So long as points doesn't slowly become the standard way to play in their publications etc then all good. Well done GW, amazing the turnaround we've seen at that company of late.
Hopefully the campaign style will have some more campaign systems similar to the Chaos one at christmas but more detailed.
It's not really so trolly down here so, whatcha 'all think?
Admire your optimism, but there's already 3 names I know I'll see in here before the end of the day...
Points values was unexpected, however the statement fits with AoS thus far - here's a toolkit for playing games with our minis, use the bits you want.
As long as points are an 'additional rule' rather than a default setting, good work.
Until people start ripping the points system to bits, obviously...
Yeah, this can't be anything but good. Those that are fine with the game as it exists, sans points, can still play that way, and get extra goodness in the form of campaign support, while those wanting something a little more competitive and structured, whether for tournament or pick-up play, also get what they want!
Working with the established community tournament scene for balancing is a great move, they'll get a much wider pool of data and experience to balance around than just in-house playtesting!
So long as this doesn't require us to buy a £50 rulebook to get this stuff (unlikely given the track record with AoS being free) then it's brilliant!
I am happy with the additional playing options. I'd be interested to see if there will be scenarios with outlined forces, for example "The Fall of Pupa Grotese" or "Archaon's Arena" or whatever. On the more grim side I also suspect taht the first two options may become less and less used with the addition of points and standardized army sizes. It doesn't concern me as I don't have a FLGS to game in so I would not be bothered at all.
It's not really so trolly down here so, whatcha 'all think?
Admire your optimism, but there's already 3 names I know I'll see in here before the end of the day...
Points values was unexpected, however the statement fits with AoS thus far - here's a toolkit for playing games with our minis, use the bits you want.
As long as points are an 'additional rule' rather than a default setting, good work.
Until people start ripping the points system to bits, obviously...
I can guess. I have started using the ignore button on Dakka and Warseer and it's...just glorious I'm excited for this. I don't anticipate problems for myself as no matter where I play we will play what we want with the rules we want, and if it is an event, then what their comp pack or guidelines are. Simple simple. But I do hope this makes the gaming forums a bit more pleasant for a while.
The fact that there's going to be a point system version of the game makes me want to play it now. Actually it was the biggest reason why no one at my FLGS picked it up when it first came out, this should solve that problem.
Why is that a strike? I'm assuming you don't like the SCGT comp packet? If Heelan, Curry and Russ Veal worked on this I feel pretty darn good about it for when we go to events that use Matched play. Don't really see a lo of Matched play games for myself really but who knows--we know nothing yet.
VeteranNoob wrote: Why is that a strike? I'm assuming you don't like the SCGT comp packet? If Heelan, Curry and Russ Veal worked on this I feel pretty darn good about it for when we go to events that use Matched play. Don't really see a lo of Matched play games for myself really but who knows--we know nothing yet.
I was replying to a previous post, sorry!
I have zero interest in a comp system at the moment, but for GW to option one from the community is very smart for a number of reasons.
For now, I'm more interested to see what the campaign system is.
Best case scenario/campaign stuff is some kind of ability to create your own Hero and have them gain experience, acquire weapons and skills, grow their army... the fluff is already a great sandbox for this, if they can create rules to match then that will be perfect. This is far more viable for AoS than 40k, in only because without points, you can't create an OP character, as it's all relative. Conversely, there's no need to try and balance the system, just give us the tools to go wild!
I am optimistic that this along with a number of changes and announcements over the last few months (return of specialist games, the boxed set starter packs and stand alone games etc) that GW actually has made a turn for the better.
TheWanderer wrote: I am optimistic that this along with a number of changes and announcements over the last few months (return of specialist games, the boxed set starter packs and stand alone games etc) that GW actually has made a turn for the better.
Well this is interesting to say the least....mind you this is all stuff that should have been done in the first place. You know, actually providing a structure to play instead of winging it.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Well this is interesting to say the least....mind you this is all stuff that should have been done in the first place. You know, actually providing a structure to play instead of winging it.
We'll see how this plays out.
My own theory would go along the "too litle, too late" line.
They were bleeding sales because of pricing, they amputated a sizeable part of the player corps with AoS launch.
A points system only addresses one part of the equation, and they have forced a lot of former players to find new ways to play with their old GW minis (9th, KoW) so those are unlikely to come back.
I'll certainly give the points system a try as long as I don't have to pay for it, though.
It's quite a U turn, and probably indicates a serious problem with the game's progress so far that GW are concerned to address.
At least, that's the only logical reason for now announcing new play modes which in the case of narrative were supposedly included at the start because points supposedly were the devil's work and inimical to narrative play, so they weren't included.
The big plus of this is that it shows GW are beginning to learn from their mistakes. The next step is for them to stop such mistakes from being published in the first case.
Da Boss wrote: A positive move. Should have been there from the start though. We will see if this helps the game, but I fear too many are gone and won't come back.
The sheer price of the miniatures (especially the AoS specific ones) will keep a lot of players away from the GW shelves, if not from playing the game.
Da Boss wrote: A positive move. Should have been there from the start though. We will see if this helps the game, but I fear too many are gone and won't come back.
The sheer price of the miniatures (especially the AoS specific ones) will keep a lot of players away from the GW shelves, if not from playing the game.
I will definitely be looking into the game.
Maybe pass on the square bases I sent you to someone else :-p you're gonna need circles now ;-)
Da Boss wrote: A positive move. Should have been there from the start though. We will see if this helps the game, but I fear too many are gone and won't come back.
The sheer price of the miniatures (especially the AoS specific ones) will keep a lot of players away from the GW shelves, if not from playing the game.
I will definitely be looking into the game.
Maybe pass on the square bases I sent you to someone else :-p you're gonna need circles now ;-)
I thought AoS did not care for base size or shape?
Da Boss wrote: A positive move. Should have been there from the start though. We will see if this helps the game, but I fear too many are gone and won't come back.
The sheer price of the miniatures (especially the AoS specific ones) will keep a lot of players away from the GW shelves, if not from playing the game.
I will definitely be looking into the game.
Maybe pass on the square bases I sent you to someone else :-p you're gonna need circles now ;-)
Oh those bases have already been occupied by the casts I made for my FB elves, worry not. I just need to pin/glue the elves down.
If I make an AoS Shadow Warrior warband I'll be basing them on 25mm circular bases, just like I did my Mordheim WB. I got hundreds of those.
GW is at least responding to criticism about one of their products. The last time that happened was the 6th Edition Dark Elf army book. So good on them for doing it but I imagine it is too little, too late to mend the bridges with the community.
If it helps offset that by bringing in more new players then it's a smart move overall.
I've got to know - for all the people who jumped on the "points are poison" narrative when AoS was first released, whats your reaction, especially if the points-based play becomes the norm? Dejectedly accept it and continue to play? Angrily tell everyone that points will now ruin AoS, burn your sigmarines, and put the video on youtube?
I've got to know - for all the people who jumped on the "points are poison" narrative when AoS was first released, whats your reaction, especially if the points-based play becomes the norm? Dejectedly accept it and continue to play? Angrily tell everyone that points will now ruin AoS, burn your sigmarines, and put the video on youtube?
I'll tell them that if they want to play Competitive format? Go play in a tournament.
I've got to know - for all the people who jumped on the "points are poison" narrative when AoS was first released, whats your reaction, especially if the points-based play becomes the norm? Dejectedly accept it and continue to play? Angrily tell everyone that points will now ruin AoS, burn your sigmarines, and put the video on youtube?
I don't think he means that points will ruin AoS - he's been working on Azyr comp since the beginning. I think his concern is that once GW's official system comes out all other community comps will stop in their tracks.
I suspect that GW won't push points that hard tbh. Reckon it'll largely be like it is now just with an official stamp on the comp system (the others will likely disappear).
Dai wrote: I suspect that GW won't push points that hard tbh. Reckon it'll largely be like it is now just with an official stamp on the comp system (the others will likely disappear).
They will push it if the economical opportunity presents itself, trust me.
Dan from SCGT playing with Jervis lol! Guess they had a game once all the business was sorted :-)
I wonder how Dan feels, playing against an opponent who thinks his points system is "well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a good game" and "fighting against the underlying strengths of the hobby"?
The way they introduced this is the best I could have hoped for. I'm relieved they have brought the SCGT guys on board instead of trying to come up with their own thing. The SCGT guys also promote the spirit of AoS (the tournament was scenario and campaign themed) and they're just about the perfect group to have input on this.
