space Marine combat patrol).

I'd quote it but it's a long paragraph explaining the 2 battles before hand where Chaos won. The first game only 1 Last Chancer remained and failed to win the mission because of a single bad dice roll. They called that an anti-climatic finish and so played the game again and again until on the third try the Last Chancers won.

And here's the thing: they said it, as in they admit it. That means it wasn't faked as they affirm it.

Also, there is a huge difference between this one game we played ended anti-climactically and we refought it because we felt it was boring, and saying they do that all the time.

MongooseMatt wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Employ a little sceptical thinking to everything.

I was there. I have actually done one of these things,

That's not evidence though is it, I don't know you, I don't know if your making it up or telling the truth so believing you mearly on your say so is illogical.

That's not a personal issue I treat everyone and everything to the same level of sceptical inspection.

I take nothing on faith.

{Quote] Mine was a match up against Andy Chambers, Black Templars vs. Orks after Ghazghkull ran from Aramgeddon...

 warhead01 wrote:
The one with the Airfield and the Dreadnought Drop pod?

That's the one!

I'm with Peregrine. I've also worked for GW and went through their sales/marketing training. We were instructed to fudge numbers, add and inch or two to movement, get the armor save wrong, etc, etc to make sure each demo game had a properly dramatic finish. I'd be absolutely shocked if modern day White Dwarf battle reports didn't have a component of this. It seems irresponsible not to fudge the battle a little to make things more appealing to a reader. Is it happening? Sometimes, sure. They've admitted it (WD 241 as posted above). Is it happening all the time? Probably not. The players they're picking are probably trying for a cinematic game, so getting one without fudging things is probably relatively easy.

Not sure what this has to do with points in Age of Sigmar though.

Also, can the casual players stop referring to optimized lists as "filth" lists? It's incredibly demeaning to competitive players. Alternately, we can start referring to casual lists as "baby" lists.

Cool!
That ant the 3rd war for Armageddon battle reports were a blast to read!
I still have those WD's some where.

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, can the casual players stop referring to optimized lists as "filth" lists? It's incredibly demeaning to competitive players. Alternately, we can start referring to casual lists as "baby" lists.

Sorry but no, it's not demeaning compettives but people who bring optimized lists on all occassions even when they aren't needed, unless you feel you fit in the second cathegory.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Also, can the casual players stop referring to optimized lists as "filth" lists? It's incredibly demeaning to competitive players. Alternately, we can start referring to casual lists as "baby" lists.

Sorry but no, it's not demeaning compettives but people who bring optimized lists on all occassions even when they aren't needed, unless you feel you fit in the second cathegory.

Understood. From now on casual lists will be referred to as "baby" lists. It's not demeaning casuals but people who bring casual lists even when they aren't appropriate.

I also want you to clearly define what is appropriate to bring for a casual list. Let's say that I'm a generally competitive player. I've been invited to a casual event. I'm told to bring a casual list. What does that mean? What specific things am I not allowed to bring. I know I can't bring what I normally bring, but it's unclear how far I need to go to handicap myself. You're putting a restriction on the army building process, but it's this nebulous "you should know what I mean" restriction. Competitive players are used to clearly defined army list restrictions/requirements. I think this is also part of the frustration. Competitive list building is generally well defined. Casual list building is generally poorly defined. Most competitive players get frustrated by this lack of definition.

"Filth" is a specific type of list, not just any competitive list. It's the same thing that was once "beardy" and "cheesy", and has always meant a list that is built ONLY to win without any care for the army background or flavor.

I admit I don't like the term "filth" because it DOES sound more insulting; I still say it should be "cheesy" which doesn't sound so rude.

Thats up to the event organizer to either screen lists in advance or put out a comp restriction.

Wayniac wrote:
"Filth" is a specific type of list, not just any competitive list. It's the same thing that was once "beardy" and "cheesy", and has always meant a list that is built ONLY to win without any care for the army background or flavor.

