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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cleaning up

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe that makes sense to someone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe that makes sense to someone.

This. More of this!

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

I think Jervis Johnson was on the right track.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can do that in any game though.

Vyxen wrote:

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

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

Vyxen wrote:

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

How is that any different from any other game though?

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

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

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

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

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

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what Jervis is talking about.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

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

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

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

A forced change of culture is problematic at best.

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

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

 NoPoet wrote:

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

This is what Jervis is talking about.

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

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

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

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

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

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wouldn't it be great if they did though.

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

Been a while since Ive heard that red dwarf reference

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

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

(

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

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

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

Another couple things to point out:

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

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

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

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

(

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

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

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

 marlowc wrote:

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

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

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

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

I tend to think about this issue along these lines:

 Manchu wrote:
One way to think about game design is as a spectrum between competitive and simulative. Competitive games are obviously played to find out who wins. Competitive game design thus tends to emphasize player agency: the players have a large degree of direct control over what happens during the game. Simulative games, by contrast, are played to find out what happens. Such games tend to put mechanical obstacles between the players' intentions and how things actually play out.

When I lose a competitive game, I mainly think "okay I need to practice and get better." This is because the primary point of competitive gaming is to demonstrate skill/measure who has greater skill. When I lose a simulative game, by contrast, my reaction is all about "wow that was a blast, it was so cool how that one combat turned out and I really thought it would go the other way on the left," etc.

 marlowc wrote:

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

Never said it was simple. But a lot of those 'situations' boil down to 'using it right'. Costing an ant tank battery Based on it's ability to take on infantry because you positioned it wrong is a bit silly. Other factors like terrain can be accounted for and mitigated. That's what playtesting is for.

Points are one tool. Amongst many. Sideboards, multiple lists, scenarios, various win conditions, unit and army structures and limits, defined terrain placement, use and set up, and tools like soft countering (eg a human based game like infinity, even a guy armed with only a pistol can bring down a heavy infantry unit; meaning when everything is essentially 'lethal', things become far less problematic).

And mirror matches aside, I'd personally like to know the error ratio of creating 'good matches' in aos's structure-less and point less system as a conparison before we talk about points being pointless. Because as much as I like and approve of 'putting down what's apprpriate, and what fits within the context of the theme and scenario', there is a lot of ways to go wrong...

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

I think BG includes points for the sake of folks who, in the infamous words of that anonymous GW employee, feel like they need points to be successful. But the actual point of BG, the perspective from which it was designed, was to get WW2 models from enormous existing collections on the table simulating historical or historically-inspired events.

I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

Oh I agree -- and then some! List building is almost like a separate mini-game but it often comes to dominate the actual roll-dice-and-move-minis gameplay. A friend of mine jokes that 40k tourneys should just feature submitting lists. The same friend absolutely insists this is not true of WM/H.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

Deadnight wrote:
And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

It won't be a problem if the players in question actually find such a force interesting.

Okay, I looked up what a Bloodthirster is. Wow! There are even three different kinds so you'll be able to have some variety in the list. Whatever happens, that's going to be a pretty crazy battle! Impressive for the spectacle, if nothing else.

I think you are going to need a big table.

People keep bringing up the 10 Bloodthirsters etc thing.

My thoughts on that:

- That's an expensive investment, and I've never met a person with that many copies of one large model. I think AoS discourages using stand-ins, which I think is a great thing. Either you have the models and can use them, or you don't.

- It could actually be fun to have, say, 5-8 large monsters/characters on one side and then a horde of goblins or what have you on the other side. A goblin village is under siege from giant daemons, a horde of dwarfs seeking treasure end up battling monsters deep in a mountain, a few powerful characters attempt to hold off a skeleton army, etc.

Why are any of these fun, scenario-driven games impossible in a version of AoS that has points? Without points these are possible, but players who wanted points are left to their own devices. With points, these are still possible AND players who like points can enjoy those too. GW pretty much said "why get the best of both worlds when we can get the best of only one world?" To be clear, I am not speaking against those who like games better without points. I just opposite the idea that these things weren't available in 8th, 7th, or any previous edition that had a balance mechanism.

So, to answer the question posed in the thread title: No one 'needs' them, but the game would please more people (and thus sell better) if they were present.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why are any of these fun, scenario-driven games impossible in a version of AoS that has points? Without points these are possible, but players who wanted points are left to their own devices. With points, these are still possible AND players who like points can enjoy those too. GW pretty much said "why get the best of both worlds when we can get the best of only one world?" To be clear, I am not speaking against those who like games better without points. I just opposite the idea that these things weren't available in 8th, 7th, or any previous edition that had a balance mechanism.

So, to answer the question posed in the thread title: No one 'needs' them, but the game would please more people (and thus sell better) if they were present.

I do agree that if you put everything in a pot and people can take whatever they want out of it, technically you are providing more options. And on the other hand, by providing less framework, technically you are allowing even more options for people to come up with as well. The shift here has not been one of limiting or expanding options necessarily, but changing the intent. That matters a lot when it comes to the customer engaging with your product.

It was not a choice of best of both worlds or best of one world. Points created one world, especially in business terms. I don't think points helped sales. Points destroyed the work of the artists and the much more expensive side of the business (model making as opposed to rules making) as all that mattered in the end was the points value. No limit of money could be poured into a unit, and if the points were too much, it was all to waste. Of course, this spurred things in the other direction, with higher sales for undercosted units.

Games Workshop recognizes that there is no marrying these worlds.

Now, where I think points were best, and what I think is a major element of the game that is now missing and this is a negative, is army building. People love creating army lists. Lots of people make army lists daily and never play a game. It's fun. I love it too. I want to see that element in AoS. But I don't know how you do it without going right back to a system that caused all of the other problems in the first place.

burningstuff wrote:

It was not a choice of best of both worlds or best of one world. Points created one world, especially in business terms. I don't think points helped sales. Points destroyed the work of the artists and the much more expensive side of the business (model making as opposed to rules making) as all that mattered in the end was the points value. No limit of money could be poured into a unit, and if the points were too much, it was all to waste. Of course, this spurred things in the other direction, with higher sales for undercosted units.

What?

I mean, really? What?

I've some some pretty big re-writes of GW's supposed "history" with the release of AoS, but I'm pretty sure this takes the cake.

I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop. Points and rules cause some models to become obsolete, so no one buys them or uses them.

This is seen in 40k. People find the few powerbuilds or deathstars their armies were designed around and don't waste time or resources on marginal units.

Usually GW would re-write a codex every 5 years and many marginal units become good, and vice versa, to keep the sale of models flowing.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop.

If these models were being sculpted by hand, I might agree. But since GW has moved to 3D scultping, it's far, far easier to design these sculpts than I think he believes.

 Manchu wrote:

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

I think BG includes points for the sake of folks who, in the infamous words of that anonymous GW employee, feel like they need points to be successful. But the actual point of BG, the perspective from which it was designed, was to get WW2 models from enormous existing collections on the table simulating historical or historically-inspired events.

From Kinrade himself, on the subject;

"The game can be played either with historical scenarios (several and a campaign are included in the book) or as a points based game. As the army lists are structured to force a player into historical style lists and balanced combined arms units, you tend to get forces that look ‘right’ for the period rather than ‘Uber’ armies. The army lists are well balanced for fighting against each other. Coupled with a generic set of scenarios that are well designed to give maximum replay value and are not your usual ‘line ‘em all up’ affairs, they give points game that feel far more like historical scenarios."

Look at that. Balance and points? Who would've thought.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop. Points and rules cause some models to become obsolete, so no one buys them or uses them.

This is seen in 40k. People find the few powerbuilds or deathstars their armies were designed around and don't waste time or resources on marginal units.

Usually GW would re-write a codex every 5 years and many marginal units become good, and vice versa, to keep the sale of models flowing.

This is a great argument for why removing points was a bad business decision. A model is overpowered = it sells more to players who like it on a points basis. Players who just liked the model for other reasons still bought it. A model is underpowered = it sells only to players who like it for non-points reasons. Now, players who bought models for points reasons are out of the picture, replaced with... nothing. The players who bought the model simply because they liked it will still buy it. They haven't eliminated the problem of a few models doing poorly because they perform poorly in the points meta, they have decided to put ALL models in that category because there are no points. Effectively, all models are now equivalent to those that weren't worth their points before.

 infinite_array wrote:

burningstuff wrote:

It was not a choice of best of both worlds or best of one world. Points created one world, especially in business terms. I don't think points helped sales. Points destroyed the work of the artists and the much more expensive side of the business (model making as opposed to rules making) as all that mattered in the end was the points value. No limit of money could be poured into a unit, and if the points were too much, it was all to waste. Of course, this spurred things in the other direction, with higher sales for undercosted units.

What?

I mean, really? What?

I've some some pretty big re-writes of GW's supposed "history" with the release of AoS, but I'm pretty sure this takes the cake.

I'm guessing that GW's physical product line is where it spends most of its money. It doesn't matter if they were sculpted by hand or not.

 infinite_array wrote:
From Kinrade himself, on the subject;

"The game can be played either with historical scenarios (several and a campaign are included in the book) or as a points based game. As the army lists are structured to force a player into historical style lists and balanced combined arms units, you tend to get forces that look ‘right’ for the period rather than ‘Uber’ armies. The army lists are well balanced for fighting against each other. Coupled with a generic set of scenarios that are well designed to give maximum replay value and are not your usual ‘line ‘em all up’ affairs, they give points game that feel far more like historical scenarios."

Please appreciate that you are quoting a pitch. The opposing forces in historical conflicts are not the product of balance-oriented design, after all. Thinking critically, we must conclude that game design can therefore prioritize either historicity or balance. I have no doubt Mr. Kinrade gave more than a passing thought to the latter. But from what I understand, the former was and is more important.

 infinite_array wrote:
Look at that. Balance and points? Who would've thought.

I don't think anyone is suggesting points and balance don't go together.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop. Points and rules cause some models to become obsolete, so no one buys them or uses them.

This is seen in 40k. People find the few powerbuilds or deathstars their armies were designed around and don't waste time or resources on marginal units.

Usually GW would re-write a codex every 5 years and many marginal units become good, and vice versa, to keep the sale of models flowing.

Surely this is an argument for 'write better , more balanced rules'...

In 40K the points are unbalanced and the game structure allows players to find exploits which in many cases are so extreme as to be highly unbalancing.

One solution is properly balanced points and army structure. Other solutions are to create defined army lists, to randomise army lists within boundaries, or to use historical forces and balance by other means such as objectives.

GW have chosen a different solution, not to bother with balance at all. The dozen or more balancing systems that have already been created for AoS indicate that this solution is unsatisfactory to a lot of people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

GW have chosen a different solution, not to bother with balance at all.

This really seems to be the crux of the issue. GW wrote rules for basic model interaction & an extremely basic "encounter" battle scenario, and aside from that, have abdicated responsibility for everything else to the players.

Balance, narrative framework, scenario design, force composition, army construction, etc is all the responsibility of the players, and that just doesn't work in a lot of cases (for a variety of reasons, from different gaming mindsets to time investment and more), and is what most people typically expect the rules to provide, at least to some degree.

The rules really just don't provide for much of anything beyond model interaction. They're not a very good story/narrative ruleset, they're not a good competitive ruleset, they're not a good pickup game ruleset, they're a paper-thin sandbox.

Well, put on the other shoe.

How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

How do you build a game so that someone can show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and play without feeling like they have no hope of winning against the person who shows up with the models that they built to beat you?

You do you build a game that allows reasonable allowances of allies and situationally unreasonable allowances (desperate times call for desperate measures!), without allowing craziness on the tabletop?

How do you build a game that is rich, deep, and complex, but is attractive to people who are currently non-wargamers, who are unlikely to have an interest in reading a long rulebook?

The easiest answer to all this is to just (a) assume the players are reasonable and (b) let them sort it out -- which is what AoS does. The question is, "are players reasonable"?

I don't think that even if the answer is yes to both, this is a game that "hardcore gamers" will ever love. But it will probably serve an underserviced (or unserviced?) segment of people previously only tangentially interested in miniatures or who were previously extremely dissatisfied with the competitive gaming meta.

 Manchu wrote:
Please appreciate that you are quoting a pitch. The opposing forces in historical conflicts are not the product of balance-oriented design, after all. Thinking critically, we must conclude that game design can therefore prioritize either historicity or balance. I have no doubt Mr. Kinrade gave more than a passing thought to the latter. But from what I understand, the former was and is more important.

Sorry, Manchu - even the books support my interpretation of the intention of the rules. Mr. Kinrade continues to talk about how battlegroups are not a player's whole collection, how the forces are written to allow for balance, etc. Unless the in-book examples are also simply "pitches"?

I don't think anyone is suggesting points and balance don't go together.

Really? Because because I've seen plenty of that in regards to AoS.

 Talys wrote:
Well, put on the other shoe.
How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

I don't know - but AoS certainly doesn't do that. See the oft-quoted Clanrat/Stormvermin example.

How do you build a game so that someone can show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and play without feeling like they have no hope of winning against the person who shows up with the models that they built to beat you?

On the other hand - how does someone show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and then are forced to put them away since the other player decided they really liked the looks of basic troops, and only brought 30 of them?

You do you build a game that allows reasonable allowances of allies and situationally unreasonable allowances (desperate times call for desperate measures!), without allowing craziness on the tabletop?

By intentionally building and testing said alliances?

How do you build a game that is rich, deep, and complex, but is attractive to people who are currently non-wargamers, who are unlikely to have an interest in reading a long rulebook?

I don't know - but apparently they have no problem going through pages after page of Warscrolls.

The easiest answer to all this is to just (a) assume the players are reasonable and (b) let them sort it out -- which is what AoS does. The question is, "are players reasonable"?

You mean what any wargame does. Seriously - AoS isn't some messianic ruleset that's the first to say, "Hey guys, let's talk to each other before the game - isn't that a crazy and novel idea?"

If you want to sell me overpriced minis, you'd better do your job and either create a reasonably balanced points system, or create better fluff and a giant compendium of scenarios to go without points.

Historicals can get away with this because on of their primary purposes was to recreate a semblance of historical battles.

But don't try to argue this is some artistic move by a multi-million dollar company who constantly goes on record as saying they have plenty of money in the bank, but refuses to use it to make a good product.

Points can, do, and always have worked just fine for creating a base level of balance framework, and it's worked across the spectrum of games, even historicals, throughout the industry. GW isn't trying to be special, they're trying to pass the work off to you so they save money.

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

I would totally play against twelve Bloodthirsters. That might even be more fun than a "balanced" game.


However, I want to point out that just asking this question demonstrates your mindset, which seems to presuppose everyone cares about whether they win or lose, or that the game is fair, or that the "outcome", that is which force survives more intact than the other, matters at all as far as enjoyment is concerned.

I don't feel that AOS caters to that mindset. Which is good for me, because I've had enough of it over the years.

 Talys wrote:

How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

No one sane would create such a game, nor would anyone sane expect it to be in anyway good.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

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

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

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

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

You show the defaulf table you've been playtesting on, then add guidelines for modyfing point limits according to changes in terrain and type of scenario in relation to the army list. It still won't be perfectly balanced but paired with a properly tactical rules it would just be enough for the game to be decided on wits instead of imbalances in army builds, something that will be rare in AoS.

Btw I love how many thread creators in AoS section try to put a "be positive or gtfo" disclaimer in the op. Quite telling about the game quality heh.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why are any of these fun, scenario-driven games impossible in a version of AoS that has points? Without points these are possible, but players who wanted points are left to their own devices. With points, these are still possible AND players who like points can enjoy those too. GW pretty much said "why get the best of both worlds when we can get the best of only one world?" To be clear, I am not speaking against those who like games better without points. I just opposite the idea that these things weren't available in 8th, 7th, or any previous edition that had a balance mechanism.

So, to answer the question posed in the thread title: No one 'needs' them, but the game would please more people (and thus sell better) if they were present.

Points lead to lists, and a whole bunch of associated expectations. As someone who hates writing list, I love the idea of plunking down my collection of minis with some kind of story or scenario in mind and just having fun. A game with points is typically set up to play armies against each other with scenarios that are written around an idea of what a balanced force is.

I did play BFG without bothering with points, but certain friends just could not shake the idea that it was supposed to be a match or competition even when the forces were random. Nether could they enjoy the game, because for them the point of a game is to win. Fortunately, not all of them are like that. Even the competitive ones are less likely to get caught up in balance and tournament thinking if the game isn't even ostensibly set up for it.

Yeah... I'm gonna' call BS on "you can't points-balance in a variable context."

There are far more complex games /list building interactions than anything GW puts out that use points systems well. If you decently balance units without buffs and proportionally price pieces that interact with them with respect to how they buff (even if they stand alone decently but are only worth their whole value in their appropriate role), you'll end up with a reasonable points system. It's not some esoteric system of thousands of variables requiring a perfect system.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

I would totally play against twelve Bloodthirsters. That might even be more fun than a "balanced" game.


However, I want to point out that just asking this question demonstrates your mindset, which seems to presuppose everyone cares about whether they win or lose, or that the game is fair, or that the "outcome", that is which force survives more intact than the other, matters at all as far as enjoyment is concerned.

I don't feel that AOS caters to that mindset. Which is good for me, because I've had enough of it over the years.

presumptuous much?

read my posts bob. Im pretty much on board with the whole point-less, scenario driven and thematic style of game. its how we brew our Flames of War games. i just think AOS does it extremely poorly. lack of points is fine, but other structures help enormously.

what annoys me is people who seem to be claiming that AOS heralds in this wonderful type of game where you can slap down whatever you want and have fun. because of reasons and unicorns. Because this was never possible before. Simply fact is you could always do this by (a) playing with like minded individuals and (b) carefully crafting a scenario. historical players are chortling into their beards with all this - theyve been doing this for decades. AOS is not something new and wonderful. its just as prone to frustration and headache as any other game at the end of the day.

 infinite_array wrote:
Sorry, Manchu - even the books support my interpretation of the intention of the rules. Mr. Kinrade continues to talk about how battlegroups are not a player's whole collection, how the forces are written to allow for balance, etc. Unless the in-book examples are also simply "pitches"?

Possibly so. I'm not suggesting duplicity. Designers naturally tend to be partial to their own work. I am a bit suspicious you and I are probably just talking past one another somehow. Unless you are really saying the primary purpose of Battlegroup is tightly balanced tournament and pick-up style gaming.

 infinite_array wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting points and balance don't go together.

Really? Because because I've seen plenty of that in regards to AoS.

Seems like we are talking past one another here, too. I think most folks agree that points-based list building is a mechanic intended to foster balance. There is more disagreement as to whether points-based list building is an effective balancing mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
certain friends just could not shake the idea that it was supposed to be a match or competition

Yes, this is the entrenched mentality that points-based list building establishes. Players tend to start thinking of the game primarily as a way to measure their skill at playing it. This concept in turn attracts people who find measuring their skill against one another to be the main source of fun in gaming, which of course leads to the entrenchment of the match mindset you mentioned. The ironic part is, it ultimately creates a sense of schizophrenia as match mindset gamers try to iron all the randomness out of a dice throwing game.

 Manchu wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Sorry, Manchu - even the books support my interpretation of the intention of the rules. Mr. Kinrade continues to talk about how battlegroups are not a player's whole collection, how the forces are written to allow for balance, etc. Unless the in-book examples are also simply "pitches"?

Possibly so. I'm not suggesting duplicity. Designers naturally tend to be partial to their own work. I am a bit suspicious you and I are probably just talking past one another somehow. Unless you are really saying the primary purpose of Battlegroup is tightly balanced tournament and pick-up style gaming.

Oh, no! No, if that's the case then yes, we are talking past each other. I don't think we'll ever see the Battlegroup series of rules being used in tournaments like DBA or Fields of Glory. As to pick up games, however - yes? Iron Fist does run campaign weekends which pitch players that bring their own lists to what is essentially a Red-vs-Blue tournament to decide which side wins. It's a kind of a mix of campaign and tournament, but it still features pick-up-games against potentially unknown opponents.

 infinite_array wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting points and balance don't go together.