Heelanhammer deserves a ton of props. They were one of the main beacons of positivity and hope in the early days of the game, the game has grown because of them, and now they are taking on a bigger role in it.
I understood how to play without points and enjoyed it, but I liked the option comp systems provided as well. Clearly, the lack of any official options for this kind of play put a lot of people off. AoS has been gaining a lot of momentum online and I think this is a good step for the health of the game and community.
I would also like to see even more of a campaign system push beyond just the scenarios in the books.
Edit: And for Dan's sake, I've gotta... ONLY THE FAITHFUL!
Dai wrote: I suspect that GW won't push points that hard tbh. Reckon it'll largely be like it is now just with an official stamp on the comp system (the others will likely disappear).
They will push it if the economical opportunity presents itself, trust me.
I don't think he means that points will ruin AoS - he's been working on Azyr comp since the beginning. I think his concern is that once GW's official system comes out all other community comps will stop in their tracks.
Yeah I don't think points will ruin the game. However, by GW officially endorsing SCGT comp, this effectively kills all of the other community efforts.
So thats why I say - I'm off the bus. I'm not interested in having to play with SCGT comp unless I was going to one of their events, and now here locally if I want to play I will have to use SCGT comp.
There are other games out there and I will find one that interests me.
Tournament culture, once it seeps into your community, will do more than cut the AOS fanbase in half. It will choke out and kill non tournament styled events.
Its either get on board or find something else to do with your time.
auticus wrote: Tournament culture, once it seeps into your community, will do more than cut the AOS fanbase in half. It will choke out and kill non tournament styled events.
Its either get on board or find something else to do with your time.
Spoken as though "tournament culture" is a bad thing that somehow means you can't play casually or narrative. I think I remember you, you posted a lot on BOLS right? Always posting about how "competitive players" ruined everything? Had a Spartan-esque helmet as your Disqus avatar? Anyways, you're entitled to your viewpoint. I find having SOME sort of balance is going to help everybody (this is true in virtually all games). It won't impede "Hey let's play a campaign" it might just make it a little more fair. To put in perspective I wanted nothing to do with AOS because it seemed like an unbalanced mess, literally pick any old thing you want, plonk it down and tell your opponent to deal with it or feth off elsewhere. GW introducing a points system (or, rather, borrowing one from what looks like it's a big-name tournament) curbs that random "nyah nyah can't stop me from doing this" kindergarten-esque attitude, while still allowing for balanced games AND skewed narrative type games where appropriate.
I am interested in AOS for the first time in, well, ever. My local GW store is talking of a league and campaign, and I find myself actually considering dropping some cash to play in it (and hoping they do it in the summer when I'll have money). All because it looks like some baby steps will be taken to make the game fair.
Hm, good news those are. I'm quite curious to see what the campaign mode will be. I thought the campaign books were exactly this, but hey, I'm always glad to try new ways to play.
Spoken as though "tournament culture" is a bad thing that somehow means you can't play casually or narrative.
If your community is all tournament culture then yes it does mean you cannot play casually or narratively because you can't find an opponent that will play like that.
We had several community initiatives for points. GW endorsing one killed all the others off. Now its either SCGT comp or sorry for your luck.
Great if you are a fan of tournament culture and/or SCGT comp. Not so great otherwise.
I'm very glad we're beginning to see a GW that responds to customer demand, as there is clearly demand for the ability to play AOS in a tournament format.
That said, here's my at least partially negative take on a GW official points system:
when GW decided to leave out points, fans moved in to create new comp and point systems to make the game fair.
Having been a fan of 40k, I've watched the insane pendulum of points imbalances drive armies from also-rans to champions and back with every passing codex edition. GW is very slow to address issues like these, and so I see Wraithknights everywhere, but I never see a Gorkanaut, just because one codex designer wanted a flying god and the other felt an expensive fragile dreadnought would be sufficient, without points to represent the power difference.
So, I trust fans to make a better system, that is more responsive to imbalances. With GW now supporting an "official" system, I see players quickly becoming resistant to the independent systems in favor of square edged officialness. And, in turn, expect players to be chained to a stogy, imbalanced, slow to self-correct system.
Heelan's involvement is great news, and partially addresses my concerns. But, when listening to Heelanhammer I also know that their outlook is one that favors throwing units out into the banned list the moment GW stops selling it. Even still, having seen the good they've already done for pushing AOS tournaments, I can't think of a group I'd rather have GW ear when putting this together.
Can't help but feel really excited about this info, and what it will mean for the community. As long as they do this whole points-system good it will in my opinion be the best thing so far for AoS.
Spoken as though "tournament culture" is a bad thing that somehow means you can't play casually or narrative.
It kinda does.
When a community of players starts to get the "tournament culture" going, some of them take it way way too far--and it drags everyone else down unless they choose to ostracize those who take it too far. I had what should have been an hour long AoS match(at the longest!) yesterday turn into two hours because of arguments over what amounted to nothing, all because the one guy kept trying to rules lawyer every single damn thing.
GW said all legacy warscrolls will be included. There's going to be a podcast out this week on it with Heelanhammer, Facehammer and Bad Dice, so I think Ben Curry has some involvement too.
I'm expecting that they will be refreshing the pool choices/points cost at least annually so that we aren't stuck with the slow-to-correct system of the past. The more involved those guys are, the more optimistic I am.
Spoken as though "tournament culture" is a bad thing that somehow means you can't play casually or narrative.
It kinda does.
When a community of players starts to get the "tournament culture" going, some of them take it way way too far--and it drags everyone else down unless they choose to ostracize those who take it too far. I had what should have been an hour long AoS match(at the longest!) yesterday turn into two hours because of arguments over what amounted to nothing, all because the one guy kept trying to rules lawyer every single damn thing.
That's up to each group.
We're a tournament group. We organise and attend tournaments nationwide and anyone trying go all rules-lawyer will be gently warned then quietly ostracized from the community and will soon find he's not getting any games. It's happened to us occasionally, and we even managed to convince one of them to change his ways.
The others have since moved to MtG, X-wing or whatever they feel like playing now. Just not with us.
So yeah, there's such a thing as a laid-back tournament community.
Spoken as though "tournament culture" is a bad thing that somehow means you can't play casually or narrative.
It kinda does.
When a community of players starts to get the "tournament culture" going, some of them take it way way too far--and it drags everyone else down unless they choose to ostracize those who take it too far. I had what should have been an hour long AoS match(at the longest!) yesterday turn into two hours because of arguments over what amounted to nothing, all because the one guy kept trying to rules lawyer every single damn thing.
That is an issue with the community itself, not with the game. The majority should unanimously oust the minority if they are that toxic. No matter how loud they shout, the minority of a gaming community will always be the minority and subjected to the desires of the majority of the playes.
Now, if the new implementation of AoS is more attractive to the majority of a community however...
Here's hoping you find something else out there. Wish you all the best!
As for me, the points are concerning though at least it's from a established comp system.
I'm hoping this doesn't end up cutting the AoS fanbase in half between competitive players and for fun players.
@VeteranNoob, ah, the ignore button, I was wondering how you could stand plumbing the slimey depths that is Warseer.
Heh. The ignore button has been a godsend. Don't know why I didn't use it earlier and only relied on myself to skip names and skim (to me) worthless posts that contributed nothing.
While today the chunks in warseer threads are more prominent than normal it's a different kind of ignore to me. My Dakka ignore list is quite short but these are more antagonistic or mean-spirited posts, whereas the ones on Warseer are more troll or obscenely negative every. Damn. Post. A great tool, I recommend.
Some great responses in here, it's great to see that the AoS community is open to this - hopefully it will give the game a chance to gain broader adoption! Nice work both by GW and the SCGT guys
Spoken as though "tournament culture" is a bad thing that somehow means you can't play casually or narrative.
It kinda does.
When a community of players starts to get the "tournament culture" going, some of them take it way way too far--and it drags everyone else down unless they choose to ostracize those who take it too far. I had what should have been an hour long AoS match(at the longest!) yesterday turn into two hours because of arguments over what amounted to nothing, all because the one guy kept trying to rules lawyer every single damn thing.
Careful now - that sword cuts both ways.