I admit I don't like the term "filth" because it DOES sound more insulting; I still say it should be "cheesy" which doesn't sound so rude.

So, given your definition, the "Skaven Skyrefyre" list is not remotely a "filth" list? It matches the army's fluff and is, in fact, made up of a single Clan Skyre Battalion. You can't get much more fluffy than that.

I think you need to modify your definition. You also need to choose a new word. "Filth" is insulting. You're implying that caring about army background or flavor is a virtue to be pursued. Not everyone feels that way. Just because you value fluff, doesn't mean everyone has to. Not matching army background doesn't automatically make an army somehow dirty or immoral.

 auticus wrote:
Thats up to the event organizer to either screen lists in advance or put out a comp restriction.

At which point I once again ask "why didn't GW do that already?" Yes, the WHFB and 40k army construction rules and points did leave room for some abuse, but that could've been patched if only GW hadn't closed the door on customer communications.

And on the general topic of GW "faking" their battle reports - well, duh. It's the same reason you don't read about turn 1 'caster Assassinations in No Quarter Magazine: because it's incredibly short, and not terribly exciting. Impressive (from a technical standpoint), certainly, but it's not exactly what I'd consider a good use of page space.

The GHB is a direct work of the SCGT which seemed to be ok with stormfiends being battleline for whatever god awful reason.

Remove some of the grotesque battleline entries like stormfiends... or rework their points so they aren't so nasty cheap and I think the GHB overall would be pretty good.

 auticus wrote:
The GHB is a direct work of the SCGT which seemed to be ok with stormfiends being battleline for whatever god awful reason.

Remove some of the grotesque battleline entries like stormfiends... or rework their points so they aren't so nasty cheap and I think the GHB overall would be pretty good.

To be fair I think a lot of that is because some of the little subfactions are very small, but are meant to be able to be played as their own subfaction. But yeah Stormfiend shouldn't be Battleline since they seem like an elite unit.

They are one of the most powerful units in the entire game. They are more than elite lol.

 auticus wrote:
They are one of the most powerful units in the entire game. They are more than elite lol.

So, I don't remember, but were the Stormfiends a Rare unit in WHFB, or just a Special unit?

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The GHB is a direct work of the SCGT which seemed to be ok with stormfiends being battleline for whatever god awful reason.

Remove some of the grotesque battleline entries like stormfiends... or rework their points so they aren't so nasty cheap and I think the GHB overall would be pretty good.

To be fair I think a lot of that is because some of the little subfactions are very small, but are meant to be able to be played as their own subfaction. But yeah Stormfiend shouldn't be Battleline since they seem like an elite unit.

They're only Batteline if you severely restrict your unit options and stick with Clan Skyre ONLY. The fact that they have synergies with other Skyre units/Battalions that put them exactly where they need to be exactly when they need to be there is what makes them feel so powerful. On their own, deployed on the table and slowly walking forward... they're strong, but not game breaking at all. I also wouldn't characterize 100 points per model as 'nasty cheap'. I think the real issue is that the Clan Skyre Battalion is insanely good for 200 points. I don't really hear people complain about Stormfiends outside that Battalion. Restrict the Battalion to one of each Enginecoven type max and the Skyrefyre list breaks (enough to not auto-dominate), but Clan Skyre still keeps a pretty fluffy Battalion.

Sure its fluffy but its also insanely broken. 100 points per model is nasty cheap when you consider you can put them wherever you want on the table knowing they cannot be targeted, knowing that they will always get to shoot at whatever they want first before they can be targeted, and knowing that each one is dishing out mortal wounds on top of crazy good durability.

They are an "A" unit amongst "A" units.

Either the battalion needs to be raised up a lot more in points, or the storm fiends need to be raised up a lot more in points.