Really? Because because I've seen plenty of that in regards to AoS.

Seems like we are talking past one another here, too. I think most folks agree that points-based list building is a mechanic intended to foster balance. There is more disagreement as to whether points-based list building is an effective balancing mechanic.

TBF point-based list building also has a strong marketability dimension. GW's fantasy product range may have simply outgrown it ... weirdly bringing miniatures wargaming full circle back to not using points. In any case - I still don't see the contradiction you suggest. There is a widely-held belief that points are supposed to balance a game. An option should cost more if it is more powerful. The problem with this seemingly straightforward principle is points are never an accurate, transparent currency of "power" ... for the very reason that they become part of the calculus of power. It often transpires that a less powerful option that is cheaper ends up being better than a more powerful expensive option. This observation is not something I cooked up to defend AoS, by the way. Nor does it mean points cannot help foster balance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In 40K the points are unbalanced and the game structure allows players to find exploits which in many cases are so extreme as to be highly unbalancing.

One solution is properly balanced points and army structure.

Other solutions are to create defined army lists,
- to randomise army lists within boundaries, or
- to use historical forces and
- balance by other means such as objectives.

GW have chosen a different solution, not to bother with balance at all.

The dozen or more balancing systems that have already been created for AoS indicate that this solution is unsatisfactory to a lot of people.

40k points are generally close enough if one is just looking for a game to play.

40k is too complex to have proper balance, simply due to the sheer number of cross-interactions due to Unbound.

- 40k uses formations to create defined army lists very effectively. A good example is the Codex Astartes Battle Company.
- I do NOT want mandated random armies, whereby I roll a series of d66 to determine which units I may play, and how many of each type. That would be pretty messy.
- Codex Astartes Battle Company is the pseudo-historical analogue here.
- GW has been trying to balance via scenarios and objectives, but the "community" has been resisting this forever. Recall how 2E was pure "line up and kill" whereas 6E is mostly objectives, and now has Maestrom of random, changing objectives. Note that the community hates Maelstrom, preferring line up and shoot, still thinking about tabling as the win condition.

GW has tried pretty much everything they could, and finally did away with points altogether. That's not to say that AoS isn't balanced, but more that a lot of people are knee-jerking back to old habits of trying to play equal points battles, rather than accepting potentially unbalanced forces.

People wanting "balance" always fail to acknowledge the differential in skill. If points were perfect, the game would move to an almost purely skill-based game. In such a game, aside from freak die rolls (which can be mitigated by skillful play), every game becomes deterministic in that the higher-skilled player wins. Is that the desirable outcome? What if these "balance" players end up in a meta in which they have to constantly play better opponents and can't rely on points imbalances to eke out a win?

AoS not having points suggests that one may have better-balanced game between players of different skill levels than in previous editions, simply because any handicapping is in the player's hands rather than the rules. IOW, if Player B thinks they need more / larger / better units against Player A, he can take them as desired.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

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

It's this new narrative that's sprung up with the release of AoS - that tournament gaming = points and army lists, and tournament gaming is some kind of poisonous cancer to tabletop wargaming. Which is some sort of defense as to why AoS skips any pretense of balancing mechanics or limitations, rather than just allowing GW to skip any kind of effort when they're trying to roll out the next big kit that they're hoping their customers will buy a baker's dozen of.

Why should GW limit what I want to play in any given game? I bought the models, I should play them as I choose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Chess wouldn't be chess if the rules could just switch up every few turns,

Obviously, you've never played Knightmare Chess


https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/227/knightmare-chess

If you've never played, you should. It's a great sandbox.

 Manchu wrote:
TBF point-based list building also has a strong marketability dimension. GW's fantasy product range may have simply outgrown it ... weirdly bringing miniatures wargaming full circle back to not using points. In any case - I still don't see the contradiction you suggest. There is a widely-held belief that points are supposed to balance a game. An option should cost more if it is more powerful. The problem with this seemingly straightforward principle is points are never an accurate, transparent currency of "power" ... for the very reason that they become part of the calculus of power. It often transpires that a less powerful option that is cheaper ends up being better than a more powerful expensive option. This observation is not something I cooked up to defend AoS, by the way. Nor does it mean points cannot help foster balance.

Games without point value or competition are either extremely broad appeal (typically for children), or extremely niche. AoS is too expensive to be broad appeal, and WFB was already niche, and GW didn't like that. Frankly I don't understand their thinking at all, other than as a quick money grab before selling the company and moving to bermuda.

I respect Jervis. He created my most favorite GW ruleset - Epic Armageddon (which has points and a fantastic standard battle scenario).
However, I disagree with him here, and I disagree with how the AoS fans are trying to characterise the lack of points or balancing mechanism in AoS as a virtue.
Seeking a balanced, competitive game is just as valid a playstyle as 'put some minis on the table and lets roll some dice and tell a story!'. In fact, since gamers have gravitated overwhelmingly toward the balanced and competitive style of play I would say it is a natural evolution of the game that meets the needs of most gamers. By deliberately denying gamers this style of play with their AoS rules, GW are showing incredible arrogance. And I'm pretty sure it will not go well for them. It is never wise to try to swim against the current, or ignore what a large proportion of your customers want.
Another argument that many others have made is this: providing a good method for balancing forces does not stop people from fielding asymmetrical forces or using their own scenarios or forging narratives. They can still do that just as easily. But people are also able to play a balanced, competitive game if they want to.
By not providing this versatility, GW has severely restricted the playstyle for AoS, which is likely to also severely restrict the audience for it.

 Eggheart wrote:
It is never wise to try to swim against the current, or ignore what a large proportion of your customers want.

Given that SMs alone outsold the entirety of Fantasy, which was declining and dying, the large proportion of GW's actual Customers didn't want then points-based Fantasy.

The fact that some people prefer points-based gaming does not mean that it was incorrect for GW to move away from points, if that's how they envision the game going forward.

While GW could add points, Jervis' article suggests that they won't, because it's not aligned with how they play internally, nor how they want players to enjoy their game.

Besides, as we've seen with Tournaments, players can organize their own points system. And looking at ETC, for example, I don't think that is far-fetched at all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Eggheart wrote:
It is never wise to try to swim against the current, or ignore what a large proportion of your customers want.

Given that SMs alone outsold the entirety of Fantasy, which was declining and dying, the large proportion of GW's actual Customers didn't want then points-based Fantasy.

Assuming that there were SM lines that outsold Fantasy because people didn't like Points in their Fantasy game is...more than a wee bit of a stretch.

Up until the last couple weeks, who saw anyone talk about points, as a fundamental concept, as the reason they didn't like Fantasy or anything else? I can't recall a single one.

There were plenty of issues with points costs being mishandled, but that's always existed in every game ever. The common complaints with Fantasy? Cost, time investment, and Magic sometimes being out of control .

 Talys wrote:
Well, put on the other shoe.

How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

How do you build a game so that someone can show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and play without feeling like they have no hope of winning against the person who shows up with the models that they built to beat you?

You do you build a game that allows reasonable allowances of allies and situationally unreasonable allowances (desperate times call for desperate measures!), without allowing craziness on the tabletop?

Perhaps the issue is one of scale, and trying to hamfist too much into too little?

Like trying to make a LotR game where Sauron can be included in every single orc raid against Gondorian rangers?

40k is running into many of the same issues, and stuff that was previously literally only ever intended to be portrayed in Epic are now being forced into the fifth iteration of the 3rd ed ruleset without any change in granularity.

Perhaps the issue is GW simply trying to shove everything in their game universes into a single game, where previously they had two or three for each system to portray different scales and playstyles (e.g. Inquisitor & Necromunda, 40k, and Epic).

Unfortunately the response of "well, lets just make a ruleset that simply covers the model interactions and a basic setup condition" doesn't really satisfy anything.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given that Fantasy was clearly dying, points-based gaming may have run its course. The fact that some people prefer points-based gaming does not mean that it was incorrect for GW to move away from points, if that's how they envision the game going forward.

This is purely conjecture, but:

I dont think WFB failed to meet GW's sales requirements because it had a points balancing system. I dont think points-based gaming has run its course. I dont think that it is just some tabletop gamers that prefer having a balancing mechanism - I think it is the vast majority. I think most tabletop gamers like a balanced, competitive game to varying degrees. I think that points enable them to do that. I think most people dont have the time or the temperament to prepare for or enjoy non-structured, narrative-forging, 'RPG-style' games.

This I think is objectively true:

Providing a good balancing system would have made AoS more versatile, and able to be played anywhere on a playstyle spectrum from RPG to competitive tournament. Versatility is good. Not providing this versatility in AoS, means that AoS is not as good a game as it would otherwise have been.

 Eggheart wrote:

This I think is objectively true:

Providing a good balancing system would have made AoS more versatile, and able to be played anywhere on a playstyle spectrum from RPG to competitive tournament. Versatility is good. Not providing this versatility in AoS, means that AoS is not as good a game as it would otherwise have been.

Well, there are two aspects to this. One is that human beings aren't rational. Oh, you can just ignore points values. Sure you can. I bet if you go to a games night and ask someone to play a game with you in a system where points values are entrenched they will look at you like you're completely insane and they're wondering whether they should dial emergency. Points values create an expectation that by using the points system you will create a balanced game, and typically that furthermore creating a balanced game is something that's ultimately desirable. You can try to counteract this by changing the culture, and that's cool, but you are swimming against the current because of the implications the points system makes.

The other question is whether points values create, in general, a more balanced game than not using points values. I suspect that in many cases they do not because the fundamental assumption is that points values lead to a balanced game where in many cases this is far from true. In most sufficiently complex game systems (which probably describes most wargames), we could sit down together and create two lists where one has virtually no chance of victory against the other. I'm not saying we can make an awful list and a good list and the good one will win - we can make two good lists that nonetheless result in a completely one-sided matchup, and we are still likely to find ourselves burdened with the expectation that on some level this matchup is "fair" because their points values match. If we were actually critically evaluating the lists it would likely be immediately apparent that one will have a very hard time winning, but because we have delegated responsibility to a points system that is blind to too many factors (like what the opponent's list contains or what the scenario or terrain are, or some combination of these) we have come up with a less balanced match while simultaneously feeling that it will be more balanced.

In other words:
- points systems don't necessarily create balanced games, yet
- points systems create an expectation that a game between similarly costed armies will in some way be balanced, even though
- points systems are blind to many factors that players with a basic understanding of the game system may be able to consider

Human beings are not rational.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

40k is too complex to have proper balance, simply due to the sheer number of cross-interactions due to Unbound.

That's why noone plays unbound for a serious game. Not to mention 40k is such a simpleton of a ruleset that it could be balanced even for unbound, assumng work was put into it instead of playing a few games and slapping a point cost.

- GW has been trying to balance via scenarios and objectives, but the "community" has been resisting this forever. Recall how 2E was pure "line up and kill" whereas 6E is mostly objectives, and now has Maestrom of random, changing objectives. Note that the community hates Maelstrom, preferring line up and shoot, still thinking about tabling as the win condition.

So maelstrom made 40k balanced but the "community resisted it"? You really don't have any idea, do you?

GW has tried pretty much everything they could, and finally did away with points altogether. That's not to say that AoS isn't balanced, but more that a lot of people are knee-jerking back to old habits of trying to play equal points battles, rather than accepting potentially unbalanced forces.

GW has tried everything except proper playtesting and balancing. "Everything they could", how do you even post such a nonsense?

People wanting "balance" always fail to acknowledge the differential in skill. If points were perfect, the game would move to an almost purely skill-based game. In such a game, aside from freak die rolls (which can be mitigated by skillful play), every game becomes deterministic in that the higher-skilled player wins. Is that the desirable outcome? What if these "balance" players end up in a meta in which they have to constantly play better opponents and can't rely on points imbalances to eke out a win?

Is that an undesirable outcome? Jesus.

It's the most desirable outcome possible.

AoS not having points suggests that one may have better-balanced game between players of different skill levels than in previous editions, simply because any handicapping is in the player's hands rather than the rules. IOW, if Player B thinks they need more / larger / better units against Player A, he can take them as desired.

Except that you could always give a "worse" player more points. Now it is just harder because you need quite a knowledge about a system to properly judge the power level of units and you have to do it first before you even try to handicap anyone. It's times easier to go wrong and you start fresh each time you change the list, as opposed to just finding a good value in points for handicap.

The funny thing is that AoS is actually moderately balanced straight out of the box. At least, based on my reading of a couple of the war scrolls, it is noticeable that the power gap between units is much less than in 40K.

A unit say of 10 Dwarves has about the same amount of hits and shots as a hero unit with maybe 6 hits and 4 shots, considering it won't all be able to get into H2H due to weapon ranges, and will suffer from battle shock.

The thing that is going to lead to wild imbalance is the special rules. But that is the way GW rolls.

The randomness in the game is mostly confined to resolving areas of uncertainty in combat, such as 'to hit'. The only real problem is the rolling for initiative each turn, and people have already begun to house rule that out because it is too lucky.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Spoiler:

Well, put on the other shoe.

How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

How do you build a game so that someone can show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and play without feeling like they have no hope of winning against the person who shows up with the models that they built to beat you?

You do you build a game that allows reasonable allowances of allies and situationally unreasonable allowances (desperate times call for desperate measures!), without allowing craziness on the tabletop?

Perhaps the issue is one of scale, and trying to hamfist too much into too little?

Like trying to make a LotR game where Sauron can be included in every single orc raid against Gondorian rangers?

40k is running into many of the same issues, and stuff that was previously literally only ever intended to be portrayed in Epic are now being forced into the fifth iteration of the 3rd ed ruleset without any change in granularity.

Perhaps the issue is GW simply trying to shove everything in their game universes into a single game, where previously they had two or three for each system to portray different scales and playstyles (e.g. Inquisitor & Necromunda, 40k, and Epic).

Unfortunately the response of "well, lets just make a ruleset that simply covers the model interactions and a basic setup condition" doesn't really satisfy anything.

The LoTR game analogy is perfect: if the game rules permit you to take Sauron and Gandalf for X and Y, and everyone wants to play with Z points which is greater than X or Y, then Sauron and Gandalf show up in every game, because there are no units that add up to X as good as Sauron, nor any units that add up to Y as good as Gandalf. Especially when Gandalf can buff Aragorn and make him into an indestructible killing machine. Nobody even ends up buying orc raiders, much less playing a little game with them that might be fun.

This is entirely the problem with 40k. All those 1850 competition points end up with same-y strategies of deathstars, deepstrike, MSU, etc. In PP games, there are most certainly winning lists too; pick yourself 50 fluffy points and prepare to lose.

The thing is, it's really cool (at least I think it is) to have a game that can have peasants and pitchforks, middling heroes, heroes of the realm, angelic/demonic beings, demigods, and full-on gods -- all in the same game. The trick is to do exactly as you suggest: don't play them all in the same game!

So if you're playing orc raiders and a wood elves in a glade, you can make the game interesting. Just pick the units on one side, pick approximately equivalent units on the other side, set it up , and go. The idea behind AoS is that without points, you force the two players to agree on equivalence before the game. With points, players will inevitably fall back on, "but that's X points."

With points, players (rightly) look to build efficiency within constraints. Constructing efficient armies are part of the game. Without points, players must instead look to building fairness -- unless they want to fool their opponent pre-game, which isn't in the spirit of the game, and won't work for more than 1 game.

By the way, the scale creep in 40k is entirely the fault of the players -- GW produces stuff that people want, and 40k players overwhelmingly want bigger things. We get giddy at the prospect of bigger, stompier, more badass stuff, and it's that treadmill (plus newer, more and shinier models) that's kept 40k going for 3 decades. I mean, the Imperial Knight was the most popular model in the year it came out, so that's gotta say something, right?

You could say, "But GW should be wise, and not give players what they want, just because they'll spend money... they should know better and act in the best interest of the game!" The problem is, another company would do it then, and even with crappy rules, people would jump there.. because 40k players gave demonstrated that they want newer, shinier, and bigger models.

Lots of people hated the big monsters everywhere direction in whfb. I have a hpa and Karl Franz on a gryph but rarely use them.

I love big things in 40k though.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Sorry, Manchu - even the books support my interpretation of the intention of the rules. Mr. Kinrade continues to talk about how battlegroups are not a player's whole collection, how the forces are written to allow for balance, etc. Unless the in-book examples are also simply "pitches"?

Possibly so. I'm not suggesting duplicity. Designers naturally tend to be partial to their own work. I am a bit suspicious you and I are probably just talking past one another somehow. Unless you are really saying the primary purpose of Battlegroup is tightly balanced tournament and pick-up style gaming.

Oh, no! No, if that's the case then yes, we are talking past each other. I don't think we'll ever see the Battlegroup series of rules being used in tournaments like DBA or Fields of Glory. As to pick up games, however - yes? Iron Fist does run campaign weekends which pitch players that bring their own lists to what is essentially a Red-vs-Blue tournament to decide which side wins. It's a kind of a mix of campaign and tournament, but it still features pick-up-games against potentially unknown opponents

As I write Battlegroup with Warwick, no its not conducive to tournament style of play... though I know of stores who have run a BG tournament. It helps that those involved were all BG gamers and approached it in the spirit of the game, and played it in the same manner as our own Campaign weekends.

Our points are a tool and there to allow players to easily and quickly get a game going, though the lists themselves are designed to force a player to choose forces that give a historical feel to them. When then used with the generic scenarios, you can have games that are anything but balanced - if you mean that 'balance' equates to each side having an equal chance of winning throughout and from the start.

Our balance is more in meaning that the armies you select are roughly equivalent but still within their historical feel and context... but be prepared for Lady Luck to spit in ya eye once the battle starts. With our scenario design and Battle Rating mechanic, plus limited orders per turn, i cant see it appealing to those who like the stereotypical Tournament game. What we have is a game that utilises points to allow easy pick up play but still give what we feel is the right historical 'feel' or 'flavour' for the given period. The system also works equally well with structured historical scenarios such as those featured in the books. If you look at our 3rd book - Fall of the Reich - its balance is even more skewed, on purpose to reflect that chaotic period in the last few months of the war. If you play Germans in April 1945, its hard work from the outset, but thats the point to our game design - It tries to put over the feel of the period, and at times that might leave you at a distinct disadvantage from the get go. Its not a problem for the gamer who is 'playing the period', but it could be one for those who 'play the rules'. I like nothing more than rolling out my poor Volkssturm to meet the Red Army onslaught. 9 times out of 10 they get steamrollered, but I still have fun being a speed bump, but the one time I do win is made all the sweeter given the tools at my disposal!

So for us, points are a tool to be used to help players set up a game with minimum fuss. We then give the period feel by sturctured lists that are historically constrained and scenarios that provide varying conditions in every game. Along with this the Battle Rating chit system means you never know exactly the state of your opponents army condition, all of which builds for a very tense, exciting and often unpredictable game.

Myself and Warwick are both narrative gamers, even when using points for pick up games, our scenario design gives vastly different games everytime as forces arrive in a varied manner. All of these factors mean the games tend to tell a story. Sometimes tahts the story of an utter debacle, sometimes its the story of a victory against the odds. I think that variety, by the simple use of army lists and well designed scenarios is one of the strong points of Battlegroup. We also play large historical games and here sides can often be vastly outnumbered, but victory conditions are applied that then add the 'balance' so that both sides have the opportunity to win.

At the end of the day, we can only write games that we want to play. Thats our simple ethos. We can only hope that others like playing them too.

Big P wrote:
At the end of the day, we can only write games that we want to play. Thats our simple ethos. We can only hope that others like playing them too.

And that's the crux of the issue - WFB had become something that GW's designers didn't want to play, and they ended up reconcepting into something that they did. As the designers, that's really up to them. Railing that they should have points that they don't want doesn't change things.

Well, we don't know that. It seems far more likely that WHFB had turned into something that GW's customers didn't want to buy any more and the company's business managers ordered the design staff to make a new game that hopefully would sell better.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Big P wrote:
At the end of the day, we can only write games that we want to play. Thats our simple ethos. We can only hope that others like playing them too.