When a community of players starts to get the "casual/narrative culture" going, some of them take it way way too far - some use 'tournament' and 'tournament players' as dirty words and look down snidely at anyone who enjoys that kind of thing as though they're immoral and terrible people--and it drags everyone else down unless they choose to ostracize those who take it too far. I had what should have been an hour long AoS match(at the longest!) yesterday turn into two hours because of arguments over what amounted to nothing, all because the one guy kept whining about everything I did, and everything I took, because it offended his sensibilities for what he arbitrarily decided amounted to 'fun' and 'the right way of playing'.
Sadly, I know 'casual at all costs' people who play wargames this way, and they're just as toxic to the community as any kind of win at all cost scrub. We've had posts here since the launch of Aos that have echoed the above paragraph.
There is nothing wrong with 'tournament culture'. Rules lawyering however isn't necessarily indicative of tournament culture as it is poor social dynamics and a Waac approach to 'gaming' the grey areas in the rules, and sadly this kind of scrub behaviour exists in all areas, whether competitive or casual. Trying to nail it down as 'tournament culture' is innacurate if you ask me.
For me, it'll come down to two things; 1) that points remain an optional extra, and 2) I'm hoping that points never make it into print. An online, living resource that gets updated periodically.
That would be awesome.
* scenarios that are not balanced shall never be used
* scenarios that seem balanced but are not because they make unit points inaccurate shall never be used. Ex: unit may be good at pitched battle but cannot hold objectives well, so its points are high for pitched battle but "thats not fair" for the objective mission.
* scenarios that are not seen in tournament play are heavily discouraged
Also you will notice that everyone's builds are very samey. They are the "optimal builds" which renders 90% of what you could see wasted.
That is what I consider tournament culture. It makes story-based gaming very difficult because a lot of story scenarios are *not* balanced.
If everyone could play how they liked it wouldn't be a problem but thats not often the case. You typically must conform to how your community plays if you want to participate.
Personally - I like points. I think points are great. I don't want to be mandated that I have to use the SCGT system though and I don't want to be prevented from playing campaign styled unbalanced scenarios, and that has been an issue I've fought for twenty plus years where I am.
auticus wrote: Let me clear on what I deem "tournament culture"
* all games must be balanced at all times
* scenarios that are not balanced shall never be used
* scenarios that seem balanced but are not because they make unit points inaccurate shall never be used. Ex: unit may be good at pitched battle but cannot hold objectives well, so its points are high for pitched battle but "thats not fair" for the objective mission.
* scenarios that are not seen in tournament play are heavily discouraged
Also you will notice that everyone's builds are very samey. They are the "optimal builds" which renders 90% of what you could see wasted.
That is what I consider tournament culture. It makes story-based gaming very difficult because a lot of story scenarios are *not* balanced.
If everyone could play how they liked it wouldn't be a problem but thats not often the case. You typically must conform to how your community plays if you want to participate.
Personally - I like points. I think points are great. I don't want to be mandated that I have to use the SCGT system though and I don't want to be prevented from playing campaign styled unbalanced scenarios, and that has been an issue I've fought for twenty plus years where I am.
Those things are fine... for a tournament. But WHFB of old had imbalanced scenarios (Last Stand, anyone? IIRC the Attacker had twice as many points as the Defender) and was still flavorful for narratives. I think you are blowing this out of proportion. Points allow for the above, which is great if you want to have a tournament and people want to prep for it. It's not mutually exclusive to having imbalanced forces or scenarios as part of a narrative game where there are custom objectives that fit the story.
Also you will notice that everyone's builds are very samey. They are the "optimal builds" which renders 90% of what you could see wasted.
I agree with this. With a tournament scene present a meta-environment eventually surfaces. It would be splendid if its influence was limited to tournaments only, but unfortunately, IMO, it seeps out. Most players tend to have limited amount of cash and would want to buy only stuff that would give them maximum bang for their buck (utility, power, ratio points/models etc). Having the tournament meta seeping out of its borders may reflect on their purchases, hence the "samey" lists you're seeing.
auticus wrote: Let me clear on what I deem "tournament culture"
* all games must be balanced at all times
* scenarios that are not balanced shall never be used
* scenarios that seem balanced but are not because they make unit points inaccurate shall never be used. Ex: unit may be good at pitched battle but cannot hold objectives well, so its points are high for pitched battle but "thats not fair" for the objective mission.
* scenarios that are not seen in tournament play are heavily discouraged
Also you will notice that everyone's builds are very samey. They are the "optimal builds" which renders 90% of what you could see wasted.
That is what I consider tournament culture. It makes story-based gaming very difficult because a lot of story scenarios are *not* balanced.
If everyone could play how they liked it wouldn't be a problem but thats not often the case. You typically must conform to how your community plays if you want to participate.
Personally - I like points. I think points are great. I don't want to be mandated that I have to use the SCGT system though and I don't want to be prevented from playing campaign styled unbalanced scenarios, and that has been an issue I've fought for twenty plus years where I am.
I understand your concerns but as long as there is no 'roll for game-type' like we saw in 8th - I don't think we'll see players abandoning all the amazing scenarios. They will still be a big part of AoS as they are so central to the campaign books.
I want to use both together - unbalanced scenarios with points. When a scenario says one side should be a third bigger (like the ritual does IIRC) then I want to play with one player having 33% more points. You could even do that with the sudden death rules in the 4 page rules - could be fun :-)
I really think that GW have done an amazing job at pushing the narrative play of AoS and offering an alternative is not going to destroy all that hard work. I imagine the implementation of the points system to be very unintrusive too, perhaps just a quick link at the bottom of the website like the legacy PDFs
Auticus, I don't think that GW releasing their own points is going to kill community comps because the latter has had almost a year to get its roots in. What I do think it will do is filter out the comps that simply don't cut it in terms of what people are looking for; it will set a minimum benchmark that a comp needs to exceed in quality in order to draw a following. Also note that SCGT favors big expensive models as being worth more on a per-point basis (see: the winning tournament armies). With GW involved I doubt that will change. In fact I believe that is part of the reason they got involved with SCGT in the first place; if they had run a successful tournament where most players brought cheaper plastic kits I am not sure GW would have jumped on board. Players who get sick of having their blocks of infantry run over by the latest $100+ model release will be looking for something else.
Thats fine. I'm going to get out of this hobby for a few years and check back then and see how things are. Sometimes taking a step back for a few years is what is needed. I know in the hey day of 7th edition I had to do the same thing because I was pretty burnt on the community and tournament gaming then and when I came back a few years later it was pretty strong and I had a lot of fun.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Auticus, I don't think that GW releasing their own points is going to kill community comps because the latter has had almost a year to get its roots in. What I do think it will do is filter out the comps that simply don't cut it in terms of what people are looking for; it will set a minimum benchmark that a comp needs to exceed in quality in order to draw a following. Also note that SCGT favors big expensive models as being worth more on a per-point basis (see: the winning tournament armies). With GW involved I doubt that will change. In fact I believe that is part of the reason they got involved with SCGT in the first place; if they had run a successful tournament where most players brought cheaper plastic kits I am not sure GW would have jumped on board. Players who get sick of having their blocks of infantry run over by the latest $100+ model release will be looking for something else.
Ha! Probably right. Armies of 5 centre piece models! Although it will be interesting to see how SCGT scales at lower point values (say 50 or 25) and if there are going to be any restrictions on army structure or not.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Auticus, I don't think that GW releasing their own points is going to kill community comps because the latter has had almost a year to get its roots in. What I do think it will do is filter out the comps that simply don't cut it in terms of what people are looking for; it will set a minimum benchmark that a comp needs to exceed in quality in order to draw a following. Also note that SCGT favors big expensive models as being worth more on a per-point basis (see: the winning tournament armies). With GW involved I doubt that will change. In fact I believe that is part of the reason they got involved with SCGT in the first place; if they had run a successful tournament where most players brought cheaper plastic kits I am not sure GW would have jumped on board. Players who get sick of having their blocks of infantry run over by the latest $100+ model release will be looking for something else.
Ha! Probably right. Armies of 5 centre piece models! Although it will be interesting to see how SCGT scales at lower point values (say 50 or 25) and if there are going to be any restrictions on army structure or not.
To be honest, I'll be chilling with my buds playing PPC regardless of how it turns out. I have next to no faith that GW will produce a points system balanced enough for what I want in a game.
Baron Klatz wrote: @VeteranNoob, 90% of Warseer posts are usually nothing but complaints. That's even before AoS arrived.