Alas -> we are stuck dealing with them how they are. Per normal GW games that usually always have a handful of broken things like this.

 auticus wrote:
Sure its fluffy but its also insanely broken. 100 points per model is nasty cheap when you consider you can put them wherever you want on the table knowing they cannot be targeted, knowing that they will always get to shoot at whatever they want first before they can be targeted, and knowing that each one is dishing out mortal wounds on top of crazy good durability.

They are an "A" unit amongst "A" units.

Either the battalion needs to be raised up a lot more in points, or the storm fiends need to be raised up a lot more in points.

Alas -> we are stuck dealing with them how they are. Per normal GW games that usually always have a handful of broken things like this.

Well, at 100 points a model, you CAN'T put them wherever you want on the table. In fact, at 100 points per model, you have to roll to see if they can come out (1/3 chance they don't), you can't put them within 9" of an enemy model and their mortal wound shooting attack can't be used that turn as its range is only 8" (and you're at least 9" away from the closest enemy model), not to mention the fact that you have to give up one of their shooting attacks to be able to pop up on the field in the first place.

Now, they definitely get better when you spend 860 points on the mandatory Clan Skyre Battalion, Arch-Warlock, 2x Warlock Engineers, 2x Warp Grinder Weapons Teams and 2x Warpfire Thrower Weapons Teams that will allow your Stormfiends to deploy anywhere. Also, you'll need 3x 3-man units of Stormfiends, so your MINIMUM build size for this list is 1760 points. That means you pretty much have to play 2000+ point games. My local area solves this issue by setting all beginner tournaments at 1500 points or less.

I don't think the Stormfiends are TOO strong. I think the Clan Skyre Battalion is too strong for 200 points. It should either cost much more or cut down the number of Stormfiends/Warpfire Thrower Teams you can place anywhere.

 auticus wrote:
In response to why not use a weaker list to prove your skill:

Its about maximizing return while putting in little effort. If my primary goal is to win, then fielding a weaker list makes the odds of that happening smaller. I am farther away from my goal.

It isn't really about proving overall skill as much as it is proving high score. High score is what one is after.

Yes absolutely a person that gets high score with a "C" or "B" list is definitely more skilled than a person that gets high score with an "A+" list that takes advantage of bad points balance.

However at the end of the day, much like in professional sports, a "W" in the result column is really all that matters, and in an event winning the trophy with a "C" list is for all intents and purposes seen as the same as winning the trophy with an "A" list.

Its boiled down to just plain old winning period. You do everything you can to maximize wins which maximizes the cost of money and time you put into the event.

The game and everything else is second in priority.

Thats why you see people fold early on in games when they don't think they can win any longer. To them there's no point in continuing since the game is secondary to the end result, so to maximize return on cost, they'd rather reset a new game instead of play out what would be to them a loss.

To a competitive player, the "W" is the end result and the thing that matters most. (so long as you follow the rules, we're not talking WAAC cheating or anything like that)

This is an unfortunate attitude i'm glad I've never actually encountered anywhere in reality.

 auticus wrote:
In response to why not use a weaker list to prove your skill:

Its about maximizing return while putting in little effort. If my primary goal is to win, then fielding a weaker list makes the odds of that happening smaller. I am farther away from my goal.

It isn't really about proving overall skill as much as it is proving high score. High score is what one is after.

Yes absolutely a person that gets high score with a "C" or "B" list is definitely more skilled than a person that gets high score with an "A+" list that takes advantage of bad points balance.

However at the end of the day, much like in professional sports, a "W" in the result column is really all that matters, and in an event winning the trophy with a "C" list is for all intents and purposes seen as the same as winning the trophy with an "A" list.

Its boiled down to just plain old winning period. You do everything you can to maximize wins which maximizes the cost of money and time you put into the event.

The game and everything else is second in priority.

Thats why you see people fold early on in games when they don't think they can win any longer. To them there's no point in continuing since the game is secondary to the end result, so to maximize return on cost, they'd rather reset a new game instead of play out what would be to them a loss.