And that's the crux of the issue - WFB had become something that GW's designers didn't want to play, and they ended up reconcepting into something that they did. As the designers, that's really up to them. Railing that they should have points that they don't want doesn't change things.

Only it has nothing to do what GW wants or doesn't want to play. WFB had bad sales. And it had bad sales, because of huge imbalance between armies and super high entry point for new player. To an extent the same is happening to w40k right now. The games turns from buying an army and playing it, in to owning a huge multi model collection from different faction. I wouldn't be suprised if in a few years w40k shared WFB fate. More high cost models, higher entry point and fewer and fewer new players.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, we don't know that.

It seems far more likely that WHFB had turned into something that GW's customers didn't want to buy any more and the company's business managers ordered the design staff to make a new game that hopefully would sell better.

Considering Jervis' article and AoS as it was released, compared to what WFB8 had become, I thought it a reasonable conclusion.

I'm sure that the design staff were under pressure to bring something new into WFB to reverse the slide, and I'm sure it goes back before 8E. 8E was the 40k of WFB, with the addition of Knight-class centerpieces along with hordes. That didn't work as well as GW had hoped, so AoS goes the other direction.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Up until the last couple weeks, who saw anyone talk about points, as a fundamental concept, as the reason they didn't like Fantasy or anything else? I can't recall a single one.

Right on. Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun. There wasn't a camp arguing against the use of points and you didn't see a lot of gamers showing off their pointsless scenarios and what not.

With the arrival of AoS it's turned into a fundamental issue on which the community is deeply divided. Did people change their minds about what they enjoy after GW told them to? Or were they in agreement with Jervis' gaming philosophy all along and just kept it quiet for reasons?

Either way I don't know why they're so confident in their ability to come up with and agree on exciting and interesting scenarios at the drop of a hat. On the other hand I guess they do have years of experience at pretending to enjoy games, so they won't be caught losing at having fun.

 Fabio Bile wrote:
Or were they in agreement with Jervis' gaming philosophy all along and just kept it quiet for reasons?

Some of us have been big fans of Jervis-style gaming for a long time.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, we don't know that.

It seems far more likely that WHFB had turned into something that GW's customers didn't want to buy any more and the company's business managers ordered the design staff to make a new game that hopefully would sell better.

Considering Jervis' article and AoS as it was released, compared to what WFB8 had become, I thought it a reasonable conclusion.

I'm sure that the design staff were under pressure to bring something new into WFB to reverse the slide, and I'm sure it goes back before 8E. 8E was the 40k of WFB, with the addition of Knight-class centerpieces along with hordes. That didn't work as well as GW had hoped, so AoS goes the other direction.

I think the doubling of price of army books and codexes was a major problem for both systems.

 Fabio Bile wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Up until the last couple weeks, who saw anyone talk about points, as a fundamental concept, as the reason they didn't like Fantasy or anything else? I can't recall a single one.

Right on. Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun. There wasn't a camp arguing against the use of points and you didn't see a lot of gamers showing off their pointsless scenarios and what not.

With the arrival of AoS it's turned into a fundamental issue on which the community is deeply divided. Did people change their minds about what they enjoy after GW told them to? Or were they in agreement with Jervis' gaming philosophy all along and just kept it quiet for reasons?

There are many, very long, very heated threads in the archives here that deal with the issue.

While nobody complained about points as such, many people challenge the claim that the existence of points implies "balance" as a conscious design goal and "lack of balance" inevitably as incompetence or "sales-taking-over-game-design". That assumption has always been wrong.

GW's conscious direction of game design has been apparent for a long time. I got back into 40K only after the fired hacks like Alessio Cavatore and dropped the sterile philosophy of 4th and, to a lesser degree, early 5th for a more narrative and more cinematic approach.

The problem is, anybody expressing opinions of this kind would always get shouted down by the highly vocal minority of "balance uber alles" that infests these boards.

 Talys wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Spoiler:

Well, put on the other shoe.

How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

How do you build a game so that someone can show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and play without feeling like they have no hope of winning against the person who shows up with the models that they built to beat you?

You do you build a game that allows reasonable allowances of allies and situationally unreasonable allowances (desperate times call for desperate measures!), without allowing craziness on the tabletop?

Perhaps the issue is one of scale, and trying to hamfist too much into too little?

Like trying to make a LotR game where Sauron can be included in every single orc raid against Gondorian rangers?

40k is running into many of the same issues, and stuff that was previously literally only ever intended to be portrayed in Epic are now being forced into the fifth iteration of the 3rd ed ruleset without any change in granularity.

Perhaps the issue is GW simply trying to shove everything in their game universes into a single game, where previously they had two or three for each system to portray different scales and playstyles (e.g. Inquisitor & Necromunda, 40k, and Epic).

Unfortunately the response of "well, lets just make a ruleset that simply covers the model interactions and a basic setup condition" doesn't really satisfy anything.

The LoTR game analogy is perfect: if the game rules permit you to take Sauron and Gandalf for X and Y, and everyone wants to play with Z points which is greater than X or Y, then Sauron and Gandalf show up in every game, because there are no units that add up to X as good as Sauron, nor any units that add up to Y as good as Gandalf. Especially when Gandalf can buff Aragorn and make him into an indestructible killing machine. Nobody even ends up buying orc raiders, much less playing a little game with them that might be fun.

Right, and that's where there used to be a divide. Certain things weren't allowed unless the game being played was at least X number of points, or were only available in Epic or its equivalent. A big part of the problem with both 40k and Fantasy, is that they simply allowed everything as long as the game was physically big enough to pay the points for it. You could see Archaon and Nagash in a typical 2500pt Fantasy pickup game after the End Times changes, characters like Abaddon or Draigo and superheavy tanks like Baneblades could be taken in 1000pt skirmishes, and a Reaver Titan can be played in an 1850pt game. There once were limits on these sorts of things. Amazingly powerful special characters couldn't show up to just any battle. Legendary war machines, Godzilla sized creatures, and D-weapons capable of one-shotting anything in the game weren't something to be seen in typical tournament sized lists. They had a specific special expansion (Apocalypse) just for those things, and earlier had an entire game built around them (Epic).

Collapsing that separation and allowing everything into any game is a huge part of the problem. Allowing everyone to take everything in every game made balancing it impossible. When you've got games of superheavy tanks versus monster hordes, what use does the basic infantryman serve? That level of granularity becomes pointless. And both Fantasy and 40k got hit with that super hard.

Though at the same time, they appeared to basically stop trying. It's one thing to not restrict Sauron-equivalents to an Epic style game, but when they're costed such that they're always an attractive and viable option that can overcome deficiencies elsewhere, that's another problem to add to the issue.

Now, did players like bigger and cooler models? Of course. But I don't recall seeing people wanting to be able to take Titans, Gargantuan Creatures, Haywire rifles, D weapons, 2++ rerollable saves, etc in normal games, it was stuff people wanted to trot for the big local apoc games a couple of times a year, not something that could be hamfisted into any potential pickup game.

Wonderwolf wrote:


GW's conscious direction of game design has been apparent for a long time. I got back into 40K only after the fired hacks like Alessio Cavatore and dropped the sterile philosophy of 4th and, to a lesser degree, early 5th for a more narrative and more cinematic approach.

Aside from just having bigger things that lead to a ton more lopsided curb-stomps and tablings, what's more "cinematic" about the game now than in 5th? It's more random, it's a whole lot more arbitrary, and to me *way* less cinematic. Randomness !=fluffy, narrative, or cinematic. They've added more skin-deep "whizz-bang", but there's basically nothing in the way of narrative gaming the way something like say, Battletech, Heavy Gear, Ogre, or most RPG's give players the tools for in terms of tons of well thought out pre-built scenarios, campaign tools, etc.

I mean, I have my qualms with Alessio, but the idea that "balance is bad", and that it hurts other kinds of gaming, is absurd. Good balance should only help enhance narrative play by giving players a better suite of tools to work with to design their scenarios. Bad balance helps nobody.

 Fabio Bile wrote:

Right on. Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun. There wasn't a camp arguing against the use of points and you didn't see a lot of gamers showing off their pointsless scenarios and what not.

With the arrival of AoS it's turned into a fundamental issue on which the community is deeply divided. Did people change their minds about what they enjoy after GW told them to? Or were they in agreement with Jervis' gaming philosophy all along and just kept it quiet for reasons?

Its pretty standard psychology when it comes to a brand new system that some like that is met with harsh criticism. You latch on to the main focus of the games difference with the old system and declare it a freeing masterpiece that sweeps away everything (suddenly) wrong with the old system as if it was the shining light of the emperor himself doing away with the evils of the old system, that everyone hated, nobody had fun playing, only power players ever played and was basically the cause of all misery on terra.

Obviously im over exaggerating here but simply put its over compensating for the new system. It doesn't have points, warhammer has points, so the focus becomes that warhammer fantasy points system was an evil that AoS saved us from rather than just been a new game without points rather than fixing a mistake, hence making the new game look better. Demonizing the points system is to be expected, although even I'll admit the level its been taken to is pretty funny with the way some people talk you'd think point was and always has been the bane of everyone and caused all fantasy players to cry in misery at how bad it made the game. The idea that points system literally stopped people having any fun and nobody used to talk to their opponent, you couldn't play story scenarios or do anything out of the lines is pretty silly and suddenly its fun thanks to no points and the reasons are all reasons that you could do with points and talking it through with your opponent anyway

Im not even trashing AoS here, fantasy had points, sigmar doesn't thats it. All the reasons listed of to why no points is better are reasons either system can play with so its pretty silly tbh.

"If only the game didn't have points I can't even talk with my opponent to work out a scenario because the points won't let me!! *tears*" - average WHFB player not having fun ever thanks to points.

The top 5 selling wargames are 40k, X-wing, warmachine, attack wing and hordes. Every single one of those games use point systems. The sale numbers for point-less games are well below fantasy 8th at its lowest point.

Its possible that Jervis is so committed to art that he created a super niche product to suit his vision, but the more likely scenario is that he is simply is as incompetent at marketing as he is at game design. Jervis has zero credibility criticizing the value of point systems when he lacks the most basic understanding of how they work.

Like a few have mentioned before, I think player skill has a lot to do with it as well. Clinging on to say "hey the points were even!" doesn't exactly mean it was balanced. I mean why do you think we have concepts of "It's OP because of the points cost?".

I have watched a few AoS matches at our store, and honestly even when they were just throwing in models. It seemed more like it was tactical mistakes then the units. Forgetting bonuses, casting Inspiring presence, ect.

matthewp wrote:
Like a few have mentioned before, I think player skill has a lot to do with it as well. Clinging on to say "hey the points were even!" doesn't exactly mean it was balanced. I mean why do you think we have concepts of "It's OP because of the points cost?".

Easy. Because the developers didn't do their job, and used a dart board to assign points costs.

There's assigning points values, based on data, statistical analysis, and most importantly, playtesting (ie lots of playtesting) which has a lot more value than assigning points values badly. Don't confuse the two. Gw often end up with the latter, not the former.

matthewp wrote:
Clinging on to say "hey the points were even!" doesn't exactly mean it was balanced.

Its an impossibility to create a truly balanced wargame, are are too many variables for that to ever be realistic.

However points provide a framework and guide to a fair game, the more work that is done on producing accurate points costs the fairer the game will be.

Removing points costs in their entirety simply result in unfair games and realistically few people like unfair games. Even RPGs have monster levels or suggested group sizes.

 Vaktathi wrote:


I mean, I have my qualms with Alessio, but the idea that "balance is bad", and that it hurts other kinds of gaming, is absurd. Good balance should only help enhance narrative play by giving players a better suite of tools to work with to design their scenarios. Bad balance helps nobody.

For a long time, it created a toxic environment for gaming, where people insisted/assumed that all available options, are acceptable and appropriate for any and all games, and that just because something "legal" to be used, it doesn't require explicit consent from your opponent.

Everything that breaks this perception and puts mutual consent/agreement/pre-game conversation clearly above the rules will enhance competitive play as much as narrative gaming and make the whole gaming socioenvironment in general a more sociable, friendly and agreeable place for everyone.

Wonderwolf wrote:

For a long time, it created a toxic environment for gaming, where people insisted/assumed that all available options, are acceptable and appropriate for any and all games, and that just because something "legal" to be used, it doesn't require explicit consent from your opponent.

Haha what? since when. Are we literally now making up this delusion of a past where warhammer was nothing but toxic. Where no players talked with each other to create scenarios or fair games? I mean support no points game sure but don't openly lie to a group of people who like you have actually played tabletop with other people and know that in fact there is usually just one guy there to win at all costs. Ive been talking games through with opponents and playing mass made up scenario games for like two years before AoS landed and it certainly wasn't toxic. I learn't how to play by playing people I didn't even know and they certainly didn't crush me in one turn because the evil points made them want to win at all costs. In fact if you talk with other players they will help you out with your list to help you improve your army but I must have imagined that because as we've ascertained, nobody talked or had fun before AoS it was all serious, super serious stuff.

@Los pollos hermanos

Good for you. Sounds like you met up with some awesome people.

At the end of the day, 99% of all game systems still use points out there (and will benefit from sensible people not abusing them, but using them to create enjoyable afternoons/evenings).

GW trying something different and new can only be an enrichment to the hobby as a whole. It may fail, but that's the risk of innovation, no?

Wonderwolf wrote:

GW trying something different and new can only be an enrichment to the hobby as a whole

Thats still a very wrong statement.

If the Boeing 747 has a design fault you don't take off the wings all together or try to make it a biplane, you fix the fault. Had GW put more time and effort into AoS they could have just fixed the issue instead of taking the easy opinion and simply removing a huge component of the game altogether. AoS was a rushed development so instead of playtesting and looking into some of fantasies issues they simply removed anything (even if it was good just with minor flaws) out of the game entirely, couldn't be bothered actually fixing any issues so just pulled everything out and left it up to the players. Which is why they ended up with 4 pages of rules. They basically tore out most of the game for times sake. Its like throwing away all four tires on your car because one had a puncture but im straying into one too many analogies so I'll end it here.

Ok maybe one more for fun:

AoS is like taking your car (fantasy) to the GW body shop. They work on it and when your car comes back its full of spoilers, silly windshield wipers, big rims and a glowing paintjob. Its looks ok but its a bit too much. You ask GW to take it back and just tone it down (fix some of the issues) and when they return it (AoS) its literally the cars framework and some wheels. You look at it and go, what have you dont to my car? but they say "Hey its ok because now you can make the car anyway you want it. Its a clean slate to make up your own car! (the AoS rules) some people happily drove away on their framework not unhappy that what was a car is now just a car frame all because they didn't like the colour of their original car. When their friends ask what happened they will say my car was horrid, everything was wrong with it! (even though it was just the colour before) and convince themselves that this new frame car was what they were after all along and their original car was too rigid and didn't allow them any leg room. Basically what you get isn't very much so to compensate you over hate on your old car to make it seem like anything is now suddenly better than what you had.

No its more like ditching cd's for mp3's like apple did. Bold move, not as popular, but the right choice in the long run.

Naysayers will naysayers I guess.

 455_PWR wrote:
No its more like ditching cd's for mp3's like apple did. Bold move, not as popular, but the right choice in the long run.

Naysayers will naysayers I guess.

This.

And like the above event, it's puzzling how people think this would mean Apple would break into their house to steal their CD or Vinyl collection. They didn't. And fans of the latter still enjoy theirs, just as they will continue to enjoy pre-AoS games. It's simple one more option to enjoy gaming. Where before there were only X options, now there're X + 1 options. Nobody loses anything.

Wonderwolf wrote:

GW trying something different and new can only be an enrichment to the hobby as a whole. It may fail, but that's the risk of innovation, no?

Lets be fair here, what GW did really was just release a set of rules that pretty much only covers model interactions and very little else, abdicating almost everything else for players to figure out themselves. Calling that different is true...calling it enriching is perhaps inaccurate.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
No its more like ditching cd's for mp3's like apple did. Bold move, not as popular, but the right choice in the long run.

Naysayers will naysayers I guess.

This.

And like the above event, it's puzzling how people think this would mean Apple would break into their house to steal their CD or Vinyl collection. They didn't. And fans of the latter still enjoy theirs, just as they will continue to enjoy pre-AoS games. It's simple one more option to enjoy gaming. Where before there were only X options, now there're X + 1 options. Nobody loses anything.

Except that events for the older system are likely to be nonexistent going forward, as is store support, and many stores (primarily GW stores) no longer allowiing its play at all...

 455_PWR wrote:
No its more like ditching cd's for mp3's like apple did. Bold move, not as popular, but the right choice in the long run.

That analogy is rather, well, reaching to say the least. The ultimate product you're consuming, the music, remains the same, just the format of its storage is changing. AoS is different enough from previous editions of Warhammer Fantasy that they're not the same ultimate product, and GW hasn't tried to hide that, there's a reason they didn't call it WHFB 9E.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lets be fair here, what GW did really was just release a set of rules that pretty much only covers model interactions and very little else, abdicating almost everything else for players to figure out themselves. Calling that different is true...calling it enriching is perhaps inaccurate.

Let's be fair, that is simply not the case. They released rules with a different emphasis to what most games do, but not necessarily worse.

And the main question was, why apparently nobody spoke out against the problems of the old systems. Since you continuously fail to see the problems with "balanced" games of the old kinds and build one straw man after another on the basis of flawed and incorrect assumptions, it's little wonder people would eventually stop arguing with the likes of you. There's no conversation to be held with ideological bullheadedness.

Suffice to say, many people were missing the core of what made wargaming enjoyable in the more laid-back days of the 80s and 90s during the past decade-and-a-half, and welcomed the direction both 40K and even more so AoS is going. If you cannot wrap your head around how deeply flawed and unsatisfactory the competitive/balanced approach to wargaming is for some people, and how they would be desperate for one company out there to break the mold, because "balance" does not, and never did serve anyone, but only a tiny minority of gamers, I can only pity you.

On the plus side, there'll always be the soulless, cynic and accountant-driven companies out there, who simply steal some rules from minor systems (say, Wings of War), slap on an established IP without needing to invest one drop of actual creativity (say, Star Wars) and milk the crowd with no risk, effort or creativity needed. So there'll always be games for the people not interested in AoS & Co.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Lets be fair here, what GW did really was just release a set of rules that pretty much only covers model interactions and very little else, abdicating almost everything else for players to figure out themselves. Calling that different is true...calling it enriching is perhaps inaccurate.

Let's be fair, that is simply not the case. They released rules with a different emphasis to what most games do, but not necessarily worse.

With almost nothing to it except model interactions and what amounts to a single scenario with a couple variant victory conditions, it's certainly a whole lot less complete.

And the main question was, why apparently nobody spoke out against the problems of the old systems.

I brought up this point earlier, nobody thought "points" were, as a fundamental concept, a terrible thing until like 2 weeks ago.

Since you continuously fail to see the problems with "balanced" games of the old kinds

What, that GW was bad at actually making them work? That's not a problem with the fundamental concept, it's a problem with GW losing all sense of scale and trying to hamfist everything of every size into the same system, while routinely putting out tremendously poorly points costings, and refusing to engage in any sort of playtesting and rules adjustment & support the way you see with other games.

As is very common with GW, the problem was execution, not fundamental concept.

and build one straw man after another on the basis of flawed and incorrect assumptions,

You can call things strawmans and incorrect assumptions all you want, but if you're not going to directly address any and explain why such is true, I'm assuming you're tossing this line in here for hyperbole's sake.

it's little wonder people would eventually stop arguing with the likes of you. There's no conversation to be held with ideological bullheadedness.

I'm not the one engaging in ad-hominem attacks instead of directly addressing arguments here...

Suffice to say, many people were missing the core of what made wargaming enjoyable in the more laid-back days of the 80s and 90s during the past decade-and-a-half, and welcomed the direction both 40K and even more so AoS is going. If you cannot wrap your head around how deeply flawed and unsatisfactory the competitive/balanced approach to wargaming is for some people, and how they would be desperate for one company out there to break the mold, because "balance" does not, and never did serve anyone, but only a tiny minority of gamers, I can only pity you.