After I saw that Ultimate life form fellow get upset about the red sauce, brown sauce joke-yeah, never going browsing through that site again.
Kudos to you for always being a positive light in a troll cavern, though.
It's not all bad but I've rolled back my involvement. Hobby blogs are nice and the "AoS-friendly" threads are nice for AoS as users respect that request to leave those areas alone. The BL portion is my fav. But sometimes you just have to step away for a bit. The ignore button...I endorse this
I think with a balancing mechanism, AoS becomes a lot more attractive to me as a fast, loose, easy to get into game.
If I can get a game done in an hour and have a good time I might end up playing again, which frankly would be great as I don't get to wargame much any more.
I rely on PUG and points make sorting that out much easier, especially as I have to do it through my third language!
I am hoping that "standard game size" does not happen or if it does it is at the skirmish end of thing. One thing that annoyed me about the 40K and Fantasy meta of years gone by was the push for more and more models all the time.
Do I even start complaining about I just bought all the Grand Alliance books and now there is no point costs in there and will now have to buy new GA books with point costs?
I kid. Just joking here.
I am wondering how we will be able to use the GA books. I am hoping that there will be a PDF with a list of the units that will show the point cost and a page number to the corresponding book.
WayneTheGame wrote: literally pick any old thing you want, plonk it down and tell your opponent to deal with it or feth off elsewhere.
This is really sad to read. I've been playing AoS since October and not once an opponent did or said that. It always comes down to a conversation, a bargain, or a challenge, and it's always been in good spirits.
What you're saying is exactly how points work: Here, I have this OP comp I found on internet, it's legit, deal with it or feth off elsewhere.
auticus wrote: GW endorsing one killed all the others off. Now its either SCGT comp or sorry for your luck.
And now GW's will even kill that one. But that is the goal, or at least one of them. When 100+ people are getting together for a single event, which they themselves organized with zero official support, and they're using fan-made rules ... this is a problem for Nottingham. For GW, rules are part of the marketing for models. And GW naturally wants to control how its products are marketed.
Haechi wrote: What you're saying is exactly how points work: Here, I have this OP comp I found on internet, it's legit, deal with it or feth off elsewhere.
Exactly correct. And in fact, that is one of the main goals of the points mechanic. "If it is legal, you cannot object."
NinthMusketeer wrote: Auticus, I don't think that GW releasing their own points is going to kill community comps because the latter has had almost a year to get its roots in. What I do think it will do is filter out the comps that simply don't cut it in terms of what people are looking for; it will set a minimum benchmark that a comp needs to exceed in quality in order to draw a following. Also note that SCGT favors big expensive models as being worth more on a per-point basis (see: the winning tournament armies). With GW involved I doubt that will change. In fact I believe that is part of the reason they got involved with SCGT in the first place; if they had run a successful tournament where most players brought cheaper plastic kits I am not sure GW would have jumped on board. Players who get sick of having their blocks of infantry run over by the latest $100+ model release will be looking for something else.
I think what it will likely do is drive comp back to where it was in the days of 8th, likely they will be an additional flavouring on top of the official points that GW provides. It's very difficult to sell comps like they are at the moment (Which is largely re-pointing effort), as it'll be hard to get buy-in from players. They'll always have the question of "Why aren't we using the official points".
That being said, I have high hopes for it. I *hope* that GW will commit to revising points on a regular basis like the current comp systems do. Every 6 months or however long, take a look at the feedback, revise points, post an updating version on the website. This is one of the huge advantages of not printing the points on the warscrolls themself, and that's the fact you can always tweak the points cost. We won't have to sit through entire editions of the game anymore where one or a few armies totally own the meta-game because they're too cheap for what they do.
I also hope that they stick to something simplistic in terms of points like Clash/SCGT (I mean, all indications lead to it likely being SCGT anyway). I don't think we really want to go back to precise points anymore.
Hoping they tidy up summoning rules as well.
Overall, definitely keen to see what comes out of it. Non-fussed about them introducing points, in fact, I think it's a good thing in some ways that they didn't do it straight away. If they had done it straight away, people would've been asking why they don't just print the points on the scrolls. Now, they can have a supplementary document that has more fine-tuned rules for competitive play as well as points that can always be changed at any time.
I don't think this will have any impact on Scenario based gameplay. We play scenario games as well as using the Clash comp pool choices document, haven't played a standard 'kill' game since 2015. Points certainly won't be the death of that, and I'll be really interested to see what GW do in terms of campaign based games as well.
Overall, young kids or people new to the game, they can just play with warscrolls right out of the box and not have to worry about points or any of that stuff. Just play with the standard rules. Those looking for a more evenly matched playing field, they can look to the points and the fine-tuned rules. Works for all I reckon.
Kilkrazy wrote: The big plus of this is that it shows GW are beginning to learn from their mistakes. The next step is for them to stop such mistakes from being published in the first case.
Indeed. GW never should have assigned "points" or supported "competitive" play... Those were huge mistakes.
Finaly GW making sense about AoS, the free warscrolls are perfect engine for an ongoing balanced effort. It was really a shame to see the potential getting wasted.
Hope enough people ask for better rules now.
Also hope enough people ask for sigmarine-less whfblol.
Anyway good sign for the future, GW trying to fix their mistakes. Also while the signs of positive changes could be seen before, I think this in particular is quite an indication of sales being far below expectation.
Barring the lottery chance that GW pulls off a perfect comp, I'll be continuing with PPC. If someone doesn't want to play with that then I have no issue, I just won't be playing with that person because what we want out of the game is different. I have enough friends that will keep using PPC that I'll still get in pick-up games at the least.
Kilkrazy wrote: The big plus of this is that it shows GW are beginning to learn from their mistakes. The next step is for them to stop such mistakes from being published in the first case.
Indeed. GW never should have assigned "points" or supported "competitive" play... Those were huge mistakes.
Generally speaking, both the 'use of points' and 'competitive play' are fine.
A better approach is to simply assign a more robust points system and support competitive play properly rather than gw's usual 'dartboard' approach. It's amazing the results when you do things properly.
Generally speaking, not every game needs to be tailored to competitive and/or pick-up play. The results of looking at things from a different perspective once in a while are amazing.
Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.) I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.
The basic movement and combat of AoS is simple enough that the statline can easily be "costed". The key words and the special rules are what will cause problems, as with 40K.
As soon as you start invoking "good" and "bad" in those terms, you're already assuming a PUG perspective. And even setting aside the tautological nature of arguing that balance is good because it's balanced, that's not even applicable here - because the goal of AoS is not PUG-style balance, which is completely evident from the design. Adding points on the back end of a design that does not care about balance does not suddenly transform the design into its opposite.
When you look at how stats work in AoS, you're not going to find a system that elegantly creates genuinely different options. KK, I believe you have even posted about this elsewhere. But the insight I draw from that observation is not that AoS should have been XYZ instead; rather I am more interested in why it is the way it is - and I'm not just going to dismiss the designers as stupid and/or lazy. I think the clunkiness of the statline system serves a purpose: even if units are mathematically very similar, what matters is that they feel different when you play them. In a more pure sense of gaming, there may actually be very little difference in some of the units, barring their crazy highly random/highly dramatic special rules, but as long as there is an illusion of difference that comes out while dice are being rolled, the system is pulling its weight.
Haechi wrote: What you're saying is exactly how points work: Here, I have this OP comp I found on internet, it's legit, deal with it or feth off elsewhere.
Exactly correct. And in fact, that is one of the main goals of the points mechanic. "If it is legal, you cannot object."
So is it all pick up games again or what? Because I thought it's about circles of mature gamers and the bliss of communicating.
You guys can't just make claims like that after months of preaching about a new better gamer enabled by AoS.
Manchu wrote: I'm not really sure what you are on about.
PUGs are fine. But not every game needs to be one. Very simple.
It seems like you are suggesting that point system will somehow corrupt the playerbase into "wrong" (for AoS) type of playing and that somehow people will be forced to accept broken armies because point system. Looks weird after all the claims that AoS is mainly played by established groups that can solve everything through communication. If it is really like that then point system is not a problem for those players at all, only helps those that want it.
The problem I have with tacking on a points system is that it creates a false impression that suddenly AoS will be fine for pick-up gaming when it will actually still suck for pick-up gaming, at least compared to a game actually designed for that.
Also I have no faith that GW's points assignments will please anybody - not least of all because I expect them to be created in the usual GW black box method with no transparency.