To a competitive player, the "W" is the end result and the thing that matters most. (so long as you follow the rules, we're not talking WAAC cheating or anything like that)

I think (and sorry if this is a bad analogy, I just woke up) that listbuilding can be compared to "promotion" in chess. You're not gonna pick a Rook or a Bishop when you could pick up a second Queen - unless you're in a very specific situation, picking up a new Queen is the better choice. Sure, you might pick up a Knight for its different movement style, but otherwise, 97% of the time, people will pick a Queen.

Listbuilding essentially just lets you "promote your pieces" before the match has even begun. At which point the fluffy list that refuses to pick more than one Queen because "bigamy" (while the best argument ever, and I would totally buy you a beer for it after the game) is an example of crippling yourself needlessly.

Although, this might just as well be used as an argument for why listbuilding needs to be restrictive, otherwise you end up with ridiculous lists like the hypothetical 10 Nagash's list.

Yes, but the difference is during a chess match you have to work to get those pawns promoted to queens.

In listbuilding, you get to show up to the table with a side where every piece you own save the king is a queen.

 auticus wrote:
Yes, but the difference is during a chess match you have to work to get those pawns promoted to queens.

In listbuilding, you get to show up to the table with a side where every piece you own save the king is a queen.

You're implying that the choice is between 1 King/15 Queens and the normal assortment of 16 models. In reality, the choice is usually between 1 King/3 Queens and 1 King/1 Queen/2 Bishops/2 Knights/2 Rooks/8 Pawns. The balance issue in list building is when the the extra 2 Queens more than makes up for the 14 models you're giving up. The fix is to make Queens more expensive OR to make the other models cheaper. Or maybe to hamstring the Queen so she's not as strong. Would everyone take 3 Queens if they could only move 3 squares? Probably not. GW isn't good at making these changes (FAQs/Erratas) on a regular basis. Compare to a company like FFG who updates X-Wings FAQs very frequently.

So, sure, in list building you can show up to the table with a King and all the rest Queens... you just won't have nearly as many models. For comparison, let's take a Skaven Warlord and 9 Stormfiends. That's 1000 points. Alternately, another player could take a Skaven Warlord and 150 Clanrats. Same 1000 points. That's 10 models versus 151. As Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all its own".

Now add in Battalions and the balance issue becomes worse. You now have Queens you can deploy anywhere on the chess board, or even keep to the side and wait until you see a checkmate potential to deploy them. Much like with 40k Formations, Battalions in AoS can be game breaking. Without the Clan Skyre Battalion acting as a buff, Stormfiends are good, but not an auto-take. The Battalion costs 200 points and requires at least 3x units of Stormfiends (9 models) in a 2000 point list. Add in the 6x Warfire Thrower Weapons Teams and you have 15 key models that pop out of nowhere and deal automatic wounds with no real downside or random chance of failure. Spread the 200 points around and it's like those key models are costing ~13 points extra per model. That's nothing for the benefit. The Clan Skyre Battalion is under costed for the abilities it grants. Even though I love the Skyre models and like the general idea, that Battalion needs to be nerfed or reworked.

The illustration being that if you had the ability to take as many queens as you could in chess to start the game off, you would. Thats how listbuilding is.

If queens could only move 3 squares, they wouldn't be queens as we know them.

List building is about identifying your "queens" and getting as many as you can.

In normal chess, the sides are mirrors of each other so are in perfect balance at game's beginning, with the minor advantage going to white because they move first.

Listbuilding philosophy is to have as big an advantage before the game begins and to force a one-sided match up in your favor.

Absolutely correct in that if the pieces GW employed were not so grotesquely out of balance, list building would be a bit more restrictive.

But GW games have never been really restrictive in that there have always been pieces much more powerful than their cost, and thus a bargain.

Or in the financial market analogy: stocks that are really worth $100 a share but are selling for $10 a share. You buy as many of those as you can.