And you're not explaining your position, you're only saying bad things about me for apparently not understanding the position you're not explaining.

AoS doesn't do narrative gaming any better than older editions did aside from simply get rid army composition rules, which you could always disregard anyway if your opponent was ok with it. It certainly doesn't offer the tools for narrative scenario play that many other games offer. It's 4 pages of model interactions and a basic scenario setup and that's it.

Meanwhile, AoS is just as (almost certainly more) open to power gaming and rules exploitation as previous editions by those who wish to engage is such behavior, with even fewer restrictions on what players can bring and do and "what's legal", than older editions which at least had limits on certain types of units and abiliites (e.g. couldn't have more than X power dice, couldn't bring more than 25% rare, etc)

On the plus side, there'll always be the soulless, cynic and accountant-driven companies out there, who simply steal some rules from minor systems (say, Wings of War), slap on an established IP without needing to invest one drop of actual creativity (say, Star Wars) and milk the crowd with no risk, effort or creativity needed. So there'll always be games for the people not interested in AoS & Co.

You mean, like the publicly traded company that openly states it's business is selling models (not games), that goes out of its way to note that it does no market or customer research, has actively and aggressively shut down all communities it has ever had (such as its corporate facebook page, its own forums, etc) and and *borrowed* money to pay dividends (with the CEO and chairman of the board being the same person and also one of their 5 largest shareholders at the same time?) that happens to be named Games Workshop? You want to talk about accountant-driven companies? Games Workshop is by far the most guilty of that of any in the gaming industry currently.

There is a stench around this discussion (across several threads) that people who like points and competition are somehow lesser, somehow engaging in Badwrongfun and need to be re-educated and improved. I find it distasteful. I used to roll my eyes at HBMC's "casual gaming mafia" schtick, but there's been an undercurrent of passive aggressive (or directly aggressive - OP refers to points based play as "a disease") statements since AoS was released. At least it's all out in the open now and perhaps that sort of player will confine themselves to AoS going forward.

Also, GW as our savior from souless accountancy driven gaming companies ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh man. That's either some mighty fine trollin' or...well, a really positive outlook on GW, let's say!

 Da Boss wrote:
There is a stench around this discussion (across several threads) that people who like points and competition are somehow lesser, somehow engaging in Badwrongfun and need to be re-educated and improved. I find it distasteful.

Is it?

I've seen no casual gamer ever deny the competitive guys their games and have all the fun they want, play like they have a pair or whatever floats your boat.

It's the arrogance of the "balance serves everyone"-lie, claiming balance is some kind of universal goal, that explicitly tries to prescribe a certain approach to gaming to people who'd rather game without.

We have plenty of games that pride themselves on super-tight, super-balance rules. We have AoS (and to a lesser extend 40K) as games that set different priorities and don't care about balance. If people simply accept diversity and pick the game for the style they prefer, there'd be no issue.

It's the ceaseless attempt to deride AoS (or 40K) as objectively inferior to Infinity, Warmachine, whatever, just because they are different, that is thoroughly distasteful. Leave people to play what they like best and accept that some people enjoy different games and game-styles than you do.

I certainly see no AoS-fans rampaging across the Warmachine or Infinity forums on Dakka telling people there that they are "doing it wrong" and that the game of their choice is "gak".

Wonderwolf wrote:

I certainly see no AoS-fans rampaging across the Warmachine or Infinity forums on Dakka telling people there that they are "doing it wrong" and that the game of their choice is "gak".

Come on now *oh you face* you know thats totally different to whats happening in this instance. Warmachine was never WHFB AoS directly replaces fantasy so that comparison doesn't work.
A slightly closer comparison would be a halo forum turning into a halo wars discussion forum and the players of FPS halo complaining that its become about an RTS and halo wars totally replacing the FPS games onwards. Or something like that.

In fact you could say its actually the AoS players rampaging across what was recently a WHFB forum saying to those who use points systems or liked 8th that "They're doing it wrong" and that their game was "rubbish"

@Wonderwolf: Really? You've never seen a casual player use disparaging terms about competitive players? Perhaps it's a bias on my part (though I do not see myself as a "competitive" or "narrative" player- I do both when I feel like it, I just like balanced systems as it makes it easier for me), but I can recall an endless stream of "casual" players bemoaning "WAAC", with "WAAC" being used as a slur for anyone who likes to play a competitive game. I've seen people saying that the competitive players "killed" WFB. I've seen countless people implying that "TFG" is almost always a hyper competitive player.

It's been going on for years and getting worse as GW moves to dump it's competitive players and the "casuals" cheer them on. This very thread calls balance a disease.

My view on it is pretty straightforward. A casual player who works primarily on agreement with his group of buddies can always choose to ignore any subsystem in a game (points or magic or whatever). They can always choose to do lopsided battles, make up on the spot rules, base things on a narrative rather than a pre-determined idea of balance. There has never been ANYTHING stopping you from doing that with likeminded friends.

On the other hand, a competitive player or even one who wants a fair and easy pick up game with strangers (a demographic that many claim does not exist, but I am in that demographic myself and have been for 5 years) cannot do what they want to do without some of these subsystems - a balancing method, a way to determine a "fair" battle, and so on. By removing these elements, that section of the playerbase is inconvenienced and can no longer participate as they would like to.

I think (as far as I understand it) the argument against points is that it encourages a mindset amongst the playerbase that results in the narrative style of gaming not being as prominent and everyone playing "tournament" style games. I can sort of see where that position comes from, but I also think it's based on some false assumptions. Assumption number 1 for me being that competitive players have no narratives in their tournament prep or pick up games.

Actually to me the bigger issue is simply that GW have been terrible at balancing their games for ages, and people who exist primarily in the GW gaming ecosystem kinda don't believe that games actually can be balanced. To many, "balance" means "someone will be able to take a cheese list!". But AoS does not prevent that any more than 7th does.

I was going to start a thread in discussions about the toxicity of the "narrative" vs. "competitive" false dichotomy, but I don't know if I will bother. The whole thing is so poisonous at this stage I'm not sure if we can have a productive discussion.

 Da Boss wrote:
@Wonderwolf: Really? You've never seen a casual player use disparaging terms about competitive players? Perhaps it's a bias on my part (though I do not see myself as a "competitive" or "narrative" player- I do both when I feel like it, I just like balanced systems as it makes it easier for me), but I can recall an endless stream of "casual" players bemoaning "WAAC", with "WAAC" being used as a slur for anyone who likes to play a competitive game. I've seen people saying that the competitive players "killed" WFB. I've seen countless people implying that "TFG" is almost always a hyper competitive player.

It's been going on for years and getting worse as GW moves to dump it's competitive players and the "casuals" cheer them on. This very thread calls balance a disease.

My view on it is pretty straightforward. A casual player who works primarily on agreement with his group of buddies can always choose to ignore any subsystem in a game (points or magic or whatever). They can always choose to do lopsided battles, make up on the spot rules, base things on a narrative rather than a pre-determined idea of balance. There has never been ANYTHING stopping you from doing that with likeminded friends.

On the other hand, a competitive player or even one who wants a fair and easy pick up game with strangers (a demographic that many claim does not exist, but I am in that demographic myself and have been for 5 years) cannot do what they want to do without some of these subsystems - a balancing method, a way to determine a "fair" battle, and so on. By removing these elements, that section of the playerbase is inconvenienced and can no longer participate as they would like to.

I think (as far as I understand it) the argument against points is that it encourages a mindset amongst the playerbase that results in the narrative style of gaming not being as prominent and everyone playing "tournament" style games. I can sort of see where that position comes from, but I also think it's based on some false assumptions. Assumption number 1 for me being that competitive players have no narratives in their tournament prep or pick up games.

Actually to me the bigger issue is simply that GW have been terrible at balancing their games for ages, and people who exist primarily in the GW gaming ecosystem kinda don't believe that games actually can be balanced. To many, "balance" means "someone will be able to take a cheese list!". But AoS does not prevent that any more than 7th does.

I was going to start a thread in discussions about the toxicity of the "narrative" vs. "competitive" false dichotomy, but I don't know if I will bother. The whole thing is so poisonous at this stage I'm not sure if we can have a productive discussion.

I would hope GW ditch the whole casual/competitive thing and just focus on making minis and give away their IP to other rule makers to use their toys and such, they make their toys, they make the lore, the others make the rules and scenarios and points etc... everyone wins... heck you could have multiple companies making multiple style of rules and anyone can use them in store if they want.

I believe I am one of the few people that agreed with the GW CEO (or something) that said GW is in the business of making toys not rules (or something like that) I am all for that... GW has NEVER been good at rules... lore is great and their minis are in the top 3.... wasting their resources on rules just creates this sort of tension :/... and funnily if they "stop" making the rules they can invite anyone to their store to play with any rules (KoW, WMH etc) as long as they use their minis instead :/ their stores could actually become more vibrant.

 Da Boss wrote:


It's been going on for years and getting worse as GW moves to dump it's competitive players and the "casuals" cheer them on. This very thread calls balance a disease.

At least we agree that GW has been open about their design goals for years, and that this is not a new phenomenon.

I enjoy a good chess-match as much as the next person. But GW games aren't trying to scratch that itch. Never did. Not with AoS. Not with 40K. Not with Mordheim. Not with Necromunda. Not with Dark Future.

Just like Ferrari isn't trying to build frugal family cars. Surely low petrol consumption and in-built children seat benefit everyone right? Well, some products simply target a different market, a different audience. Not every product needs to appeal to "everyone".

The problem is, competitive 40K/WFB players seek to impose a certain gaming philosophy on 40K/WFB, which it doesn't aim for. You're happy to use the systems such, as long as you're aware that you're rigging the product in ways it wasn't necessarily designed to do, like taking your family of six on a week-long road-trip in a two-seat Ferrari. It's gonna be inconvenient. But that doesn't mean Ferrari should stop making Ferraris and start making family-cars, just "because it's good for everyone". There other companies specialized on catering precisely to that need. If Ferrari wants to focus on 2-seater sports-cars, that's their prerogative. If GW wants to focus on no-tournament narrative games in their vision of narrative, that is their prerogative. It might not be the product for you, but that doesn't mean it's inherently flawed.

It's this pouting of people who want Ferrari to make nice comfy suburban family cars (it serves everyone, right?), and continue to be angry because Ferrari is aiming for a different audience, instead of simply going for a car company that makes family cars, that I simply don't get. It's not like there is a shortage of the kind of product you are looking for.

@Wonderwolf: Again, phrases like "pouting" are a bit toxic. Better avoided.

I don't really accept your premise that GW have never tried to make a balanced game. I've been playing 40K since 2nd edtion and Fantasy since 5th. My view on it would be:
40K -
2nd edition was pretty unbalanced and mostly narrative. Piles of fun in it's way but quite unsuited to a competitive style of play.
3rd edition was a pretty strong pull into a more balanced approach and the kind of play that can be easily ported into many settings.
4th edition was a fairly bland "touch up" of 3rd edition with many of the same design goals.
5th edition was an attempt to marry "fluffy" list construction with "balanced" play and competition. I believe it was broadly successful.
6th edition, I did not really play much, because it seemed to me to be a drift back towards the 2nd edition "loose" style, and I have not looked at 7th edition (are we even on seventh by now? I lose track) because it is broadly the same with unbound and so on.

Fantasy:
5th edition was likewise the hero-hammer and crazy magic edition. Fun for what it was but not balanced
6th edition was a very balanced and fun edition. I look back on it fondly. It had narrative elements and rules for seiges and so on, but also functioned very well as a "pick up" or tournament game. Big fan.
7th edition was a tweak of 6th that was mostly pretty good until the balance was destroyed by poorly written army books. I enjoyed it but the army book balance left a poor taste in my mouth.
8th was an attempt, like 5th, to marry balance and narrative in one system. Arguably it was a failure as it splintered the playerbase and increasing costs drove people out.
9th/AoS is a swing towards a "pure" narrative style of play.

So I think there are competing forces within GW that push the game in one direction or another. I think they've up to now always at least made a nod towards both sides of the coin, sometimes very successfully (Fantasy 6th and 40K 5th in my view). Currently they are on a pure narrative kick with Fantasy, but I don't accept that that has "always" been their design goal. I think it is clear that in the past some designers attempted to build a game that would please everyone.

bitethythumb: I kinda agree with you actually. I am not wedded to any one system, I am interested in everything, and I will use whatever models float my boat for them. GW make some great models that I use without any agonizing if I think the price is right. But not everyone is in the position I am in.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
No its more like ditching cd's for mp3's like apple did. Bold move, not as popular, but the right choice in the long run.

That analogy is rather, well, reaching to say the least. The ultimate product you're consuming, the music, remains the same, just the format of its storage is changing. AoS is different enough from previous editions of Warhammer Fantasy that they're not the same ultimate product, and GW hasn't tried to hide that, there's a reason they didn't call it WHFB 9E.

I'd say that ultimately the product you are consuming are the models, and the format in which you use them is the thing that has changed. If you've burned all your CDs to your hard drive, you can throw out the CDs and buy only MP3s from now on. You can throw out your 8th edition rules (CDs) and still use the models (music) with AoS(MP3s). Or you can convert them to another format (Kings of War).

In 40K, 4th and 5th editions opened with an explanation of the fact that points values were used to help create a fair and balanced game. This paragraph was dropped in 6th edition, though points continued to be used.

That is hardly GW being open for years that they have had a design goal of a narrative game. If anything, they abandoned narrative games when they canned Mordheim, Necromunda and Blood Bowl.

AoS doesn't contain any narrative rules at all. It's a simple tactical skirmish game.

I would also point out that points values and narrative games are not mutually exclusive.

Aye, Necromunda and Mordheim have systems for maintaining balance (you pay for your troops in credits or gold, and you get a Gang or Warband rating) but they are great narrative games in the best sense.

I'm getting tired of the whole "points create balance" thing. It's a lazy argument which assume the points system is perfect in the first place.

It doesn't allow that many units have historically been over- or under-powered for their points cost, or that there is allegedly a power creep in modern army books. It doesn't allow for any kind of unbound armies either: is a 1500 point army of Termagants, Hormagaunts and Pyrovores going to win against a 1500 point army made of entirely of Leman Russ tanks and allied Dreadnoughts?

In Warhammer, Beasts of Nurgle used to be 100 points each. This was approximately twice as expensive as a Fiend of Slaanesh. So were Beasts twice as good on the battlefield? Don't ask me - nobody ever used them, and when I made army lists including them I was told to drop them as they were too expensive. This alone destroys the "points cost brings balance" idea.

Why is it that in LotR, the good side always seems to win? I never read an official battle report where this occurred, because there was always one or more Good heroes who ended up defeating dozens of Evil line troopers on their own. Surely this shouldn't always be the case, as the points values between the armies were balanced?

I've been reading through the Age of Sigmar book, and you know what's fantastic?

1. there's a picture of a battle with no less than four Bloodthirsters. Okay, I know it's not ten (or twelve), but there's so much else in the picture that they could easily have put another six in.
2. there's even a passage that talks about "a spearhead of Bloodthirsters" attacking a fortified city.

Also, I can't get over how incredible the Bloodthirster model is. Really great! Does anyone have $1500AUD they don't want? We could do the ten Bloodthirster battle!!

 Da Boss wrote:
Aye, Necromunda and Mordheim have systems for maintaining balance (you pay for your troops in credits or gold, and you get a Gang or Warband rating) but they are great narrative games in the best sense.

Again, the purpose of the gold/credits-systems in Necromunda and Mordheim wasn't to create "balance" (and if it were, it would've failed miserably at that, luckily that wasn't why they were put in). False assumptions lead to false conclusions.

 NoPoet wrote:
I'm getting tired of the whole "points create balance" thing. It's a lazy argument which assume the points system is perfect in the first place.

It doesn't allow that many units have historically been over- or under-powered for their points cost, or that there is allegedly a power creep in modern army books. It doesn't allow for any kind of unbound armies either: is a 1500 point army of Termagants, Hormagaunts and Pyrovores going to win against a 1500 point army made of entirely of Leman Russ tanks and allied Dreadnoughts?

In Warhammer, Beasts of Nurgle used to be 100 points each. This was approximately twice as expensive as a Fiend of Slaanesh. So were Beasts twice as good on the battlefield? Don't ask me - nobody ever used them, and when I made army lists including them I was told to drop them as they were too expensive. This alone destroys the "points cost brings balance" idea.

Why is it that in LotR, the good side always seems to win? I never read an official battle report where this occurred, because there was always one or more Good heroes who ended up defeating dozens of Evil line troopers on their own. Surely this shouldn't always be the case, as the points values between the armies were balanced?

Do you have any examples there that aren't GW? Because then the problem isn't that points don't create balance, but that GW is apparently incapable of using points in a manner that creates balance.

And you say 'official' battle reports - you mean the ones that were in White Dwarf? The ones intentionally done to sell a product? Just looking in the Dakka subforum, I can find games where Evil wins.

Wonderwolf wrote:

It's the arrogance of the "balance serves everyone"-lie,

!

Balance does serve everyone. A properly balanced ruleset allows all types of players to utilise that system. One that doesn't even attempt to make a fair game immediately cuts off large chunks of its potential player base while still making 'narrative' games problematic because unit A will always be superior to unit B.

Points don't = balance but if you going to allow players a wide range of freedom where it comes to army selection then they are really the only option. Points+intelligence army building+lots and lots of playtesting=balance to at least a reasonable degree. The only other option is to only play pre created scenarios using nothing but forces sanctioned for that particular scenario but that's frankly a terrible idea for something as thematically complex as Warhammer.

If you want the AoS pile of models approach then you can do that in any system simply by ignoring the army structure rules. If you want a fair game with AoS (especially if you like armies comprised of ordinary troops) then good luck...........

Incidentally I am in no way a WAAC player. I haven't been to a tournament in over a decade, I prefer real narrative games (I'm currently in the midst of a Mordheim campaign but I am also a big fan of RPGs) and I always use fluffy armies comprised mostly of 'core' units irrespective of their worth in the eyes of netlist builders. The key thing with me though is that I like close games; I don't like to see players tabled in the first couple of turns. This is why, aside from the extremely shallow rules and the utter destruction of one of the most venerable of wargaming settings, that I will not even consider playing AoS because getting a close game in AoS seems to be based almost exclusively on luck (with a hint of diplomacy).

+1 to what Infinite Array says.

Of course points won't be absolutely perfect- there will need to be tweaking and inevitably some things will be slightly more powerful than others. But the answer is to just continue to tweak and get the best balance possible. Other games manage this, GW just does not have the competence to do so, apparently.

Wonderwolf: What is the purpose of starting gold and credit and gang rating if not for balancing?

Wonderwolf wrote:

Again, the purpose of the gold/credits-systems in Necromunda and Mordheim wasn't to create "balance"

Of course it was, it was there to create reasonably balanced starting gangs/warbands while allowing a reasonable level of equipment progression. As the campaign progressed gang's power levels obviously fluctuate but there are other mechanisms in play to try to keep things in check.

 Da Boss wrote:

Wonderwolf: What is the purpose of starting gold and credit and gang rating if not for balancing?

Immersion into the background of assembling a gang of mercenaries/gangers. Incentivize campaign play and drive its "between-games-economy". Gameification (odd term to apply for a game, but hey) of progression/achievement. Etc.., etc..

Why would "balance" be your first assumption? Especially with GW games, which we know don't strive for balance?

Not simply "define" a given game-mechanic in such a narrow-minded way is a good example of the toxic environment narrative players face everyday in games with points(gold, etc...)-systems.

That is not the fault of any individual gamer's preferences for "balance" or "competitiveness", but a clear impact of a balance/competitive-minded gaming community on certain games and thus a clear example why "balance" is skewing the socioenvironment against certain game-styles, which in turn require their own games that eschew balance in a diverse gaming-landscape, so that everyone is represented in the hobby.