We will continue to play AoS as we have been and will just disregard any tacked-on points nonsense. I expect we will not be alone in that. But the fact that such a thing is even out there will function as a kind of trap for gamers. One thing very clearly established by the debate around AoS is that many folks cannot or can just barely imagine a world in which minaitures games do not absolutely require points costed options ... which is of course terrifyingly myopic but that's the way it is, nonetheless. And so even a points system that is a total afterthought will end up having too much prominence, certainly far, far more than it deserves.
The other thing is, the real worry for anyone who actually like AoS, rather than the well-meaning busybodies who want to "fix" it, is that GW will basically shift the whole game laterally back to some kind of hot mess of meaningless points like the current 40k morass.
To be fair, this will be the first time in a LONG time GW have pointed up units all at once. A significant part of the problem that WHFB had and 40k still has is that GW don't update point costs as they change editions. Doing everything together at once has the best bet of being balanced of anything GW have done in the last decade. It'll be interesting to see if they can pull it off or not.
Honestly, whatever random numbers end up painted over the AoS units won't matter, at least as far as balancing goes. No part of the game incorporates any meaningful attempt at balance. Wrapping it up in points values is not going to change the contents. But it will change the expectations of people trying to play. Or I should say, it will reinforce the expectations of those who approach AoS as if it is/should be a PUG.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: you can have a community enjoying a balanced game without the TFG/Tournament mindset kicking in
True and shouldn't even be in dispute. Anyone who doubts this, please take a look at the Great British Hobbit League tournament scene, which reportedly has a very high ratio of fluffy armies. That said ... the current iteration of SBG has been carefully calibrated over successive versions to create a more and more balanced game, even despite being initially marketed for scenario play rather than as a PUG. But that is a design that, in KK's words above, entailed "balance built in from the core" ... unlike AoS.
It's not really so trolly down here so, whatcha 'all think?
Admire your optimism, but there's already 3 names I know I'll see in here before the end of the day...
I'd be disappointed if one of those three isn't me.
Should I punch the card as well? xD
Sorry to disappoint both of you, but no. We may disagree on just about everything, but you can back up your opinions *and* you're prepared to discuss them.
You're exceptionally poor trolls, I'm afraid! (Don't take that as a challenge, by the way)
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: you can have a community enjoying a balanced game without the TFG/Tournament mindset kicking in
True and shouldn't even be in dispute. Anyone who doubts this, please take a look at the Great British Hobbit League tournament scene, which reportedly has a very high ratio of fluffy armies. That said ... the current iteration of SBG has been carefully calibrated over successive versions to create a more and more balanced game, even despite being initially marketed for scenario play rather than as a PUG. But that is a design that, in KK's words above, entailed "balance built in from the core" ... unlike AoS.
True and managing these expectations is the conundrum of GW's latest action, which is what leads me to believe that will be no further "official" push for tournament-style playing.
In the end I believe that the players who really want a "truly" tournament style skirmish battle will still go to other games - this will only help AoS PUG's. I personally think there's a lot of overreacting over this. The AoS playstyle is now firmly ingrained into the mindset of the playing communities and I don't really think the tournament style will change any minds that weren't already predisposed towards it and were already using comps to begin with.
The problem I have with tacking on a points system is that it creates a false impression that suddenly AoS will be fine for pick-up gaming when it will actually still suck for pick-up gaming, at least compared to a game actually designed for that.
It won't suck for pick up gaming more than 40k and most probably will suck significantly less, I don't think it is a problem at all.
It's not really so trolly down here so, whatcha 'all think?
Admire your optimism, but there's already 3 names I know I'll see in here before the end of the day...
I'd be disappointed if one of those three isn't me.
Should I punch the card as well? xD
Sorry to disappoint both of you, but no. We may disagree on just about everything, but you can back up your opinions *and* you're prepared to discuss them.
You're exceptionally poor trolls, I'm afraid! (Don't take that as a challenge, by the way)
Now I need to know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The basic movement and combat of AoS is simple enough that the statline can easily be "costed". The key words and the special rules are what will cause problems, as with 40K.
Yes but it's perfectly doable, would only take a "living" point system and them working with feedback to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: As soon as you start invoking "good" and "bad" in those terms, you're already assuming a PUG perspective. And even setting aside the tautological nature of arguing that balance is good because it's balanced, that's not even applicable here - because the goal of AoS is not PUG-style balance, which is completely evident from the design. Adding points on the back end of a design that does not care about balance does not suddenly transform the design into its opposite.
When you look at how stats work in AoS, you're not going to find a system that elegantly creates genuinely different options. KK, I believe you have even posted about this elsewhere. But the insight I draw from that observation is not that AoS should have been XYZ instead; rather I am more interested in why it is the way it is - and I'm not just going to dismiss the designers as stupid and/or lazy. I think the clunkiness of the statline system serves a purpose: even if units are mathematically very similar, what matters is that they feel different when you play them. In a more pure sense of gaming, there may actually be very little difference in some of the units, barring their crazy highly random/highly dramatic special rules, but as long as there is an illusion of difference that comes out while dice are being rolled, the system is pulling its weight.
It's not exclusive with balance (up to a point ofc but AoS is far from it).
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: you can have a community enjoying a balanced game without the TFG/Tournament mindset kicking in
True and shouldn't even be in dispute. Anyone who doubts this, please take a look at the Great British Hobbit League tournament scene, which reportedly has a very high ratio of fluffy armies. That said ... the current iteration of SBG has been carefully calibrated over successive versions to create a more and more balanced game, even despite being initially marketed for scenario play rather than as a PUG. But that is a design that, in KK's words above, entailed "balance built in from the core" ... unlike AoS.
I've read your posts both here and in the N&R thread, and I haven't quite decided if I agree or not. You definitely have a point though. What I would love to see is if you could be more specific in your arguments. You've written quite a lot about how AoS will never be a good pick-up game because it was not designed to work as a balanced game, but unless I'm mistaken, you haven't specified exactly why this is. Which parts of the AoS core design make it unsuitable for a points system and PUP, as compared to, say 40k or WHFB? Is it the synergies? The lack of army construction limits? Are they things that would necessitate a ground-up rework of the entire game or could you simply add features that are lacking? I myself tend to think that yes, it could probably be a good PUP game, but at the same time I agree with Kan and others that say that an official points system will pretty much kill the player base for "Open play" and narrative games. Those people aren't really in abundance in my group anyway (it's basically me and one other guy playing fluffy Inquisimunda stuff, inventing rules on the fly using the Rule of Cool), so I'll probably get more opponents at least.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it works fine as a pick up game if you aren't all that concerned about a really "fair" fight.
I don't think it will ever work as a serious tournament game, but 40K has always had problems in that respect too.
And I'm totally fine with that. I just want some system to relatively painlessly gauge roughly equal forces, and I think this new point system will achieve this. It doesn't need to be perfect in order to be better than the current situation.
And all those people not liking the points: don't use them.
SCGT was a competitive tournament in the traditional use of the term, and I've yet to see anything other than glowing praise for the event - not that there won't be any somewhere.
WW have been running what I would term 'gaming events', and these as well appear to have been well received.
AoS is not going to work as a 'serious' competitive game because it was never designed as one.
For example, I've seen situations in WMH where someone was able to move their opponent into a sequence of events where they were literally able to do nothing but watch and wait to lose. This is both a theoretical intent and an accepted application of the ruleset so whilst it's not necessarily a great experience people go in knowing it could happen.
It requires robust planning, precise sequencing and manoeuvring along with a bit of luck to pull off.
AoS, it's entirely possible for an average unit to gain the upper hand against a monster or elite unit once you step outside the vacuum of a one-on-one mathhammer exercise.
I would hazard a guess that the matched play pack - reading between the lines of the announcement - will be points with very low level restrictions. I'd guess same Alliance and limitations on some keywords rather than a more familiar core/spec/rare. A few rule tweaks (no rolling for initiative, natural 1's fail), and some capture the flag style scenarios.
A framework with a specified arena.
It's a game that can be played seriously (competitively) at tournaments where player skill is required to win. Not sure why that doesn't fit your 'serious' criteria but then I have pretty much disagreed with everything you and Manchu have had to say on this topic.
A lot of people consider a game "serious" when there are no random elements in the game or minimal random elements in the game and it is perceived that player skill is truly how you win.