Which is why I was so against the GHB coming out because they always let that stuff slip by and don't ever correct it.

It took me a couple weeks to employ a software algorithm to calculate statistic efficiency of every model (based only on their stats). This could have been examined model by model and the efficiency curve brought down to normal levels (by raising costs as needed).

I know if I can do that in less than a month, GW with their resources could have done that if they had wanted.

 Kriswall wrote:

Now add in Battalions and the balance issue becomes worse. You now have Queens you can deploy anywhere on the chess board, or even keep to the side and wait until you see a checkmate potential to deploy them. Much like with 40k Formations, Battalions in AoS can be game breaking. Without the Clan Skyre Battalion acting as a buff, Stormfiends are good, but not an auto-take. The Battalion costs 200 points and requires at least 3x units of Stormfiends (9 models) in a 2000 point list. Add in the 6x Warfire Thrower Weapons Teams and you have 15 key models that pop out of nowhere and deal automatic wounds with no real downside or random chance of failure. Spread the 200 points around and it's like those key models are costing ~13 points extra per model. That's nothing for the benefit. The Clan Skyre Battalion is under costed for the abilities it grants. Even though I love the Skyre models and like the general idea, that Battalion needs to be nerfed or reworked.

I actually think that the points cost for the battalion is about right, it's just that there is no limit to how many of each internal formation can be taken (which I believe you mentioned in an earlier post). Other than the Stormfiend formation, is there really anything gamebreaking in the Clan Skyre battalion? Not really. Limit the battalion to 0-2 of each formation and now you have to pay another 200 points to add in more (and take another Arch-warlock as a tax). That seems more balanced to me.

 auticus wrote:
The illustration being that if you had the ability to take as many queens as you could in chess to start the game off, you would. Thats how listbuilding is.

If queens could only move 3 squares, they wouldn't be queens as we know them.

List building is about identifying your "queens" and getting as many as you can.

In normal chess, the sides are mirrors of each other so are in perfect balance at game's beginning, with the minor advantage going to white because they move first.

Listbuilding philosophy is to have as big an advantage before the game begins and to force a one-sided match up in your favor.

Absolutely correct in that if the pieces GW employed were not so grotesquely out of balance, list building would be a bit more restrictive.

But GW games have never been really restrictive in that there have always been pieces much more powerful than their cost, and thus a bargain.

Or in the financial market analogy: stocks that are really worth $100 a share but are selling for $10 a share. You buy as many of those as you can.

Which is why I was so against the GHB coming out because they always let that stuff slip by and don't ever correct it.

It took me a couple weeks to employ a software algorithm to calculate statistic efficiency of every model (based only on their stats). This could have been examined model by model and the efficiency curve brought down to normal levels (by raising costs as needed).

I know if I can do that in less than a month, GW with their resources could have done that if they had wanted.

I can see being not looking forward to something like the GHB because you think GW is going to get it wrong (based on track record), but bad points provide more balance than no points. I looked forward to the GHB because I knew it was a step in the right direction. No points can be balanced using player negotiation. Bad points can also be balanced using player negotiation... but MUCH quicker because most of the work is already done. We can spend our time talking about how Stormfiends seem to strong and maybe we need some house rules. We don't need to have the same conversation about how many Clanrats are appropriate to bring. That work has already been done by GW and I haven't heard anyone complain about them being unbalanced at 10 for 60 points.