We don't know that, it is merely an assertion on your part, contradicted by a lot of evidence.

Wonderwolf wrote:
Especially with GW games, which we know don't strive for balance.....

......anymore.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Especially with GW games, which we know don't strive for balance.....

......anymore.

Nor did originally. Did for a brief time, but stopped, precisely because the tournaments they ran and the toxic gaming-culture they invited by doing so poisoned the hobby as a whole (which, admittedly, nobody could've predicted at the time). Again, read Jervis Johnsons "Points? Who needs em?" from 2002 (?). He outlines how the cultural changes wrought by "tournament players" overwhelmed the design-studio in ways they hadn't thought possible when they started doing tournaments.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We don't know that, it is merely an assertion on your part, contradicted by a lot of evidence.

As is the assertion that their purpose was balance.

That is merely your assertion with no substantial evidence in support and lots of evidence against.

I've read Jervis' points, I just think he is wrong.

 Da Boss wrote:
I've read Jervis' points, I just think he is wrong.

Even if he is wrong, you can't deny that he was purposefully designing the games over the last decade or more to fit his view/vision? The end products are no accident.

If you think he is wrong, fine. Pick a game by game designers who you think have it right.

But if GW's lead designer says he likes green, and the game turns out to be green, you can't pretend that they actually wanted their game to be red, and it only turned out green by accident. They really want it to be green, they are on record saying they want it to be green, and there're really customers out there that like green, even if you aren't one of them.

Diversity is a good thing. I certainly think the Malifaux-designers are doing it wrong. But that doesn't mean I'll go trolling the Malifaux-forums telling Malifaux-fans on every possible occasion that they're all doing it wrong. If they have fun, let them have it. There's more than enough room for everybody.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Fabio Bile wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Up until the last couple weeks, who saw anyone talk about points, as a fundamental concept, as the reason they didn't like Fantasy or anything else? I can't recall a single one.

Right on. Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun.

There are many, very long, very heated threads in the archives here that deal with the issue.

While nobody complained about points as such, many people challenge the claim that the existence of points implies "balance" as a conscious design goal and "lack of balance" inevitably as incompetence or "sales-taking-over-game-design". That assumption has always been wrong.

Correct. The sheer number of complaints about points costs not being "right" or "fair" or "balanced" can be taken as a pretty clear statement that points are a fundamentally flawed concept. Not a day goes by on Dakka in which somebody claims that GW hasn't assigned the "correct" points to something or other. Everything is claimed to be improperly costed, sometimes both overcosted and undercosted at the same time. The lack of precision and consensus suggests that points just don't work, and hasn't worked from the beginning.

What didn't exist was the notion of playing WFB without points at all. That is what AOS brought to the table, as a way to sidestep all of those complaints by simply removing the point of complaint. It's very much akin to how McDonalds "accidentally" knocked over their flagpole when one group threatened to protest if the flag was at half mast, and another group threatened to protest if it wasn't lowered - remove the object of controversy.

And, more to the point, Jervis shared that the internal team isn't much interested in points. If GW's designers themselves don't really care about points, how would anybody imagine they would do a precise job of costing things across an exhaustive range of competitive situations and mirror/reversal play?

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I've read Jervis' points, I just think he is wrong.

Even if he is wrong, you can't deny that he was purposefully designing the games over the last decade or more to fit his view/vision? The end products are no accident.

If you think he is wrong, fine. Pick a game by game designers who you think have it right.

But if GW's lead designer says he likes green, and the game turns out to be green, you can't pretend that they actually wanted their game to be red, and it only turned out green by accident. They really want it to be green, they are on record saying they want it to be green, and there're really customers out there that like green, even if you aren't one of them.

Except that Jervis went on to help design Epic: Armageddon, and Warhammer 4th, both of which reigned in the randomness and more free form systems. He was also instrumental in keeping the Specialist Games and Historical sections alive, many of which had better rulesets than what we see today from the same company.

So what do we believe - a manifesto that was apparently out of date with Jervis' thinking by the time it got published, or the fact that GW has become less concerned with the quality of their rules, as long as it gets you to buy their increasingly overpriced miniatures and terrain?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Correct. The sheer number of complaints about points costs not being "right" or "fair" or "balanced" can be taken as a pretty clear statement that points are a fundamentally flawed concept. Not a day goes by on Dakka in which somebody claims that GW hasn't assigned the "correct" points to something or other. Everything is claimed to be improperly costed, sometimes both overcosted and undercosted at the same time. The lack of precision and consensus suggests that points just don't work, and hasn't worked from the beginning.

Incorrect. It suggests rather strongly that gw implemented a points system extremely poorly.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

What didn't exist was the notion of playing WFB without points at all. That is what AOS brought to the table, as a way to sidestep all of those complaints by simply removing fthe point of complaint. It's very much akin to how McDonalds "accidentally" knocked over their flagpole when one group threatened to protest if the flag was at half mast, and another group threatened to protest if it wasn't lowered - remove the object of controversy.

So then how do you implement what's 'fair' in a game? Cooperation, Coercion, and bullying, essentially. While it can work, it has big potential for headaches, frustration bad feeling. and Really, all you've done is swapped out the point of contention with something else. Give it a year. We'll see those complaints too.

And by the way, playing without points has existed since the dawn of wargaming. It can work, but it takes a lot of effort and co operation to get right along with like minded players. It works for 'basement gsmes' but pick up games and what have you are out in the cold.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

And, more to the point, Jervis shared that the internal team isn't much interested in points. If GW's designers themselves don't really care about points, how would anybody imagine they would do a precise job of costing things across an exhaustive range of competitive situations and mirror/reversal play?

'If you can't do it, find someone who can, and hire him. Support him, believe in him, and encourage him'. That's how.

Beyond that, how about things like Open playtesting utilising the community to explore the game? Communication with the community rather than the ivory tower approach. Apply a quality approach to games design. It's not rocket surgery. And it works for other companies, I fail to see why gw can't leverage some advantage from this methodology.

 Da Boss wrote:
There is a stench around this discussion (across several threads) that people who like points and competition are somehow lesser, somehow engaging in Badwrongfun and need to be re-educated and improved.

OP refers to points based play as "a disease"

At least it's all out in the open now and perhaps that sort of player will confine themselves to AoS going forward.

Did you not read Jervis' article? Maybe you should go back to the original post and re-read it, because Jervis was very clear that tournament play destroyed Fantasy. Re-educate and improve yourself!

I did, mostly to summarize Jervis' article.

I'll play whatever I want, [MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - ALPHARIUS]. As my current stage of gaming, I no longer have the time nor inclination to spend all of my time memorizing ever-increasing amounts of minutiate that replace and/or contradict what I had previously memorized for back-and-forth across 2 or 3 previous versions. To that extent, things like AoS, which let me simply deploy things on the board with a complete, full-page reference sheet of stats and rules tied by a very simple framework, that's good stuff. If more games could be more like AoS than 40k6, that would be great. I really don't need a junior encyclopedia of cross-referenced rules just to push some toy soldiers around while I enjoy a beer and shoot the breeze.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Fabio Bile wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Up until the last couple weeks, who saw anyone talk about points, as a fundamental concept, as the reason they didn't like Fantasy or anything else? I can't recall a single one.

Right on. Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun.

There are many, very long, very heated threads in the archives here that deal with the issue.

While nobody complained about points as such, many people challenge the claim that the existence of points implies "balance" as a conscious design goal and "lack of balance" inevitably as incompetence or "sales-taking-over-game-design". That assumption has always been wrong.

Correct. The sheer number of complaints about points costs not being "right" or "fair" or "balanced" can be taken as a pretty clear statement that points are a fundamentally flawed concept.

Nobody is claiming that points are a perfect reflection of balance, they can't be. However, they can reasonably approximate it.

Once again, the problem isn't that points are a fundamentally bunk concept, it's that GW was really bad at implementing them and actively refused to address issues and mistakes. That's an issue of execution and willful negligence/incompetence, not a problem with the concept of points.

If you look at other games, there's typically fewer issues with points being wonky, and a whole lot more willingness to adjust them, resulting in very functional systems with minimal problems. Look at say, Dropzone Commander, where points values are adjusted about every 6-12 months based on internal playtesting and player feedback along with long trial periods of experimental rules that are available for playtest and are subsequently adjusted for new units, and they make it work very well indeed, with nothing that's considered an overpowered auto-take based on its points effectiveness and almost nothing is left on the shelf due to being overcosted.

Deadnight wrote:
And by the way, playing without points has existed since the dawn of wargaming. It can work, but it takes a lot of effort and co operation to get right along with like minded players. It works for 'basement gsmes' but pick up games and what have you are out in the cold.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

And, more to the point, Jervis shared that the internal team isn't much interested in points. If GW's designers themselves don't really care about points, how would anybody imagine they would do a precise job of costing things across an exhaustive range of competitive situations and mirror/reversal play?

'If you can't do it, find someone who can, and hire him. Support him, believe in him, and encourage him'.

If points exist, then there is a presumption that they will be used. The number of no-points scenarios I've played in 40k is probably less than 1% of my total 40k games played.

GW doesn't hire people to do things that they don't want done in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Correct. The sheer number of complaints about points costs not being "right" or "fair" or "balanced" can be taken as a pretty clear statement that points are a fundamentally flawed concept.

Nobody is claiming that points are a perfect reflection of balance, they can't be. However, they can reasonably approximate it.

Once again, the problem isn't that points are a fundamentally bunk concept, it's that GW was really bad at implementing them and actively refused to address issues and mistakes. That's an issue of execution and willful negligence/incompetence, not a problem with the concept of points.

If you look at other games, there's typically fewer issues with points being wonky, and a whole lot more willingness to adjust them, resulting in very functional systems with minimal problems. Look at say, Dropzone Commander, where points values are adjusted about every 6-12 months based on internal playtesting and player feedback along with long trial periods of experimental rules that are available for playtest and are subsequently adjusted for new units, and they make it work very well indeed, with nothing that's considered an overpowered auto-take based on its points effectiveness and almost nothing is left on the shelf due to being overcosted.

No, the issue is that GW doesn't care about points. And they haven't cared in more than a decade.

Please keep in mind that what you want doesn't matter in the least. You're not the designer, so your only choices are to consume or not. As far as GW is concerned, they did a perfectly adequate job of assigning points.

The flawed presumption is that GW would think it's a good use of resources to provide (semi-)annual updates to a dozen Army Books each containing a few dozen units, many with several options and features. For free. When their actual business is to sell beautiful models, not rules or lists.

GW cannot be measured by your wants or desires. GW can only be measured by their own internal objectives. GW succeeded with AOS.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

If points exist, then there is a presumption that they will be used. The number of no-points scenarios I've played in 40k is probably less than 1% of my total 40k games played.

So? Those are the games 'you've' played. Plenty more gamers out there bud. And plenty more non-gw gamers too, thst have been doing thst sort of thing since the 70s.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

GW doesn't hire people to do things that they don't want done in the first place.

So? The question was how they would go about doing it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

how would anybody imagine they would do a precise job of costing things across an exhaustive range of competitive situations and mirror/reversal play?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

No, the issue is that GW doesn't care about points. And they haven't cared in more than a decade.

I would agree they don't care. I would however dispute that it's points they don't care about, but rather, the rules in general.

The idea that points are this singular sticking issue that all the problems GW games have stem from is to ignore everything about GW's rules in general.

The same issues they have with points, they frequently have with rules functionality and clarity. They write rules one way, but mean them another (look at the recent issues with Khorne Daemonkin where a rule was printed that worked one way when read according to standard english concepts, but the writer on facebook claimed was meant to function another way), they write rules with gigantic gaps that don't cover every scenario. They write rules that sometimes don't ever even get used (Missile Lock). They make units that simply don't function properly regardless of points (e.g. IG Ogryns with Stubborn...on LD6) or that are simply fundamentally absurdly overcapable (e.g. Necron Decurion bonuses making 13pt Warriors rouighly as tough as Terminators against most attacks, 7E Fantasy Daemon army mechanics, 6E Eldar Wave Serpent Shields, etc).

We can go on and on, and they never address these things either. Points are simply a *single* aspect of the issue, which is that GW simply is uninterested in rules functionality. Trying to make it out like points are somehow a singular evil breaking point is somewhat ridiculous in that light.

Please keep in mind that what you want doesn't matter in the least.

You're now redirecting down a tangent which is not related to my argument. I'm not making any argument as to what *I* want, rather addressing problems with arguments about Points somehow being fundamentally flawed and other such things. This is an entirely different track you're trying to project here, and I'm not going to follow.

EDIT: in fact, I'm absolutely fine with games without points, but there better be some narrative/scenario tools within the ruleset, which AoS doesn't do either, it doesn't really do anything but cover how the models work.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I've read Jervis' points, I just think he is wrong.

Even if he is wrong, you can't deny that he was purposefully designing the games over the last decade or more to fit his view/vision? The end products are no accident.

If you think he is wrong, fine. Pick a game by game designers who you think have it right.

But if GW's lead designer says he likes green, and the game turns out to be green, you can't pretend that they actually wanted their game to be red, and it only turned out green by accident. They really want it to be green, they are on record saying they want it to be green, and there're really customers out there that like green, even if you aren't one of them.

Diversity is a good thing. I certainly think the Malifaux-designers are doing it wrong. But that doesn't mean I'll go trolling the Malifaux-forums telling Malifaux-fans on every possible occasion that they're all doing it wrong. If they have fun, let them have it. There's more than enough room for everybody.

Pretty much this. It baffles me that people continue to bash GW for simply pursuing a vision of a game that's fundamentally different from what they enjoy. I think folks who believe 5e 40k was some awesome tournament game are either being nostalgic or playing 5e in a different way than it could have been played (and abused).

Like Wonderwolf says, diversity is a great thing, and we're lucky as hobbyists that in such a small niche market there is a wide variety of products that can please anyone.

 Talys wrote:

Pretty much this. It baffles me that people continue to bash GW for simply pursuing a vision of a game that's fundamentally different from what they enjoy. I think folks who believe 5e 40k was some awesome tournament game are either being nostalgic or playing 5e in a different way than it could have been played (and abused).

Nobody thought 5E was an awesome tournament ruleset, it had gigantic problems. The issue is that it had fewer functionality problems, and allowed far for far less abusive options than what we've got now, and is only great in a *relative* sense, but has easier solutions to its problems than newer editions.

Wonderwolf wrote:

Nor did originally. Did for a brief time, but stopped, precisely because the tournaments they ran and the toxic gaming-culture they invited by doing so poisoned the hobby as a whole (which, admittedly, nobody could've predicted at the time).

The toxic gaming culture was actively nourished by GW's piss poor balancing rather than the creation of relatively balanced rules. GW games have always had their powergamers, as does every other activity which involves someone winning, so attempting to blame the existence of WAAC players on balanced games is frankly ludicrous.

GW originally produced tabletop RPGs (complete with points values don't forget) which morphed into wargames over time. If AoS was a RPG I wouldn't mind the complete lack of points costs, I would be looking for encounter levels though.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What didn't exist was the notion of playing WFB without points at all. That is what AOS brought to the table, as a way to sidestep all of those complaints by simply removing the point of complaint.

Right. So it's not about making a better game, because attempting that just involves work and criticism and icky stuff like that. It's just about dodging complaints.

It's like solving the problem of trains running late by getting rid of trains. Turn the railways into roads. Finally we can just use our own transportation to go where we want to, without being pressured into riding trains. And you won't have trouble getting anywhere on time so long as you're not a stupid lazy jerk.

As a group AoS-supporters really have no right to complain about "toxic environments". There's plenty of you who are using AoS as a platform/justification for being a douche. Maybe that's payback for bad wargaming experiences or maybe it's just part of the eternal fanboy vs. hater divide. But it's a really bad way to represent a game that relies entirely on its players being agreeable and fun.

 Fabio Bile wrote:
Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun.

The issue is, it did not even occur to many people playing miniatures games that you could not have points. It is a really entrenched mechanic. So much so that a lot of people have criticized AoS as being incomplete because it doesn't use points. But point-based list building is not a fundamental part of miniatures gaming. It is actually a pretty novel idea when you consider the whole history of miniatures wargaming. People who never liked points all that much just never felt like it made much sense to post in threads about those games complaining about it. But with AoS, a lot of people feel like it should be WHFB 9th so for them not having points is too much of a break.

 Manchu wrote:

 Fabio Bile wrote:
Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun.

The issue is, it did not even occur to many people playing miniatures games that you could not have points. It is a really entrenched mechanic. So much so that a lot of people have criticized AoS as being incomplete because it doesn't use points. But point-based list building is not a fundamental part of miniatures gaming. It is actually a pretty novel idea when you consider the whole history of miniatures wargaming. People who never liked points all that much just never felt like it made much sense to post in threads about those games complaining about it. But with AoS, a lot of people feel like it should be WHFB 9th so for them not having points is too much of a break.

Points were used because it allows for people to play using whatever mix of forces they wish while maintaining a semblance of order without needing a 3rd party GM or some sort of equivalent. It suited a "wargamer" more than any other system, particularly for one that would involve significant amounts of "pickup" play. .

In Warhammer's oldest iterations, Games Workshop explicitly recognized this and explained such. One can look at the Rogue Trader book and see that they have a system for points values for players if they lacked a GM, but also place an emphasis on having a GM and providing tools for such, as well as example scenarios with predefined terrain and forces.

Now, GW moved away from the GM model as Warhammer moved to becoming a wargame and thus built the game around points. Apparently some within GW bemoaned that, but that was the course they'd plotted for roughly twenty years. With AoS, they appear to backtrack on that, but then fail to re-introduce any of the materials they had in older editions where Points were not a driving factor.

From either perpective, the ruleset appears incomplete.

Hmm, so, before there'd be a GM who was the balancing factor in the absence of points, saying "yeah, those armies look about even" or "today, Marines are going to be making a last stand: pick pick forces accordingly"?

Yep, miniatures games sometimes had GMs in the past. But not always. Sometimes the players just agreed to stuff. Because for them the point of the game was not to play a match to determine who is more skilled.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Fabio Bile wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Up until the last couple weeks, who saw anyone talk about points, as a fundamental concept, as the reason they didn't like Fantasy or anything else? I can't recall a single one.

Right on. Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun.

There are many, very long, very heated threads in the archives here that deal with the issue.

While nobody complained about points as such, many people challenge the claim that the existence of points implies "balance" as a conscious design goal and "lack of balance" inevitably as incompetence or "sales-taking-over-game-design". That assumption has always been wrong.

Correct. The sheer number of complaints about points costs not being "right" or "fair" or "balanced" can be taken as a pretty clear statement that points are a fundamentally flawed concept. ...

Nonsense. It are only proof that GW is gak at balancing points.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I've read Jervis' points, I just think he is wrong.

Even if he is wrong, you can't deny that he was purposefully designing the games over the last decade or more to fit his view/vision? The end products are no accident.

...

Once again you are merely making an assertion with little evidence to support it.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Pretty much this. It baffles me that people continue to bash GW for simply pursuing a vision of a game that's fundamentally different from what they enjoy. I think folks who believe 5e 40k was some awesome tournament game are either being nostalgic or playing 5e in a different way than it could have been played (and abused).

Nobody thought 5E was an awesome tournament ruleset, it had gigantic problems. The issue is that it had fewer functionality problems, and allowed far for far less abusive options than what we've got now, and is only great in a *relative* sense, but has easier solutions to its problems than newer editions.

I can live with it being *relatively* better for tournaments (than 7e) but almost universally, when I say that GW has never been really that tournament friendly, I get "but 4e/5e were great for tournaments!" .. and I just have to shake my head in wonderment. If you measure them by a different standard, then yes -- perhaps for their time, when expectations were different and the mode of play was different, or perhaps just for a local scene that was different, this might have been the case.

But in terms of taking rules as written and then trying to bolt on modifications to make a truly competitive game out of it -- internal and external balance, and clarity of rules all had issues. I mean, it doesn't make the game *not fun* it just makes it require work (and adjustments and limitations) if you want to make a good tournament out of it.