Games like AOS the dice play a heavy role.
But thats also true in games like Blood Bowl, which a lot of people have said is a serious game.
Yep, it seems very arbitrary and subjective to label a game as unable to be a "serious" tournament game when successful tournaments are already being held with it.
Poker is a game with a lot of luck that has a big tournament scene too.
Bottle wrote: It's a game that can be played seriously (competitively) at tournaments where player skill is required to win. Not sure why that doesn't fit your 'serious' criteria but then I have pretty much disagreed with everything you and Manchu have had to say on this topic.
The heavier the part the dice and random things play, the less serious it is traditionally considered, as actual player skill comes into play less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: Yep, it seems very arbitrary and subjective to label a game as unable to be a "serious" tournament game when successful tournaments are already being held with it.
Poker is a game with a lot of luck that has a big tournament scene too.
Poker has tremendous amounts of player skill coupled with that luck, in the manner that a skilled manipulator can win with a crappy hand - I wouldn't thread those grounds in search of a comparison, to be honest.
And a good list with good strategy and tactics can negate bad dice rolls to an extent too. So where do we draw the line as to what can be considered "serious" or not? Seems like a sliding scale with no real point where something because serious or not.
A game played at a tournament and a serious tournament game aren't the same thing.
AoS wasn't created as a serious tournament game. It's not a bad thing not to be serious. I don't see why you need to feel so defensive about ithe game.
I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill (even if that level of skill will often be vastly overrated).
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
Hey all I know is this has me EXCITED about a GW game, even to the point of debating if I'm playing the new edition of Warmachine (which is my primary game right now). Hell I've even started the old "Should I play 40k" gears a-turning once more.
This is a small step in the right direction, but nowhere whats needed for me to even consider coming back.
Other things not in any order that would need to change would be
1) Whats wrong with making a game and writing the rules in a book? I have no interest in a system with 100 rules in 100 different places like this mess!
2) Scrap measuring from the model and go back to measuring from the base, its ridiculous!
3) I HATE the new asthetics
4) Their prices have gotten even more ludicrous (I didnt even think that was possible!) with the exception of their bundles, a step in the right direction, but not a very big one.
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
But it's a sliding scale surely - where do you draw the line at something being "good" or "bad" for tournaments that isn't some arbitrary line you've made up?
Furthermore what worth does it have to even discuss this? AoS with a comp pack can be used to play a fun tournament and where ultimately player skill is a big factor in winning (alongside luck) and can be used to have fun in pick-up-games too to provide a way to implement a strategy within the comp framework.
And yet since this news came out it feels like a select few posters are going out their way to tell us how terrible AoS with a comp is at doing this despite it already being successful and popular with the players as well as a well received decision from the community as a whole,
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
But it's a sliding scale surely - where do you draw the line at something being "good" or "bad" for tournaments that isn't some arbitrary line you've made up?
Furthermore what worth does it have to even discuss this? AoS with a comp pack can be used to play a fun tournament and where ultimately player skill is a big factor in winning (alongside luck) and can be used to have fun in pick-up-games too to provide a way to implement a strategy within the comp framework.
And yet since this news came out it feels like a select few posters are going out their way to tell us how terrible AoS with a comp is at doing this despite it already being successful and popular with the players as well as a well received decision from the community as a whole,
People will always have a right to voice their opinion on whatever subject, Bottle, regardless of what it may be. It's that simple, and I think it is only fair to address all opinions and discuss them on a public forum.
And I agree that it is a sliding scale, if you want to use a sliding scale to gauge it we can use Chess on one end of the spectrum and on the other end of the spectrum a game that relies 100% on chance. We'd just have to find a way to quantify the weight of a player's decisions vs the dice/whatever element the randomness embodies within an individual game.
Dai wrote: I don't think it was created as a tournament game, fullstop. That's not to say you can't have tournaments with a little imagination and good attitudes but I doubt that tournaments were in the designers minds in the slightest.
I suspect that is what is meant by 'serious' really. A game that is designed foremost to be a competition of skill.
Exactly. And the more uncontrollable randomness a game has, the less weight a player's skill has, and the less "tournament-y" a game is.
But it's a sliding scale surely - where do you draw the line at something being "good" or "bad" for tournaments that isn't some arbitrary line you've made up?
Furthermore what worth does it have to even discuss this? AoS with a comp pack can be used to play a fun tournament and where ultimately player skill is a big factor in winning (alongside luck) and can be used to have fun in pick-up-games too to provide a way to implement a strategy within the comp framework.
And yet since this news came out it feels like a select few posters are going out their way to tell us how terrible AoS with a comp is at doing this despite it already being successful and popular with the players as well as a well received decision from the community as a whole,
I didn't say good or bad, I said serious. You won't find Sandhurst Staff College using AoS rules for training and instruction. There are actual war games rules they do use (or did before computers took over.)
If AoS is "serious", how would you describe a game like Field of Glory or Kriegsspiel that contains so much more military tactical considerations of orders, morale, command and control, etc.? Hyper serious?
Every game can be played in serious tournaments. The rules or randomness don't matter, what matters is how much money you can make out of it, both for the contestants and organisation.
If I make an AoS tournament with 1 million dollar prize for the winner, I guarantee you it will be taken seriously. This is how esport work.
Not a bad point in a way but we're in no danger of seeing million dollar purses offered for best dice throwing in a GW game. What is meant by serious is not whether people have a passion for the game. People are obviously serious about AoS in that regard even without huge prizes on the line. I think the word "serious" is becoming a hobgoblin here. The key concept is skill versus luck. Competitive players do everything they can to minimize variables they cannot control, including any randomization mechanic in a game. The trouble with AoS in this regard is that luck is a huge part of it and can't be minimized.
Now to answer an earlier question - why would AoS not be a good PUG/tournament game while 40k is? Simply put, 40k is not a good PUG/tournament game. But I will admit that even despite that fact, 40k has a strong market presence as a PUG/tournament game. For whatever reason, 40k as a brand is very resilient in the face of a steady decline in the competitive capacity of its rules (in the sense of the paragraph above) - but in anycase, seeing WHFB is gone now and was seemingly not very popular until End Times, I don't think a Fantasy line necessarily has the same mysterious resilience.
Manchu wrote: The trouble with AoS in this regard is that luck is a huge part of it and can't be minimized.
More so, apart the quantity of luck involved, it is the "type of luck" that is also important. AoS has the kind of luck that will bring you cinematic moments - this is the type of luck laid back, narrative players seek (like the exalted champion's ability which give you the opportunity to stab to death an enemy hero via consecutive 50% events).
Manchu wrote: The trouble with AoS in this regard is that luck is a huge part of it and can't be minimized.
More so, apart the quantity of luck involved, it is the "type of luck" that is also important. AoS has the kind of luck that will bring you cinematic moments - this is the type of luck laid back, narrative players seek (like the exalted champion's ability which give you the opportunity to stab to death an enemy hero via consecutive 50% events).
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)
I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.
The basic movement and combat of AoS is simple enough that the statline can easily be "costed". The key words and the special rules are what will cause problems, as with 40K.
There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."
I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...
The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.
There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."
.
No, in this case it's a problem with a poorly implemented points system, coupled with an open ended approach (meaning a lack of restrictions and structure).
A game designed with what we've been calling "balance at its core" can be fixed by points adjustments and force orgs. But if the game is not designed around incremental modifiers, then no amount of revision is going to result in less arbitrary points.
I suspect that the Eldar bikes are going to be more fairly costed in 40k than many AoS Character / Monster / Horde units will be in AoS. I think the AoS points thing is going to be an amusing disaster.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I think the AoS points thing is going to be an amusing disaster.
Just as a matter of reason, I think GW's motivation is (a) make organized play easier and (b) assert some control over organized play (in terms of what units are used, ad therefore purchased). I don't think the move is meant to convince anyone who (a) understands that AoS is all about dramatic swingy special rules and (b) doesn't like that to suddenly change their minds. But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoSisn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I think the AoS points thing is going to be an amusing disaster.
But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoSisn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.
Agreed. GW's actual response is going to be along these lines:
"You want points? Fine, here's your fething points. Now feth off."
Points implies a certain level of precision that simply won't be present. People expecting "balance" are going to be very sorely disappointed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: FWIW me and my buds play pick-up games of AoS every week using points to balance. We have loads of fun.