Also... "based only on their stats". AoS is a game of synergies and force multipliers. Calculating a points value only on stats creates balance in a vacuum where units don't interact. I've read your points. They might be more balanced for certain units, but you can still make game breaking lists. What really needs to happen is exhaustive play testing and rules tweaking. On paper, Stormfiends are very good, but not game breaking. They become game breaking when buffed by the Clan Skyre Battalion. Without the Battalion, I don't think anyone would be talking about them other than to say... yeah, they seem good, but it takes at least one full round of them sitting in the open in chargeable range before you can shoot with them. Any decent shooting/assault can wipe half of them out before they get to deal damage. Their Bravery is low enough that there's a decent chance killing two would cause the last to flee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

Now add in Battalions and the balance issue becomes worse. You now have Queens you can deploy anywhere on the chess board, or even keep to the side and wait until you see a checkmate potential to deploy them. Much like with 40k Formations, Battalions in AoS can be game breaking. Without the Clan Skyre Battalion acting as a buff, Stormfiends are good, but not an auto-take. The Battalion costs 200 points and requires at least 3x units of Stormfiends (9 models) in a 2000 point list. Add in the 6x Warfire Thrower Weapons Teams and you have 15 key models that pop out of nowhere and deal automatic wounds with no real downside or random chance of failure. Spread the 200 points around and it's like those key models are costing ~13 points extra per model. That's nothing for the benefit. The Clan Skyre Battalion is under costed for the abilities it grants. Even though I love the Skyre models and like the general idea, that Battalion needs to be nerfed or reworked.

I actually think that the points cost for the battalion is about right, it's just that there is no limit to how many of each internal formation can be taken (which I believe you mentioned in an earlier post). Other than the Stormfiend formation, is there really anything gamebreaking in the Clan Skyre battalion? Not really. Limit the battalion to 0-2 of each formation and now you have to pay another 200 points to add in more (and take another Arch-warlock as a tax). That seems more balanced to me.

The standard Skyrefyre list is the Arch-Warlock and 2 of the Goutfyre Enginecovens. You'd need to limit the Battalion to 1 of each Enginecoven and 2+ Enginecovens total. That might fix the issue. You can't allow 2 of the same Enginecoven. Or just make the Enginecovens separate Battalions and up the cost. Most of the other Enginecovens are pretty mediocre. It's only the one that's an issue.

Well as I don't see them without their battalion rules...

 auticus wrote:
Well as I don't see them without their battalion rules...

Not sure I understand what you're getting at. Agreeing that the Stormfiends aren't an issue and that it's really the Clan Skyre Battalion?

Meaning I never see them walking around. They always burrow and come up wherever they want. As such I can't really comment on how powerful they are if they couldn't just show up where they wanted.

 auticus wrote:
Meaning I never see them walking around. They always burrow and come up wherever they want. As such I can't really comment on how powerful they are if they couldn't just show up where they wanted.

I would argue that they aren't that powerful... given that they're rarely fielded outside the one Battalion. The Battalion is the problem.

There are a couple of guys that don't use the battalion. They use the digger / whatever its called to let them pop up wherever they want as well.

This lowers their damage output somewhat since one of the models has to have the tunneler, but ensures that they get to shoot whatever they want first without being able to be targeted.

With the battalion their already high damage output rises an additional 33% or so.

 auticus wrote:
There are a couple of guys that don't use the battalion. They use the digger / whatever its called to let them pop up wherever they want as well.

This lowers their damage output somewhat since one of the models has to have the tunneler, but ensures that they get to shoot whatever they want first without being able to be targeted.

With the battalion their already high damage output rises an additional 33% or so.

Depends on the weapon they take. If they take the Warpfire Throwers, which is the automatic damage one, they can't shoot the same turn they pop up with the "digger" (assuming they pass the 3+ 'pop up' roll) because they have to deploy at least 9" away from all enemy models and the weapon has an 8" range. This counts as their movement, so they can't get closer to fire. Warpfire Throwers are only useful the turn AFTER they pop up using a digger. This gives your enemy one free round of shooting and potentially a charge from close range before the Stormfiends get to shoot or take a turn in combat. The Battalion is so good because it lets you pop up without rolling AND you can deploy anywhere, including within the necessary 8" shooting range AND it happens in the hero phase, so you still get movement.

Gotcha. Yeah mostly the weapon load out with the tunnelers are loading out the machine guns.