I'd absolutely agree that no WHFB or 40k ruleset has ever been a great tournament set, but I think there's more to it than just "tournaments", but rather a large variety of similar playstyles, that newer editions aren't just making difficult, but are actively wrecking, seemingly to cater to the group that wants a more RPG style of play (but without the rules actually providing RPG style support).

In terms of your average gamer, at least as has been my experience over many editions of 40k and WHFB and in cities from Seattle to San Diego,has generally engaged in what is for some reason referred to as "tournament" style play. I would posit that really what it is more than anything else is "pickup" style play. People show up at the game store on game night or on League night or whatnot, they have army lists of identical points values, and play a mission out of the rulebook. Now obviously there's slight variations and some Leagues introduce mission variations and some clubs have their own House Rules, but ultimately, it's a "grab a 1500/1850/2000pt list and show up" type deal. This is what 40k has been since at least 3E, and really more probably since late RT for the most part, and Fantasy as well for a similar duration.

Now, that's generally been the experience and expectations of the overwhelmingly vast majority of players from my perspective. And there's a reason for that, primarily being that GW's rulesets have been geared toward that kind of play. Now, we know that at least some within GW played things differently themselves and wanted different things, but this was never really reflected in the actual rules. Even AoS still comes at the game from a "pick a list and show up" pickup style functionality, it doesn't provide any of the "narrative' tools that very early GW rulesets provided.

The problem is that if GW really does want a more "narrative' style play, more akin to an RPG, they really have spent the last two decades going the wrong direction, and even with their latest offerings aren't providing the tools for that. What we're ultimately left with are rules that are really very poor for *any* style of play without players having to essentially write half the rules themselves. And while that may work for small groups of very dedicated hobbyists, for people that play amongst many different gaming groups or for very large gaming groups, or anyone trying to run events, it simply results in an unorganized mess that's far more open to abuse than older editions. So, while 40k 5E wasn't a great ruleset (I wasn't a fan of 5E until 6E came out), it was a much better set of rules for for people that don't have small dedicated gaming groups with the time to write the necessary missing half of the rules, and who just want to show up and play with a game "out of the box" as it were, and with a greater expectation of balance than what exists now (even if it's never been good).

It also doesn't help that even when GW does try to put out some "narrative" scenarios, like the old Battle Missions book or the old 4E "back of the rulebook" missions, they were so loose and open as to be highly suspect in value, and defined almost entirely by simple deployment zone changes or tabletop condition (e.g. nightfight), with zero discussion of composition of forces or margins of victory. They keep it so open that there's no narrative to be captured.

 Manchu wrote:

 Fabio Bile wrote:
Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun.

The issue is, it did not even occur to many people playing miniatures games that you could not have points. It is a really entrenched mechanic. So much so that a lot of people have criticized AoS as being incomplete because it doesn't use points. But point-based list building is not a fundamental part of miniatures gaming. It is actually a pretty novel idea when you consider the whole history of miniatures wargaming. People who never liked points all that much just never felt like it made much sense to post in threads about those games complaining about it. But with AoS, a lot of people feel like it should be WHFB 9th so for them not having points is too much of a break.

The points system is one of the reasons (in my opinion) that the various versions of warhammer so significantly outpferormed all those historical games. Historical scenario wargaming is a niche within a niche. Warhammer has been the elephant in the room for so long partly because it's point system made pickup games so easy. With points, all you needed was an advertisement

"Thursday is 40k night! Bring 1500 point armies for battling!"

Instantly people know what to bring. Most anyone could make up a list to match that. You didn't need to already be part of a clique, you didn't need to preplan everything, you just showed up. The other big advantage of points and FOC, is that it creates the entire sub-game of List Building. What is probably 75% of the chatter on any given warhammer forum? Lists and unit discussion. That gives people something to talk about.

X-Wing has followed this method and is seeing dramatic success (plus its a way easier to buy into game). Warmahordes do as well. Every successful game follows this system. Those game systems which do not (such as hail Caesar, as much as I like it's rules), are doomed to sit in the back row. because they're essentially games you can only play with friends.

Point me out one successful wargame that doesn't use some sort of balancing factor, point system, or FOC.

In honesty, the reason 40k sells so well is Space Marines.

I just bought Hail Caesar the other day and... it does have a point system and army lists... In fact, it has a whole book just for army lists. Just wanted to point that out.

I don't think points have anything to do with it's lack of popularity.

Rihgu wrote:
I just bought Hail Caesar the other day and... it does have a point system and army lists... In fact, it has a whole book just for army lists. Just wanted to point that out.

I don't think points have anything to do with it's lack of popularity.

Is that in the basic book? I only have the first book, and I don't remember a points system. My mistake then. I do quite like HC's rules, just never found anyone to play it with.

 argonak wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
I just bought Hail Caesar the other day and... it does have a point system and army lists... In fact, it has a whole book just for army lists. Just wanted to point that out.

I don't think points have anything to do with it's lack of popularity.

Is that in the basic book? I only have the first book, and I don't remember a points system. My mistake then. I do quite like HC's rules, just never found anyone to play it with.

Yup, "Appendix 3: A Brief Guide to Army Lists", pg 175. Goes over Early Imperial Romans and Ancient Britons. There's a book with a whole lot more (that I haven't picked up yet) found here: http://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/hail-caesar/products/hail-caesar-army-lists-volume-1-biblical-classical and also here: http://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/hail-caesar/products/hail-caesar-army-lists-late-antiquity-to-early-medieval and there may be more that I'm not aware of.

To stay relatively on topic, I think that Hail Caesar isn't a big name game like Warhammer not because of anything to do with points values, but because it is a) young (2011, apparently!) and b) little exposure. You can walk into most clubs/stores and see some variety of Warhammer, Warmahordes, Malifaux, etc. being played but you'll probably not see Hail Caesar being played in a gaming store (a hobby shop or a historical specific store, perhaps, but then you are seeking it out).

I do concede that points provide an excellent system for pick up games, which certainly can contribute to popularity, but I think that a game doesn't need points as a crutch to garner popularity.

 argonak wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Fabio Bile wrote:
Maybe someone can prove me wrong here, but I don't remember anti-points sentiment being a thing before GW recently declared points to be unfun.

The issue is, it did not even occur to many people playing miniatures games that you could not have points. It is a really entrenched mechanic. So much so that a lot of people have criticized AoS as being incomplete because it doesn't use points. But point-based list building is not a fundamental part of miniatures gaming. It is actually a pretty novel idea when you consider the whole history of miniatures wargaming. People who never liked points all that much just never felt like it made much sense to post in threads about those games complaining about it. But with AoS, a lot of people feel like it should be WHFB 9th so for them not having points is too much of a break.

The points system is one of the reasons (in my opinion) that the various versions of warhammer so significantly outpferormed all those historical games. Historical scenario wargaming is a niche within a niche. Warhammer has been the elephant in the room for so long partly because it's point system made pickup games so easy. With points, all you needed was an advertisement

...
.

The points system was copied from historical competition rule sets like WRG Ancients, published in 1969 (first edition.) There are many annual Ancients competitions. The WRG rules were written to support them.

The reason why 40K was so successful compared to Historicals was because GW was massively vertically integrated. They wrote, printed and published rules for which they designed and manufactured figures. They promoted this stuff in their widely read fantasy game magazine and sold it in their big chain of shops where many players came to look at a massive range of other largely SF/Fantasy related game products. 40K was the only 28mm SF game on the market at the time. Rival games were 15mm which did not look impressive to players brought up on 25mm RPG figures.

Also, it turned out that teenage boys get majorly hot for Space Mariens.

I sure would like the option to have point values. It helps in distinguishing racial attributes beyond wound counts and activated powers.

@Vaktathi - I generally agree with you. Points are wonderful for the pickup game or games-night game sort of play. In addition, they are humongously useful for gluing together two players who don't have large enough armies to play against one player with more (which happens *all* the time, in my experience).

Don't get me wrong: I'm a big fan of points, flawed and all, and I have a lot of fun putting together lists, some wacky and hopeless, others more competitive.

The devil in it all is that points are a terrible representation of the power level of an army, because it's our job as generals to break the system and squeeze more juice out of our 2000 points. In doing so, we marginalize many units, and create many combinations that can be the furthest thing from fun imaginable.

To rectify it in the real world, we deviate from strictly points to points + human intuition & experience.

In an ideal world, you could enter your army into a computer, and out would come a power level rating for the army, such that 2000 power points would ACTUALLY represent the same efficiency regardless of the composition. So if you decided to take an entire army of genestealers, the cost per model would actually plummet. And if you took a DraigoStar, the cost of Draigo and the Centurions would automatically increase. In other words, a system that analyzed your army holistically, and spat out a number that represented how effective you can be on the field, rather than a number that doesn't represent any force multipliers or poor unit choices.

In the context of AoS, if you took 300 peasants with pitchforks the system would warn you that you have a stupid army.

Of course, such a thing will not ever exist I don't think, anyhow.

Im not sure Jervis' ancient article has much to do with points...

Seems more to point to the attitude of tournament gamers in general, more the style of gaming than a mechanic.

Im unsure what relevance an article from 2002 has on 2014/15 games design, it may be a little too much is being read into it. I think financial decisions weigh more heavily in brand choice than points systems...

Im not sure historical gaming is, or ever has been, a niche compared to fantasy/sci-fi. I think it depends partly on age group. Although a massive generalisation, I seem to meet more historical gamers coming to it later in life, often after having played GW in their youth, and now looking for something different. Thankfully though, still a good few younger gamers also getting into historicals these days.

While it may be a niche in certain demographics, I think historicals has always had a large popularity share among generally older gamers, but recently the likes of FOW and more so with Bolt Action, have spread historicals far further among the 40k generation.

Of course, while GW games one for one are vastly more played than historicals, as a whole, there is alot of historical gamers out there... Many who cut their teeth with WFB back in the day.

Though in my club of ten, only two play 40k and only four in total ever did in the past. That leaves six who have only ever been historical gamers. Of course an utterly useless statistic, like most.

And yes... Points based play came from historical games.

@Big P - what do you mean by financial decisions?

I guess it's cheaper to write the game system without points -- but it's not like those units didn't have points before, and GW is familiar with how effective units are, so the cost wouldn't be really high. Even highly playtested, it would certainly nothing compared to all the other development costs for AoS.

Or do you think they believe that AoS would be more profitable without points, than with points?

No, I think the decision for a new system was driven by financial need as WFB was not making any money, rather than a dislike of tournament style gaming.

If a product line is losing money, then dumping it and rebranding with a new focus makes financial sense, especially if you need to recoup design and development costs for plastics.

Im not sure if having points or not makes a game quicker to design, though logic kinda says it should, but the systems I have worked on with no points had just as much playtesting done as those with points. Indeed with Force-on-Force by Ambush Alley Games (no inherent points system) we had 18 months of playtesting which compares directly to the 18 months initial testing we had before Battlegroup Kursk was released. It should be noted though that every book we release for Battlegroup has a minimum of six months playtest to iron out things, not just points but special rules etc. Some have even more... For our Blitzkreig (early WW2 book) I put back the release date by six months to make sure it was what we wanted. That gave us over 12 months playtesting on a single book.

For us, as two old farts doing the books, we can do such extended testing though it does effect us financially. I imagine for a company the size of GW the financial cost in delaying release and long extended playtest periods could give financial costs that have to be taken into account.

I dont know, just supposition on my part as its been a long time since I was at GW and Woz left a good few years ago too...

 Talys wrote:

Or do you think they believe that AoS would be more profitable without points, than with points?

What I know for sure is that players are confused with this system. The main problem that keeps coming on the table when you try to "sell the game" to your friends is exactly that; it is very difficult to have two "balanced" armies to have an interesting game in itself. The points were not perfect, but at least it was something. Here, there is not: the players have to do that themselves. And there are actually a lot of different systems - that aren't perfect as well.

In short, GW delegated their game designing work to their customers. Sure, the rules are free - but for now, it's a bit difficult to organize a play on the long term and players who were used to points for such a long time are rightfully a bit lost with AoS.

This is still new and people will need time to adapt/see if something change in the future (GW will certainly not, but the community can bring something more "unified" on their own, who knows).


I also remember the quote in army books from previous editions that stated why they use the points system and army limitations so that you can't take anything you want: so that you can have a more or less "balanced" army to play quicky with anyone. AoS is doing exactly the opposite; now you have to spend more time talking with your opponent so that the game you will play will be interesting to be played.

And that's time you do not spend to actually play.


Yes, AoS is really easy to customize and rather quick to play when you agree with your opponent. Still, if many games out there use the point system, it's not for naught as well...so, Jervis Johnson has an interesting view, but trouble is it's difficult to apply such a view to something else than playing only with your usual circle of players.

Time is always the issue in games. And always playing "house rules" has the disadvantage of having difficulties when you meet an "unknown player" who was used to different house rules than yours. That's why it's a horrible game for tournaments - game manifestations where the point is to meet a lot of different, unknown players outside of your regular circle.

From personal experience, points give a baseline for two players to use, but in practice they never seem balanced.

I frequently hear that this is the fault of GW not trying hard enough, and I agree that anyone looking at the cost in points versus table top effectiveness of the Gorkanaut versus the Eldar Wraithknight will notice that something isn't right.

Conversely, how much are five space marines with plasma guns worth, fighting a unit of Terminators? Now, how much are those five plasma guns worth, fighting a unit of Imperial Guard? The variety of units in the GW games and their effectiveness against one type of unit versus another makes them very hard to balance. Infinite points of basic imperial guardsmen can never destroy a 35 points rhino, unless they have the assault, special or heavy weapon upgrade that will allow them to do so, at which time that upgrade becomes nearly infinitely useful.

The effect that has had on my games of 40k over the years caused us to understand there were power imbalances between army lists due to one army getting more for their points than another, but suffering anyway because this was how it "officially" was, and it was an insult to the player of the weaker codex to give them extra points or some other handicap, because that would somehow be unfair.

I think the only working solution would be for all GW games point costs to be public, with the community endlessly posting how much they think unit X or Y is worth based on how it actually plays in the current meta. In lieu of that option, AoS just trusts that within a few games, you're going to know how valuable a given unit is versus your most common opponents, and the two of you will come to an agreement on how much they should get to field in response to that unit in your army.

It seems my working solution is the one most of us will end up with, as now numerous public composition groups have begun pointing up all of the units, complete with community input into which units should be more or less.

Point system is just a way to translate what is merely the "equivalent in game" in comparison with the other units/models, so that you can have something that seems "fair to play against". It was never meant to be perfect, just a tool to help players finding an agreement to play with each other.

AoS has nothing at all of that. Everything until now comes from the work of players. Which means players have to do more on their own so that they can play...and we know how lazy the players can be.

We'll see if that way is better or worse in a few months (for now, game is still new and need to have some time for the players to find something suitable on the long term - fun games that just keep having silly results have the risk of not becoming so fun if they get repetitive).

By the way, trying to make a system based on something other like the number of wounds is...a point system, where points are replaced by another term.

People talk of AoS being aimed for young people but I think taking away points is a big bet on the maturity of gamers.

The hyperbolic situations of turn 1 wins and 20 Bloodthirsters are only things actual children would try, as children are more interested in winning at all costs than creating a balanced game.

I'm glad points are gone because I think they bring with them a number of problems and wreak havoc with the other parts of GW's business. However, I do wish there was a little more structure to AoS units. I'd have liked to see some unit limits perhaps (such as Liberators 5-12 models, or what have you) that give you more of an idea of how to build your collection.

 Talys wrote:

In the context of AoS, if you took 300 peasants with pitchforks the system would warn you that you have a stupid army.

Of course, such a thing will not ever exist I don't think, anyhow.

The problem is not the fact that someone is stupid enough to buy 300 of bad models. The problem is someone ploping a unit of corrions, two phoenixs or something else that flies, and says they are done deploying.

I understand that GW reset WFB, because it sold bad. I get that and it was a wise thing to do. They even , well kind of, recognise what the problem with WFB was. The high entry point cost for an army. Starting armies at 2250 or more was a stupid thing. But turning it by 180 degrees does not help at all. It maybe good for GW, because more people will fall for the trap of play what you want, and other stupid slogans they have. But for someone who wants to play the game, what is the difference, if he gets beaten by a super demon army at 2250 or lizardman summoning list at no points.

burningstuff wrote:

I'm glad points are gone because I think they bring with them a number of problems and wreak havoc with the other parts of GW's business.

Having no points brings other unwanted problems, though. We already began to see them but there will be more in the following months, I'm afraid...

However, I do wish there was a little more structure to AoS units. I'd have liked to see some unit limits perhaps (such as Liberators 5-12 models, or what have you) that give you more of an idea of how to build your collection.

Then you won't be "free" anymore to take anything you want to play.

Setting the ball in the players' side is an understandable move and I see why GW is doing it. But then, if so many games still use something akind to a point system or at least set the models you have to use to play, it's for a very good reason...that is precisely lacking here, in AoS.

 Sarouan wrote:

burningstuff wrote:

I'm glad points are gone because I think they bring with them a number of problems and wreak havoc with the other parts of GW's business.

Having no points brings other unwanted problems, though. We already began to see them but there will be more in the following months, I'm afraid...

However, I do wish there was a little more structure to AoS units. I'd have liked to see some unit limits perhaps (such as Liberators 5-12 models, or what have you) that give you more of an idea of how to build your collection.

Then you won't be "free" anymore to take anything you want to play.

Setting the ball in the players' side is an understandable move and I see why GW is doing it. But then, if so many games still use something akind to a point system or at least set the models you have to use to play, it's for a very good reason...that is precisely lacking here, in AoS.

I like the army building side of the hobby and think GW should not totally depart from it. People love making lists, even if they don't play, and it encourages them to buy models. Points are too heavy handed and come with too many problems, in my opinion. If army building and lack of points can be married in some way, I'd be interested. The formation thing isn't my cup of tea, as I don't like being told exactly what to buy.

burningstuff wrote:

If army building and lack of points can be married in some way, I'd be interested.

That's what players are trying to do recently.

It really shows the statement "you can take any model you want" isn't really telling the truth; in fact, it can't work because of the same reasons two people can't agree on a topic they both take at heart but with different/opposite views. If you don't have the same referential core, you will unavoidably have different points of view. When you play with people with the same, it's fine. Trouble comes with those who do not...if it is not settled, it generally ends with people playing each in their own side within their own circle.

In short, we will not be playing the same game anymore - we will play different versions with different "house rules", because the original rules are too vague/not clear enough. Dislocation of Warhammer gaming community...that's what I'm afraid.

The formation thing isn't my cup of tea, as I don't like being told exactly what to buy.

Yes, but on the other hand, the formation is an interesting tool to have armies that make sense with the background and still have a "reward" in game to do so.

The main strength of Warhammer games was always the huge amount of choices (and, personnally, the fact you don't have to take a named /special character in your army, so that I can make "my own character" if I wish so). But that comes with a price...it's very difficult to balance such a game.

Here, it seems GW gives the balance to the players, directly. (well...not exactly, because I suspect there will be wacky OP rules in the warscrolls, anyway). Was it a wise idea or not? At least, the question has been asked. The answer will show up in the following months...

In many ways, GW's problems with fantasy and AOS are self-inflicted.

Let us not forget that this is a company that, in a previous edition of a Dark Elf army book, had a 1000 year old veteran, with spear, shield, light armour, and eternal hatred, priced the same as a toothless human with a spear...

Even when they were trying to balance a game, GW failed spectacularly.

With AOS, they've managed to annoy people who wanted a focus on scenarios AND people who wanted balanced, competitive play.

That takes some doing.

Big P wrote:

Im not sure if having points or not makes a game quicker to design, though logic kinda says it should, but the systems I have worked on with no points had just as much playtesting done as those with points.

Interesting.

Did those other games you mention have a different balancing mechanic?

I'm saying this because I've played some cool games that didn't use points, but had some other way of achieving a game where either side could win, and victory was up to who played better (I remember Monsterpocalypse having a particularly cool one).