Leaving this here as a blanket qualifier to anything I post ever after - I never intend to argue that there is no one who can find X fun, whatever X is.
JohnHwangDD wrote: People expecting "balance" are going to be very sorely disappointed.
The weird thing? This is already how 40k works. Another great thing about AoS is that by not having official points at all it was impossible to implicate it in the kind of mess 40k is in ... but now ...
NinthMusketeer wrote: FWIW me and my buds play pick-up games of AoS every week using points to balance. We have loads of fun.
Leaving this here as a blanket qualifier to anything I post ever after - I never intend to argue that there is no one who can find X fun, whatever X is.
JohnHwangDD wrote: People expecting "balance" are going to be very sorely disappointed.
The weird thing? This is already how 40k works. Another great thing about AoS is that by not having official points at all it was impossible to implicate it in the kind of mess 40k is in ... but now ...
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)
I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.
The basic movement and combat of AoS is simple enough that the statline can easily be "costed". The key words and the special rules are what will cause problems, as with 40K.
There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."
I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...
The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.
Okay, Space Pope then.
I am sure there are many examples of units that are under or over-costed for their effectiveness, so the basic point is valid.
I doubt you are going to argue that 40K is Best Balanced Game Ever.
In a 'perfect' points system, nothing is inefficient. It's kinda the whole point of the endeavour. X of army Y only differs from X of army Z based on player skill.
I cannot think of a single.game where this has ever been achieved.
Even WMH, lauded for it's competitive balance, is having swathes of stuff changed. Why? Because people weren't taking them, which is PR speak for not buying them.
The more detailed a points system is, the more apparent the flaws in it are, the more units become auto-includes or never-includes.
I'm worried because this fanfare is going to create unrealistic expectations of the eventual system we get.
I hadn't looked at the SCGT system until this announcement, and I have to say I like the fact it's quite rough.
But some will expect perfection, and rage against it when it isn't. If GW are doing this as a reactionary measure (although I suspected the same as Alpharius - let the community come up with one then option it) then in PR terms I'm not sure which is the worse option; soldiering on without, or trying and not meeting expectations. Especially on a system that as Manchu has pointed out, isn't rigorous enough to be considered a match of skill.
For me.personally, the ideal solution would be the open format is the intro for new arrivals, the matched play draws in people from other systems, and everyone meets in the middle with narrative play.
Time will tell.
As for serious tournament ruleset, 40k is not written as one but is treated very seriously by many. Take football (the real one), how random it is with injuries, player form, referee mistakes and simply situational luck but it's enough to look at billions involved, cases like referee stabbed to death in Brazil during the match (and his head put on a stake then) or Colombian player killed because of the own goal to see how serious business it is now.
So I'd say it depends greatly on players perspective, sure AoS has a much lower skill ceiling compared to rulesets designed for competitive play (where football for example has randomness mitigated a lot by individual and collective player skill) but quite frankly with the sheer number of units and combinations avilable it will take some time before it enters the picture. The amount and attendance of tournaments and attitude of the players will decide its seriousness, imo.
Manchu wrote: But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoSisn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.
Define what it 'is' and what it's 'meant to be' then? Because it seems to me that gw can and will change both, and will change direction rapidly if it means more players and more money for them. After all, they turned their backs on one devoted group of fans already. History repeats.
And You know, it's swell that you are chuffed to bits to be chuckling away at your peers because they're apparently not Kewl enough or elitist enough to join your awesome club of 'true Aos believers' and aren't playing Aos the 'right way' (according to Manchu) instead of the way they want to play their wargames (amusing disaster? Really?)
Real swell. And I here I was thinking that Aos players were supposed to be paragons of this gentlemanly art of conciliation, co-operation and decency.
RoperPG wrote:In a 'perfect' points system, nothing is inefficient. It's kinda the whole point of the endeavour. X of army Y only differs from X of army Z based on player skill.
I cannot think of a single.game where this has ever been achieved.
Even WMH, lauded for it's competitive balance, is having swathes of stuff changed. Why? Because people weren't taking them, which is PR speak for not buying them.
The more detailed a points system is, the more apparent the flaws in it are, the more units become auto-includes or never-includes.
And yet for most people, what they're looking for is 'good enough' balance. WMH is pretty solid in terms of balance (points are generally OK, and the steamroller format goes a long way towards acting as a 'shock absorber' for those odds and ends thst could otherwise ruin it). It's getting updated for a variety of reasons, including six years of growth in the game and a swathe of new unit types thst aren't covered in the 'core' rules from mk2's launch. True, six years of playtesting and feedback has also gone into this with where they've gone wrong, and where they missed the mark. But hey, that's part of these evolving games - they need to be constantly monitored and tweaked and it seems pp are going that route.
As to why people weren't taking things - part of it is balance reasons, but the other half is 'lazy gamers' and scrubs who fix on netlists as crutch and never bother trying to 'git good' or be creative and explore the game or expand their abilities and experiences beyond 'hey, this lists works because of Internet. I don't need to spend any more now'.
And funnily enough, I'd go the opposite way in terms of points systems - there is a thing as 'too much granularity'. Less is more sometimes. Not everything needs to be micro-costed into a hyper detailed formula to get things to work. I enjoyed mk2s minimalist approach to points far more than mk1s 40k-esque points costings and felt it got a lot more work done. Mk3 seems to be opening it up a bit. But still leaning towards 'less granularity'. I'm happy with this.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)
I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.
The basic movement and combat of AoS is simple enough that the statline can easily be "costed". The key words and the special rules are what will cause problems, as with 40K.
There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."
I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...
The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.
Okay, Space Pope then.
I am sure there are many examples of units that are under or over-costed for their effectiveness, so the basic point is valid.
I doubt you are going to argue that 40K is Best Balanced Game Ever.
ALL units are under- or over-costed, aside from whatever single unit is used to define the points baseline. Costing things is largely a fool's errand once the complexity increases beyond handsfuls of variances.
40k is "fun", but far from balanced; however, it is not obviously worse than how "balanced" WMH actually is, compared to how the WMH players claim it is.
Manchu wrote: But of course there will be more than a few unwary gamers who come to points-laden AoS expecting a balanced test of skill and end up on here posting about how AoS is the worst game ever made and, yes, in that sense the points thing will be an amusing disaster, except it's not super amusing to those of us who get irritated by people complaining about what AoSisn't rather than even making the first attempt to understand what it is.
Define what it 'is' and what it's 'meant to be' then? Because it seems to me that gw can and will change both, and will change direction rapidly if it means more players and more money for them. After all, they turned their backs on one devoted group of fans already. History repeats.
And You know, it's swell that you are chuffed to bits to be chuckling away at your peers because they're apparently not Kewl enough or elitist enough to join your awesome club of 'true Aos believers' and aren't playing Aos the 'right way' (according to Manchu) instead of the way they want to play their wargames (amusing disaster? Really?)
Real swell. And I here I was thinking that Aos players were supposed to be paragons of this gentlemanly art of conciliation, co-operation and decency.
RoperPG wrote:In a 'perfect' points system, nothing is inefficient. It's kinda the whole point of the endeavour. X of army Y only differs from X of army Z based on player skill.
I cannot think of a single.game where this has ever been achieved.
Even WMH, lauded for it's competitive balance, is having swathes of stuff changed. Why? Because people weren't taking them, which is PR speak for not buying them.
The more detailed a points system is, the more apparent the flaws in it are, the more units become auto-includes or never-includes.
And yet for most people, what they're looking for is 'good enough' balance. WMH is pretty solid in terms of balance (points are generally OK, and the steamroller format goes a long way towards acting as a 'shock absorber' for those odds and ends thst could otherwise ruin it). It's getting updated for a variety of reasons, including six years of growth in the game and a swathe of new unit types thst aren't covered in the 'core' rules from mk2's launch. True, six years of playtesting and feedback has also gone into this with where they've gone wrong, and where they missed the mark. But hey, that's part of these evolving games - they need to be constantly monitored and tweaked and it seems pp are going that route.
As to why people weren't taking things - part of it is balance reasons, but the other half is 'lazy gamers' and scrubs who fix on netlists as crutch and never bother trying to 'git good' or be creative and explore the game or expand their abilities and experiences beyond 'hey, this lists works because of Internet. I don't need to spend any more now'.