As is, I don't see how eliminating point values from the game would make it 'better' for creating your own scenarios than a game in which you mostly ignore the point values. It just makes it worse at other things.

I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

@JohnHwangDD: Funny how a front page article can be a direct reprint of GW with a post text that contains profanity... plus threats of supressing opinions. A "forum" is not what you think it is. This kinda screams double standard. But whatever. You're opinionated and thats ok. I have had my fill of unproductive ranters myself sometimes. Still though bro... check yourself.

Regarding JJs essay and AoS. I watched an AoS batrep. It looked fun. Id play it. I read the rules and it looked fun and elegant.

HOWEVER

Ignoring what what a "game" is does not seem to be logical to me. Its like playing monopoly when 1 player already has hotels from park place to st charles ave. What fun is there in that? Sure you can forge a narritive where the other players are peasant street urchins playing against a new york land barron. Great fun.

Also, I take umbridge at the assumptions that tournament organization is "easy." Look at Reece and Frankie and company at FLG. They are working their asses off trying to FAQ and balance 40k all the while getting flak from folks. Booking blocks of rooms in vegas finding vendors etc... Doesnt sound "easy" to me.

Now, I will say that i look back with great fondness at when my best friend and I in rural arkansas would try to fumble through space marine and adeptus titanicus. We would have agreat time moving models and not knowing anything about the rules. Then came blood bowl and space hulk. Balanced. Tight. Narrative. Cinematic. Those are great games. TTWging is more difficult but not impossible to balance. I dont share Mr Johnson's opinion, but I understand it as being a nostalgic throwback to simpler times of GW... which these ain't.

These games are fun to play competitvely even though I play orks and am not even close to a tactician. I have a less than a 30% win record. I get all caught up in saying pew pew and forget about the lurking malwok or flanking imperial knight. I like seeing deep striking grey knight terminators get swept from the table in whithering burna wagon flames... wait a sec, what do those tzeentch screamers do again???

Without points, it is impossible to have a fair fight. Simple as that. Narrative in this case does not matter.

Tabletop RPGs are essentially PvE. The goal is for the group of characters to have a fun adventure, and though the game master may choose to torment them and even create a no-win scenario, the adventurers are not really competing against the game master.

Wargames are always PvP. One side wins, one side loses. Whether a cinematic narrative is involved or not does not matter. Unless you specifically aim to cheat and win, the forces should be as evenly matched as possible. If the point limit is 1000, winning with 1005 points against 1000 points is a hollow victory. You might as well be playing chess with an extra piece.

And while you cannot ever perfectly balance a tabletop game, point values provide a solid foundation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

I think it's also aimed at oldsters -- or at least the type of people who play Magic the Gathering with random pretty cards (which is a lot of people that I know). Out of all the folks I know actually PLAYING AoS now, almost all of them play Magic in a very uncompetitive way. And didn't really play wargames before. In my wife's group, she has a 67 year old grandmother playing -- she has her *grandson* build & paint her army (a lot of it is old Fantasy stuff) which she proudly displays and marches forth.

In other words, it specifically does not target 16-35 year-old males

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

In my experience, it's usually kids who like points the most and try to powerbuild/win at all costs. I think AoS is a bet on having a lot of mature fans. Of course, like all GW games, the model range will certainly appeal to kids, and simpler rules helps get anyone into the game. But I don't see a specific target of young people going on here.

The reasons why I think it is for youngsters are:


Overall it's a simple, short set of rules.
There is excessive complication in the damge determination system (To Hit, To Wound, To Save) which has an appeal to I don't know how to put it but let's say the dice rolling mentality.
This complication is balanced by simplicity elsewhere.
Practically every every unit has a special rule, giving it a "Gotta Catch 'Em All" flavour.
The fluff is all mighty heroes, savage demons, eternal war, etc. Simple and direct.
The lack of points system is made up for by scenario books to buy and follow.

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

I think it's also aimed at oldsters -- or at least the type of people who play Magic the Gathering with random pretty cards (which is a lot of people that I know). Out of all the folks I know actually PLAYING AoS now, almost all of them play Magic in a very uncompetitive way. And didn't really play wargames before. In my wife's group, she has a 67 year old grandmother playing -- she has her *grandson* build & paint her army (a lot of it is old Fantasy stuff) which she proudly displays and marches forth.

In other words, it specifically does not target 16-35 year-old males

I'm with that granny. I played MTG up until the point where the tournament players started bringing their A games to friendly game nights. It's one thing to have a fun game with friends and family, and another to play to some guy who has to use game ending combos in round one just to prove he is the best. I don't have fun that way, and haven't played MTG in almost a decade because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reasons why I think it is for youngsters are:


Overall it's a simple, short set of rules.
There is excessive complication in the damge determination system (To Hit, To Wound, To Save) which has an appeal to I don't know how to put it but let's say the dice rolling mentality.
This complication is balanced by simplicity elsewhere.
Practically every every unit has a special rule, giving it a "Gotta Catch 'Em All" flavour.
The fluff is all mighty heroes, savage demons, eternal war, etc. Simple and direct.
The lack of points system is made up for by scenario books to buy and follow.

Short, simple rules also appeal to oldsters who don't have the time or inclination to learn a lot of new rules. Printed cheat sheets can work against this, but actual memorization is a young man's thing. The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy. Historicals have plain and numerous grunts covered.

 Fabio Bile wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What didn't exist was the notion of playing WFB without points at all. That is what AOS brought to the table, as a way to sidestep all of those complaints by simply removing the point of complaint.

...

... And you won't have trouble getting anywhere on time so long as you're not a stupid lazy jerk.

As a group AoS-supporters really have no right to complain about "toxic environments". There's plenty of you who are using AoS as a platform/justification for being a douche. Maybe that's payback for bad wargaming experiences or maybe it's just part of the eternal fanboy vs. hater divide. But it's a really bad way to represent a game that relies entirely on its players being agreeable and fun.

First off, nowhere in my post did I say anything about "toxic environments", so I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth and attribute them to me via quote marks.

Second, I'm not sure I want to communicate with you further, if you're going to be like this.

@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

The SRs are really no different than effects MtG cards ) there are a bazillion, but you only need to worry about the ones in the game, if you're not trying to optimize a list.

It is an optimal system for people who don't consider the rules in their army building, and instead think, "l would like some elven archers, dwarven warriors, a wizard, two angels and this hero", selecting the models purely based on preconceived notions, photos on the website, and perhaps Grand Alliance.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy. Historicals have plain and numerous grunts covered.

How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker. Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Honestly, AOS still looks plenty grimdark to me. I mean, the world was destroyed, and now we've got some armored angelic host bringing retribution to the realms dominated by daemons and evil. Mordheimers never had it so bad as the natives of the mortal realms have it now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters

You would be 100% wrong. Youngsters have the time and inclination to throw virtually unlimited hours at learning a system, so something as simple as AoS isn't necessary. In reality, 40k is aimed at youngsters. They are the only people with the sheer volume of hours to read and memorize and play all of the rules and Codices and interactions.

AoS is actually targeted toward the mature gamer with a substantial gaming collection, someone who has more meaningful and significant priorities in their life than just gaming, someone with limited time to prepare and play, someone who just wants to take out and push their toy soldiers around.

What you should have written is that "AoS is aimed at casual players", because that is definitely the case. AoS is a casual ruleset, designed for quick and easy play among friends. It is the antithesis of a tournament ruleset, and for that, I applaud GW. I've gone from 90+% tournament-oriented play to 90+% casual play, and I couldn't be happier. But I'm far from a "youngster", unless you're a creaky geriatric with one foot in the grave.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy. Historicals have plain and numerous grunts covered.

How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker. Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Honestly, AOS still looks plenty grimdark to me. I mean, the world was destroyed, and now we've got some armored angelic host bringing retribution to the realms dominated by daemons and evil. Mordheimers never had it so bad as the natives of the mortal realms have it now.

The Endless board game and SDE both look very interesting to me. I've come pretty close to buying into EFT, but metal minis and the shipping just killed it for me. Relic Knights looks just a little too fan servicy for me, the aesthetic is too anime, and the minis are expensive restic. If they have some fluff that is engaging and free, I'll happily check it out. KoW2 seems to have a slightly more positive take on a fantasy setting than WHFB, but it still has vast swathes of " you're doomed" to it.

AOS might appeal to me, but it just isn't developed enough yet to know either way. Right now, I'm pretty much ignoring the morsels of fluff from the boxed set which are about as cheerful as Wayne Barlowe's God's Demon, which I just couldn't force myself to finish. Casual damnation and eternal suffering are not my idea of escapism.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy.

Mighty Heroes? Have you considered Malifaux, Warmachine or Hordes? Those are all warband-oriented games that build around a named hero as its leader.
____

 odinsgrandson wrote:
How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker.

Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Relic Knights is a good choice, also being hero-oriented. But the thing is, RK is more of a card game with minis, so it plays very differently from things like 40k. The print & play demo is good. Models look great, but assembly is a huge pain, though!

I played a LOT of Super Dungeon Explore (1E) after I stopped playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles. The models were (are) cutesy, and the strategic balance was incredibly tight. I went practically all-in on SDE Forgotten King (2E), but it's very different, and players are trying to "fix" the gameplay with an eye toward speed and balance. In a couple months, SDE 2E will be great.

I agree that AoS still has a lot of grimdark (tm) to it. Visually, I think Anima Tactics might be a good alternative - the models are pretty, but I don't know the game well enough to say for sure. For what it is, the AoS game engine is pretty good, and highly adaptable. It would not be hard to create AoS-based games for other ranges of models.

Seriously, stop saying simple rules are for youngsters. That's not true at all. Chess has very simple rules, yet it's a game played without shame at any age.

"Simple" doesn't mean "poor". It means it keeps the rules to a minimum so that you can focus on the possibilities in game even offered by this simplicity.

There is thus no shame in AoS rules being simple. That doesn't mean they are well written...that's another debate.

By the way, if you really think GW is only counting on kids to keep buying models coming out weekly at expensive prices while they usually don't work and don't have infinite money each week...then GW wouldn't be here for quite some time now.


About the "WFB" bashing...I remember the time when WFB scenarios were published with no point system but fixed armies (gasp! The horror!!). So, no, the "no points system" is not new and AoS didn't reinvent warm water.

The trouble is that we don't even have fixed armies as well. So, AoS is a "no limit system"...which isn't a great idea for the long term (just look at what state 40k is with the "unbound" armies - they're not used that much). That's where I find them very lazy as a design team, honestly. And that's also why so many AoS players try to play with "homemade" limitations, to have a better tool to make interesting games.

So, yes, using no points is possible...but you have to find something else so that there is a feeling of "balance" or, at the very least, "fairness". Sure, there may be fun if you had a game when you lose against tremendous odds...but if it happens all the time, chances are high you will just get tired in the end. After all, it is a competitive game at heart. And you can't tell to the players who can win or lose to be objective and always fair so that you can have fun together all the time. We're only humans. That's why having a "neutral, unified system" that can say "lists built using these rules are more or less balanced so that you can both have fair chances to win or lose against each other" is an important tool - you then spend less time trying to find something balanced and interesting to play and more time actually playing.

And having fun.

I think the audience is fairly easily betrayed by the naming conventions GW is using at this point.

Stuff like "Stormcast Eternal Liberator Prime" and "Bloodsecrator" are aimed at a particular audience. And that audience is not typically older. That sort of stuff would have thrilled the 14 year nascent metalhead I was back in 9th grade. As someone with a job, two degrees, and other priorities in life, I'm not at all getting the impression this is aimed at someone my age or interests.

 doktor_g wrote:
@JohnHwangDD: Funny how a front page article can be a direct reprint of GW with a post text that contains profanity... plus threats of supressing opinions. A "forum" is not what you think it is. This kinda screams double standard. But whatever. You're opinionated and thats ok. I have had my fill of unproductive ranters myself sometimes. Still though bro... check yourself.

Regarding JJs essay and AoS. I watched an AoS batrep. It looked fun. Id play it. I read the rules and it looked fun and elegant.

HOWEVER

Ignoring what what a "game" is does not seem to be logical to me. Its like playing monopoly when 1 player already has hotels from park place to st charles ave. What fun is there in that? Sure you can forge a narritive where the other players are peasant street urchins playing against a new york land barron. Great fun.

Also, I take umbridge at the assumptions that tournament organization is "easy." Look at Reece and Frankie and company at FLG. They are working their asses off trying to FAQ and balance 40k all the while getting flak from folks. Booking blocks of rooms in vegas finding vendors etc... Doesnt sound "easy" to me.

Now, I will say that i look back with great fondness at when my best friend and I in rural arkansas would try to fumble through space marine and adeptus titanicus. We would have agreat time moving models and not knowing anything about the rules. Then came blood bowl and space hulk. Balanced. Tight. Narrative. Cinematic. Those are great games. TTWging is more difficult but not impossible to balance. I dont share Mr Johnson's opinion, but I understand it as being a nostalgic throwback to simpler times of GW... which these ain't.

These games are fun to play competitvely even though I play orks and am not even close to a tactician. I have a less than a 30% win record. I get all caught up in saying pew pew and forget about the lurking malwok or flanking imperial knight. I like seeing deep striking grey knight terminators get swept from the table in whithering burna wagon flames... wait a sec, what do those tzeentch screamers do again???

Dude, I just want the rants redirected to AoS mega thread that's already full of rants.

I've done my share of tournament organization in years past, and Jervis on point that "X points / credits / whatever FFA" is a lot easier than creating individual scenarios, above and beyond the communications, logistical and squirrel-herding headaches inherent to any tournament. Imagine if Reece had to create half-dozen "narrative" scenarios, rather than specifying a points total, wouldn't that be more work?

If you are an Ork / Orc / Orruk player, AoS may well work better for you than traditional WFB / 40k. Greenskin players seem to be more about the noises and goofiness and "fun" than the Serious Business (tm) of winning. And make no mistake that "winning" is a lot of work. I'm glad that I got my ticket punched way back then, because there is no way I could commit to winning today.

Yeah, I guess my Medium Crawler Retaliator for the Firestorm Planetfall game made by Spartan Games is also intended for kids - because it sounds like something a kid would like.

Yet, I don't see many kids playing that game. Maybe because Spartan Games don't really make games for children...

Names are just that; names. To me, it sounds more like something they can copyright instead of using generic fantasy terms that anyone can use.

As I sit here and ponder how to approah this without being nasty to GW.

Points who needs them?.....Well most games need them not all but most even, Malifaux is still point based. I find it odd that the theme of the original article was more of tournament hate than an arguement about why ponts aren't necessary. Sure Jarvis feel anyone can have fun playing with points, however the customer base seems to disagre with him. As normal GW has no need of our opinion. I feel points are the only way to make games like Warhammer Fantasy, 40K , and a host of other games balanced. Yes, I used the B word. While, I do not think any game as complex as 40K and Fantasy could never be 100% balanced, I feel with some fore thought, play testing you fine tune points and rules to make games work better.

IMHO a game which revolves around balance as: army A can beat army B, while army B can beat C, and C can only defeat A, is probabaly the worst game system in the world. Every army in a game setting should have equal chance to beat any army. With few exceptions the easiest way to do that is points.

As I read Jarvis press release or whatever it is. I feel confident that these bozos feel they have nothing to play test. Everything they write and publish at GW is unicorns and rainbows. the whole world will love whatever we do.

well I'm not really done with all i'd like to say on the subject be i digress, because my opinion doesn't matter anyway. Especially to GW!

 Sarouan wrote:
Yeah, I guess my Medium Crawler Retaliator for the Firestorm Planetfall game made by Spartan Games is also intended for kids - because it sounds like something a kid would like.

Yet, I don't see many kids playing that game. Maybe because Spartan Games don't really make games for children...

Names are just that; names. To me, it sounds more like something they can copyright instead of using generic fantasy terms that anyone can use.

You're being a bit disingenuous here, the unit you're referring to is just "Retaliator", which is largely fine, "Medium Crawler" is the unit type.

Names however do mean something, billions of dollars are spent on research into product names, mottos, etc and absolutely do point at a target audience.

Yes, copyright issues are playing a part, but there's a very definite market focus here.

 Vaktathi wrote:

You're being a bit disingenuous here, the unit you're referring to is just "Retaliator", which is largely fine, "Medium Crawler" is the unit type.

Sure, whatever. That's also the same for the Liberator Prime - he's part of the Stormcast Eternals but belong to the Liberator warrior chamber. I don't see that particularly intended for kids. Still, it sounds similar to my lovely tank.

Names however do mean something, billions of dollars are spent on research into product names, mottos, etc and absolutely do point at a target audience.

You're talking about GW, here. You know, the society who does no market research because they know what their customers are.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

As I read Jarvis press release or whatever it is. I feel confident that these bozos feel they have nothing to play test. Everything they write and publish at GW is unicorns and rainbows. the whole world will love whatever we do.

Honestly, I believe they're so used to play within their small game circle than they actually can't see another way to play than their own. For them, I can perfectly believe these rules are enough - and they use house rules for their games, anyway.

No real playtest by the community - us, their customers -, that's for sure. And that's the danger. By staying too much in their ivory tower, they can't see the flaws they have made themselves.

Or they don't care. Your choice.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think the audience is fairly easily betrayed by the naming conventions GW is using at this point.

Stuff like "Stormcast Eternal Liberator Prime" and "Bloodsecrator" are aimed at a particular audience. And that audience is not typically older. That sort of stuff would have thrilled the 14 year nascent metalhead I was back in 9th grade. As someone with a job, two degrees, and other priorities in life, I'm not at all getting the impression this is aimed at someone my age or interests.

You are not giving children enough credit. Even the wee ones likely find those names lame. GW probably came up with those names to appeal to their lawyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy.

Mighty Heroes? Have you considered Malifaux, Warmachine or Hordes? Those are all warband-oriented games that build around a named hero as its leader.
____

I own a lot of the plastic Malifaux minis and many of the restic WMH minis. I tried getting into the Malifaux background before Through the Breach, but it just didn't appeal to me. I'm not a fan of that time period or its trappings, and the story line didn't seem to go places I liked. WMH I started getting into, and I could see myself as a fan of Khador, Menoth or Cygnar. Some of the other factions don't appeal to me or even annoy me. I bought the paperbacks by Martell and Correia, but haven't gotten into a steam-punkish state of mind that would actually get me to read them. When the time is right, I'll take the plunge.

But I have absolutely no intention of ever playing WMH. There is nothing, nothing at all, I've heard about that game that sounds enjoyable to me.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker.

Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Relic Knights is a good choice, also being hero-oriented. But the thing is, RK is more of a card game with minis, so it plays very differently from things like 40k. The print & play demo is good. Models look great, but assembly is a huge pain, though!

I played a LOT of Super Dungeon Explore (1E) after I stopped playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles. The models were (are) cutesy, and the strategic balance was incredibly tight. I went practically all-in on SDE Forgotten King (2E), but it's very different, and players are trying to "fix" the gameplay with an eye toward speed and balance. In a couple months, SDE 2E will be great.

I agree that AoS still has a lot of grimdark (tm) to it. Visually, I think Anima Tactics might be a good alternative - the models are pretty, but I don't know the game well enough to say for sure. For what it is, the AoS game engine is pretty good, and highly adaptable. It would not be hard to create AoS-based games for other ranges of models.

Yeah, I'm not into game mechanics or game engines or any of that. I might enjoy how a board game plays, or how AoS plays, but I have to be into the theme and setting in order to want to play it at all these days. Too many games are just about the mechanics, which are not the part I find fun. The mechanics are mechanism that allow the fun parts to be more fun for me. Simple mechanics are therefore the best mechanics for me.

Posters have put forth good arguments to support both the notion that AoS is for oldsters and that AoS is for juves. Perhaps it turns out that AoS has broad appeal?

 Sarouan wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

You're being a bit disingenuous here, the unit you're referring to is just "Retaliator", which is largely fine, "Medium Crawler" is the unit type.

Sure, whatever. That's also the same for the Liberator Prime - he's part of the Stormcast Eternals but belong to the Liberator warrior chamber.

As far as I was aware, the whole thing was it's actual proper model name, at least from what I remember reading on the box

I don't see that particularly intended for kids.

they're increasingly "flashy" and adolescent, again, like the "Bloodsecrator" which sounds like a song title from a bad small-time metal band

You're talking about GW, here. You know, the society who does no market research because they know what their customers are.

It's not something they'd really need to research, just pointing out that names very much do point to a target audience and that there's a reason lots of effort is often put into such.

 Talys wrote:
@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

The SRs are really no different than effects MtG cards ) there are a bazillion, but you only need to worry about the ones in the game, if you're not trying to optimize a list.

It is an optimal system for people who don't consider the rules in their army building, and instead think, "l would like some elven archers, dwarven warriors, a wizard, two angels and this hero", selecting the models purely based on preconceived notions, photos on the website, and perhaps Grand Alliance.

That doesn't mean the game isn't aimed at kids. The kind of oldsters you are talking about are not experienced players and naturally would be more amenable to simple rules, even if they might think the fluff is juvenile rubbish

People can play rules without taking any notice of the fluff.

So...why don't we need points again?

because most if not all the examples people put forward why AoS is better without could be remedied literally by deciding to play casual with a points based game anyway. This its more freedom, I can have what I want, field what I want and narrative play are all possible with a points system anyway. They could have made AoS with all that take what you want and still have a had a points system in place. Points aren't what was stopping you from fielding one unit from one army and another from another.

So instead of it been:

Heres AoS its rules have a points system but the rules also state you can play it this way if you and your opponent wants (what AoS is now) thus allowing for both types of play and everyone gets what they want and tournaments have an easier time of things whilst casual play is still completely intact and just how you like it is now. Only difference is you'd have the option.

Its instead:

Heres AoS there is no points system what so ever, we only give you one choice style of play.

Seems more restrictive to me and can we please stop with this idea that narrative play is the results of AoS and it just wasn't viable before. GW didn't design AoS around this idea, they gave you base rules and the community has come up with the narrative idea fitting it around the blank slate rules. It wasn't designed on purpose to offer narrative games you as a community have just decided that narrative games are now the most viable thing to fit the system, not the other way around. It also helps cover any holes in the system.

Theres a reason we have a lot of users even those who support the system trying to make up there own balancing rules or tournament rules because they want some kind of points system in place that will work. Ive seen players trying to work out systems for balancing and tournaments. Everyone's still trying to make it work, which was GW's job in the first place. The fact that many people are just trying to make up a fair balanced tourniment ruleset for AoS should show the need for an official one in the first place. Every club is self modding and implimenting universal rules they have just made up to replace the loss of the points system and how is that in any way helping people play more. It means each club is running on their own version of the rules, with a universal official points system any club can meet any other or player and get a match. Theres no swapping of made up rules and deciding whats the best, which groups to use in that moment. This is not something nobody is asking for or will be a detriment, people should have the option of an official base points system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

That doesn't mean the game isn't aimed at kids. The kind of oldsters you are talking about are not experienced players and naturally would be more amenable to simple rules, even if they might think the fluff is juvenile rubbish

Not so, not at all. I'm such an oldster, and I've got a "Best General" award sitting in my closet. I've simply moved away from overcomplicated in favor of simpler. Overcompliation for the sake of complication screams juvenile and amateur more than continuing with the sort of goofy names that GW has used for the past 20+ years.

I find it funny how people are arguing the age this game is aimed at, look at any miniature game, there is a clear "age X" and above on the box... that is it, anyone can play any game no matter what age... as long as its above the age that the game has set for safety reasons :/ anyone saying that the names are aimed at children are really pulling out of the air if you ask... blood secrator is literally someone who spits blood more or less :/ its most probably GW trying to get a unique name as possible for khorne.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
So...why don't we need points again?

because most if not all the examples people put forward why AoS is better without could be remedied literally by deciding to play casual with a points based game anyway. This its more freedom, I can have what I want, field what I want and narrative play are all possible with a points system anyway. They could have made AoS with all that take what you want and still have a had a points system in place. Points aren't what was stopping you from fielding one unit from one army and another from another.

So instead of it been:

Heres AoS its rules have a points system but the rules also state you can play it this way if you and your opponent wants (what AoS is now) thus allowing for both types of play and everyone gets what they want and tournaments have an easier time of things whilst casual play is still completely intact and just how you like it is now. Only difference is you'd have the option.

Its instead:

Heres AoS there is no points system what so ever, we only give you one choice style of play.

Seems more restrictive to me and can we please stop with this idea that narrative play is the results of AoS and it just wasn't viable before. GW didn't design AoS around this idea, they gave you base rules and the community has come up with the narrative idea fitting it around the blank slate rules. It wasn't designed on purpose to offer narrative games you as a community have just decided that narrative games are now the most viable thing to fit the system, not the other way around. It also helps cover any holes in the system.

Theres a reason we have a lot of users even those who support the system trying to make up there own balancing rules or tournament rules because they want some kind of points system in place that will work. Ive seen players trying to work out systems for balancing and tournaments. Everyone's still trying to make it work, which was GW's job in the first place. The fact that many people are just trying to make up a fair balanced tourniment ruleset for AoS should show the need for an official one in the first place. Every club is self modding and implimenting universal rules they have just made up to replace the loss of the points system and how is that in any way helping people play more. It means each club is running on their own version of the rules, with a universal official points system any club can meet any other or player and get a match. Theres no swapping of made up rules and deciding whats the best, which groups to use in that moment. This is not something nobody is asking for or will be a detriment, people should have the option of an official base points system.

My thoughts exactly. Points didn't actively detract from those of us who wish to run the game as a scenario game. GW starting to put out a bunch of formations and data slates could have actually been a neat way to do this. However like Pollos said above, does having points actively detract from those of us who want the scenario play? I don't believe points are perfect, hell most games always have those units that are stupidly good for their points cost. But it was something, and maybe that's why the internet's been up in arms over AOS.

In my mind I think the reason that many people take this as laziness or messiness over a new direction is that the move seems a tad schizophrenic. On one hand, 4 pages of rules and an obviously simplified system seems to lean more towards pick up and play. I threw down 30 dollars for a single box... and bam I'm in the game and the rule set is pretty easy to grasp. But in my mind points actually favor the small model count, simple rules and the idea of a quick and easy game. If the game's so simple then I can drive on down to my local hobby shop and get in a quick game or two. Without quite the hastle of hauling around 2000 pts + of warhammer, same reason why I've been enjoying the smaller games such as infinity and malifaux, even smaller scale warmahordes. It's really easy to get a game in if someone happens to have the same game as you when you go to your hobby shop. No points only takes away from pickup and tournament games in mind, as pickup games with random people at a hobby shop are extremely complicated as you have to reach an gentleman agreement as to not cheese the game out. The no points and scenarios favor gaming groups, but a lot of people pickup games are how most of their AOS would have been played. Probably why the game got so much bile, there's a chunk of the customer base that's been left out to dry.

This isn't an "age of sigmar sucks!" but I'm actually willing to argue that as a designed game the gameplay and format favors one school of gaming, but the no points favors the other. So to answer your question, us pickup gamers not in a concrete group... yeah points really do help with the idea of a simple game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

That doesn't mean the game isn't aimed at kids. The kind of oldsters you are talking about are not experienced players and naturally would be more amenable to simple rules, even if they might think the fluff is juvenile rubbish

Not so, not at all. I'm such an oldster, and I've got a "Best General" award sitting in my closet. I've simply moved away from overcomplicated in favor of simpler. Overcompliation for the sake of complication screams juvenile and amateur more than continuing with the sort of goofy names that GW has used for the past 20+ years.

I tend to agree with the comment earlier that kids in general are more competitive. I can't say for other people; when I was young, I was WAY more competitive than I am now. To an extent, there's a need to prove oneself and there's the thrill of a win (when one hasn't experienced it often before). I'm pretty sure when I was a teenager I was today's definition of a WAAC sorta guy, at least from the perspective of doing whatever I could to build the best army I could to achieve the highest win ratio, and valuing the win above all else.

For myself, at some point, I just chilled out when it came to tabletop as I got older. I think competitive MtG around 93 or so, and playing casual MtG with non-competitive types actually got it out of me, because I just enjoyed the latter more, and eventually,when I got more back into wargaming, I adopted that same attitude. It just didn't matter as much, the repetitiveness of competitive games took away the exceitement, and building the more interesting battleforces and scenario was just more important.

Not that I don't like points as a rough framework to guide me through that, though.

Eh, the lack of points/structure in Age of Sigmar reminds of what an infamous leader once said:

"If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance"

In place of insurance it's:

"If you like playing Warhammer, you can keep playing Warhammer".

Wonderwolf wrote:
Again, read Jervis Johnsons "Points? Who needs em?" from 2002 (?). He outlines how the cultural changes wrought by "tournament players" overwhelmed the design-studio in ways they hadn't thought possible when they started doing tournaments.

This is EXACTLY the point I've been making even before AoS came out.

I've always blamed the tournament players for the decline in GW's popularity and success; they just don't seem to "get it", they're playing to win and need every competitive advantage, they don't seem to give a flying feth about actually enjoying themselves.

I am, and will always be, on the GW's side in this kind of debate. I am by no means saying all tournament players are sent by Tzeentch to bugger up their own games systems and alienate themselves from the GW. But I'd far rather play a member of the WD team than any tournament player, because I'm there to have fun, not whine about the rules.

And yes - I have put my money where my mouth is - my biggest example is taking the maligned special weapons in Necromunda. Everyone seems to take heavy stubbers. Sod that - I used flamers, meltaguns and plasma guns, even a lascannon, weapons I've never seen used in Necromunda before or since. Flamers were terrific fun to use and generated terror every time I got my specialist near the opposition (even though he risked being shot and charged by multiple enemies, which is why a competitive gamer would never take one). The plasma gun was so effective everyone ended up using them. The meltagun and lascannon were a bit crap, but imagine the strain on my opponent's bowel muscles when it came to the shooting phase.

Some things cannot be quantified by points and do not seem to be acknowledged by competitive players.

 NoPoet wrote:

I've always blamed the tournament players for the decline in GW's popularity and success; they just don't seem to "get it", they're playing to win and need every competitive advantage, they don't seem to give a flying feth about actually enjoying themselves.

You're going fast to this conclusion, honestly.

To me, reason of the decline is more like GW games were eventually the same, no matter the edition; randomness rules everything, you keep playing your whole turn while your opponent watch you destroying his army without doing anything (or go out for a smoke to wait for his turn), wacky rules not known for being really well written, no communication with the fan base and arrogant attitude that gets on the nerves,...

And honestly, AoS isn't really that different from GW's way to see a game; still random because it's fun, still playing your whole turn, still rolling to hit/to wound/to save and so on.

Sure, the models are still sweet and their plastic is one of the best on the market and you have enough background to read for quite a few years ahead, but GW games aren't that great in comparison with the competition. And the competition is everywhere, nowadays; this is truly a golden age for tabletop games using plastic/metal/resin models.

So there are plenty of alternatives for those who have just enough of GW's ways/rules. That's the same with gaming community.

There is a new for you; you can enjoy yourself with rules other than those made by GW. And you can have fun with clear, complex rules using a point system.

That has nothing to do with "tournament mentality". But then again, GW fanboys will just judge without knowing, like always.

 NoPoet wrote:


I've always blamed the tournament players for the decline in GW's popularity and success; they just don't seem to "get it", they're playing to win and need every competitive advantage, they don't seem to give a flying feth about actually enjoying themselves.

Funny, but I've always blamed GW for their decline. They made something people didn't want to buy.

 NoPoet wrote:

Some things cannot be quantified by points and do not seem to be acknowledged by competitive players.

So warhammers better off without points because? seriously nobody here beyond little personal stories of one off games has any reason yet to say that AoS not having the options of a points system is good.

As for your post are you actually saying, not having points is good because it kills off tournament play and therefor you don't have to run into tournament players anymore because you don't personally like them? thats an incredibly selfish opinion. Instead of I don't like tournament players so I will choose not to play them its im so happy tournament players have had their toys taken from them, serves them right for playing the game their way and wanting to be good at something!

Jesus some AoS supporters are border psychopathic towards other players whose only crimes are playing a way they don't like. Ive heard people saying AoS has given the players more options but all I see are a bunch of players happy others who play differently to them have had their options taken away. What a sorry type of attitude to have.

 Manchu wrote:
Posters have put forth good arguments to support both the notion that AoS is for oldsters and that AoS is for juves. Perhaps it turns out that AoS has broad appeal?

As to how appealing it really is, I think time will tell. I imagine it'll turn out that it isn't broad enough - to keep the same momentum WFB once had (without resorting to WFB mechanics).

I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

I agree there is a kind of tournament gamer whose objective is to win by finding the exploits in the rules. In some ways it is a valid approach to the game. People can approach the same game in different ways. But look at the historical context...

GW ran tournaments from the mid-80s to the early 2010s. GW never got their rules balanced, not because it is impossible but because they never took the trouble to do so. Even worse, every edition and new army book or codex they published created possibilities for new exploits. Thus GW encouraged this style of exploit based play.

The way to win by exploits is based more on careful reading of the rules, rather than tactics, so list writing and rules lawyering came to be the focus of this style of play.

This never happened in WRG Ancients, or DBA. Thousands of players have played any number of games in hundreds of competitions over the past 45+ years without this kind of problem.

It doesn't meant that getting rid of points will get rid of exploits. AoS has created exploits already, like the air only army, the turn one losing army, and the infinite summoning army. More will come with every new war scroll, because GW are writing the kind of special rules that create these situations.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree there is a kind of tournament gamer whose objective is to win by finding the exploits in the rules. In some ways it is a valid approach to the game. People can approach the same game in different ways. But look at the historical context...

GW ran tournaments from the mid-80s to the early 2010s. GW never got their rules balanced, not because it is impossible but because they never took the trouble to do so. Even worse, every edition and new army book or codex they published created possibilities for new exploits. Thus GW encouraged this style of exploit based play.

The way to win by exploits is based more on careful reading of the rules, rather than tactics, so list writing and rules lawyering came to be the focus of this style of play.

This never happened in WRG Ancients, or DBA. Thousands of players have played any number of games in hundreds of competitions over the past 45+ years without this kind of problem.

It doesn't meant that getting rid of points will get rid of exploits. AoS has created exploits already, like the air only army, the turn one losing army, and the infinite summoning army. More will come with every new war scroll, because GW are writing the kind of special rules that create these situations.

Well, said.

I love tournaments. Its an excuse to travel play 3 people I've never meet before and have fun, but don't approach them with I must crush everyone, WAAC attitude. With the poor state of the rules that ship has sailed and I've stopped going to them except at my FLGS and adepticon where I will now go to play non GW tournaments.

All game designers should approach thier product in the same manner:

Something is broken or is not working >>Play test solutions >> adjust points (or equilevent) or rules to compensate >> rinse and repeat

It doesn't meant that getting rid of points will get rid of exploits. AoS has created exploits already, like the air only army, the turn one losing army, and the infinite summoning army. More will come with every new war scroll, because GW are writing the kind of special rules that create these situations.

well I am not sure those are exploits, more like double edged swords.. the all summoning army means you will auto lose since summons all count as dead the more you summon the more you lose (so you gotta summon smartly), the turn one losing army I still do not get (explain that and please do not say the skaven bell thing, that has been debunked plenty of times, you cannot get 13 from 2 d6) and the air only army (or carrion) is not an exploit, its an automatic draw :/ since no one gets damaged... but if by all air you mean the army just tries to run away, well that only works against certain armies, if I take all engineers and steam tanks, you are not GOING anywhere :/

they are all just really weird ways to play and this is why we have scenarios and such

No idea how it sells in other countries, but I check the polish e-stores I know off, all cut the initial price on all AoS stuff. So at least here it does not sell well. Oddly enough tournament players have no problems with AoS. They still have the ETC rules pack, people have their armies, only thing that people worry about is the lack of new players.

but if by all air you mean the army just tries to run away, well that only works against certain armies, if I take all engineers and steam tanks, you are not GOING anywhere :/

only what is the chance that someone has an army made out of steam tanks, compering to an undead player having two units of corrions? That is like having a bad or counter match up vs FW models or a FW army. Sure maybe somewhere people have those, but the chance anyone will play them is very low.

the all summoning army means you will auto lose since summons all count as dead the more you summon the more you lose

Not playing a summoning army, but a few people here do. Where in the rules do it say that summond units count as dead?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

1. Sure but there's no serious strategising in AoS to speak of and GW didn't make a game where your strategic skills are tested.

2. They took Slaneesh out. It's either to not scare mums out of the store or because they got scared of political corectness police. So either a game is for kids or politicaly censored, both crap.

3. No point costs are toxic to other types of players, and those will stop playing as well. The difference is that previously it took only saying "let's ignore points" for fluffbunies to play their way, now it takes tons of work to come up with anything resembling balance for competitve players. But the former seem to nothing but rejoice about getting rid of "toxic black hearted jocks rampaging tbrouth the community" which kind of shows how hypocrytical the whole bunch is.

How can AoS be censored. You have dudes wearing other dudes skins, horrible deformations and diseases in it. they would have to put everyon in power armor like eternals to make it kid friendly.

Makumba wrote:
No idea how it sells in other countries, but I check the polish e-stores I know off, all cut the initial price on all AoS stuff. So at least here it does not sell well. Oddly enough tournament players have no problems with AoS. They still have the ETC rules pack, people have their armies, only thing that people worry about is the lack of new players.

but if by all air you mean the army just tries to run away, well that only works against certain armies, if I take all engineers and steam tanks, you are not GOING anywhere :/

only what is the chance that someone has an army made out of steam tanks, compering to an undead player having two units of corrions? That is like having a bad or counter match up vs FW models or a FW army. Sure maybe somewhere people have those, but the chance anyone will play them is very low.

the all summoning army means you will auto lose since summons all count as dead the more you summon the more you lose

Not playing a summoning army, but a few people here do. Where in the rules do it say that summond units count as dead?

page 2 of the rules leaflet..."models added to your army during the game(for example through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnations and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties an army suffers"... This is of course if you are trying to figure out who won if you have not won outright.. Obviously scenarios are all different but I would assume the summoning rules applies in most situations as you could take necromancers and just summon yourself to victory.


Regarding your first comment, if someone takes a SINGLES carrion unit against some else he will clearly not play and you can just put you minis away and if he does you will kill him quickly.. If he takes ONLY carrion units then the same steam tank rule applies, who exactly has multiple carrions? by the way I am aiming to get 12 steamtanks and an all flying army... And a casket of souls liche priest horde with skellies.. AND a gargant army for destruction... I am just buying the minis I like now and waiting for new releases... Hoping for better eagle models or I might have to get lotr eagles.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

1. Sure but there's no serious strategising in AoS to speak of and GW didn't make a game where your strategic skills are tested.

Ah. I don't have a lot of experience with the ruleset yet, so you could be right.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
2. They took Slaneesh out. It's either to not scare mums out of the store or because they got scared of political corectness police. So either a game is for kids or politicaly censored, both crap.

Have... have you actually read the story? Slaanesh is missing, apparently captured. The story specifically says that Slaanesh's followers are active and looking for him. The book features photographs of daemonettes.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
3. No point costs are toxic to other types of players, and those will stop playing as well. The difference is that previously it took only saying "let's ignore points" for fluffbunies to play their way, now it takes tons of work to come up with anything resembling balance for competitve players. But the former seem to nothing but rejoice about getting rid of "toxic black hearted jocks rampaging tbrouth the community" which kind of shows how hypocrytical the whole bunch is.

I have replied to the small part of this that is not an attack on people who disagree with you before, but to sum up: points have created a culture where the default way to play is to use points, even though they have huge issues with balance due to not taking into account your army's composition, your enemy's army's composition, the scenario or the terrain. Removing points altogether may be the only way to actually get people to use their heads to create balance instead of leaning on points. That's part of why I find it interesting.