And funnily enough, I'd go the opposite way in terms of points systems - there is a thing as 'too much granularity'. Less is more sometimes. Not everything needs to be micro-costed into a hyper detailed formula to get things to work. I enjoyed mk2s minimalist approach to points far more than mk1s 40k-esque points costings and felt it got a lot more work done. Mk3 seems to be opening it up a bit. But still leaning towards 'less granularity'. I'm happy with this.
Sorry, I wasn't stating that the aim of competitive balance was bad or that WMH was poor - it's just the only example I'm familiar with that demonstrated my point.
People expect more from GW - even the 'haterz'. You only have to look at what people thought 9th edition could/should have been to see that with this points system GW could be making a problem worse. I really hope they don't.
RoperPG wrote: You only have to look at what people thought 9th edition could/should have been to see that with this points system GW could be making a problem worse. I really hope they don't.
Ninth Age, perhaps? It's been under trial by fire with the ETC crowd.
Don't worry, you need not be elite in any sense, much less Kewl, to appreciate these simple points. A game is the result of its design. Designs exist to achieve goals. The goal of AoS is not to create balance. Nothing about the design of AoS is aimed at achieving that. Instead, the design fosters swingy special rules that create dramatic results on lucky rolls. This feature actually cuts deeply against the basic notion of balance.
You might give the thread (and a couple others) a re-read, as a number of posters go into this. Also - you have misunderstood the "amusing disaster" reference - it is not a denigration of how anyone likes to play but rather a reference to the result of a player looking for a game of skill being disappointed by AoS "dressed up" in points. And for my part, I explained why that would not amuse me.
Exactly. I see this whole AoS "points" thing as a train wreck in slow motion. It's going to be a disaster, and I'm going to be very amused when people say the points aren't right. Because they can't be right when nearly everything about AoS works against "proper" points.
RoperPG wrote: You only have to look at what people thought 9th edition could/should have been to see that with this points system GW could be making a problem worse. I really hope they don't.
Ninth Age, perhaps? It's been under trial by fire with the ETC crowd.
This is just it. GW could have released a carbon copy of 9th age and it would still be fruit of the poisoned tree.
Kilkrazy wrote: Everyone benefits from balance built in from the core, even if points are never released, because it lets designers make new units that aren't going to be stupidly good (Eldar Scat Bikes) or stupidly bad (Vespids.)
I am sure that everyone realises there is no fun in playing with units that are auto-win or auto-lose.
The basic movement and combat of AoS is simple enough that the statline can easily be "costed". The key words and the special rules are what will cause problems, as with 40K.
There is NOTHING wrong with Eldar Scatterlaser Bikes, nor Vespids; the fact that you call them out reveals a bias toward assuming a very particular play style. If Eldar Scatterlaser Jebikes were 100 pts each, and Vesipds were 5 pts per 20 models... But that's the problem with "points."
I'm pretty sure there aren't any auto-win units in 40k or AoS, although AoS does have the rare auto-lose if you play Settra and are fool enough to touch your knee to the floor...
The chrome in AoS suggests that it won't be costable. The Special Rules are awful and they don't scale properly.
Okay, Space Pope then.
I am sure there are many examples of units that are under or over-costed for their effectiveness, so the basic point is valid.
I doubt you are going to argue that 40K is Best Balanced Game Ever.
ALL units are under- or over-costed, aside from whatever single unit is used to define the points baseline. Costing things is largely a fool's errand once the complexity increases beyond handsfuls of variances.
40k is "fun", but far from balanced; however, it is not obviously worse than how "balanced" WMH actually is, compared to how the WMH players claim it is.
I've never had the slightest interest in WHM so it's irrelevant how point-tastic it might or might not be.
The point of raising WMH is that it's adherents claim it to be the best balanced system out there, and this is very probably true, given that competitive balance is a key objective of the game. That said, it's not perfect - there are a number of units and combinations within each faction which are flat out non-competitive. What WMH has is above average external competitive balance among factions, and this is what most WMH players like to talk up. However, WMH still suffers from the typical lack of internal balance within factions, and this is the dirty secret that WMH players willfully ignore. And still, WMH is probably close to a "best case" example of point balance for PUG / competitive play.
AoS declaimed the entire thing, but now they're being dragged back, for whatever reason.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Whole lot of rage about GW giving customers what they asked for.
It's a little more complex. So presumably you're saying customers want points. Okay - you get points. But now you look at the points you get, and you wonder ... why did I want these points again? Did I just want to play around writing lists even though these points aren't creating balanced lists? Did I just want to want to complain about these points being wrong on a forum somewhere? Did I want a game where each side has a fair chance of winning because each side has the same number of points? I mean, if it's that last one - this is the one that is going to let you down for all the reasons we have been discussing. Unless your idea of a "fair chance" is really, really approximate - in which case, you didn't need points in the first place. If you want to see the future of AoS with points, by all means take a look at the YMDC and Proposed Rules subfora for 40k.
The worst part is, I can tell some posters are really setting themselves up here - they are honestly expecting these points to be released and the clouds will part and the angels will sing and it will be everything they always wanted. Again, see the 40k boards. That's your promised land.
Well if I was playing with wounds-count or just eyeballing two forces then I'd be pretty happy with the balance offered by even a sub-par points system. Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean it automatically sucks or isn't better than nothing, and even if what they produce really is that bad then not much will change. People who try AoS because of points weren't playing it anyway, people who are playing AoS now will just keep doing what they are doing if they don't like the new option as much. On the optimistic side, the AoS I play has two sides with a fair chance of winning because they both have the same number of points so it can't be impossible.
I am just really having a hard time imagining how GW listening to customers can end up as a bad thing here.
The worst part is, I can tell some posters are really setting themselves up here - they are honestly expecting these points to be released and the clouds will part and the angels will sing and it will be everything they always wanted. Again, see the 40k boards. That's your promised land.
I'm completely on board with the problems of points, and I love AoS for the direction it took.
Part of the point of AoS was to open up the choices for gamers, and one choice a lot of people like, me too, is to have an established kind of baseline for setting up "pickup" games. I don't need or want points in the rulebook, but I like that the community came up with its own way to set up games (including widely accepted changes to the rules like base measuring).
I think what some people aren't realizing is that the SCGT guys have been the beacon of positivity and support for AoS and everything it's about since it came out. They are not just some tournament players who came up with a comp. Heelanhammer is a major part of why AoS gained momentum and support. They are all for the things the game promotes. The system they came up with is not meant to be an objective set-in-stone ultimate balancing mechanism. It was simply a mechanism for setting up tournaments or event days, always open to editing, changes, theming, etc.
I'm optimistic because all signs I've seen point to GW liking the SCGT crew not because they came up with points, but because they embody the spirit of AoS (which allowing the community to be in charge of themselves is a big part of) and took the game to new levels. I sincerely don't think either GW or SCGT are trying to bring the game back to past editions or 40k it. From the announcement, I think they are also going to put in resources into the narrative aspect.
Now, it could be true in the end that as soon as any kind of points are established, that's all anyone cares about, and the whole forum becomes what the 40k forum is. But I think some of the fears of that are coming from the headline news of points and not what the people in charge are actually directing toward. Of course, intentions don't always equal reality.
Either way, I love Warhammer, and I know that lots of people love Warhammer too. I was all in favour of the type of game AoS promoted, but it wasn't for everyone. In the end, I'd rather have a big tent and get all the other people who like Warhammer but maybe don't like playing the exact same way as me inside.
coldgaming wrote: I'm optimistic because all signs I've seen point to GW liking the SCGT crew not because they came up with points, but because they embody the spirit of AoS (which allowing the community to be in charge of themselves is a big part of) and took the game to new levels.
You know I haven't thought about the situation like that before and I think you have a good point. Certainly makes me feel a bit more optimism about the whole thing!
NinthMusketeer wrote: the AoS I play has two sides with a fair chance of winning because they both have the same number of points so it can't be impossible.
Of course each side having a fair chance is not impossible. But tacking on some point values is not what makes it possible; it was already possible with the existing rules and units. So points are supposed to do something more. They are supposed to ensure that any two lists of equivalent points have fair chance against each other. But they can't do that. Even if the game had been designed in a way that makes balancing it possible, you still need more than just a points mechanic. But of course the actual problem is the game is not designed to facilitate balance - quitethe opposite, in fact: the unit special rules are supposed to create exciting opportunities for lucky rolling.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am just really having a hard time imagining how GW listening to customers can end up as a bad thing here.
Because you are having a hard time understanding that the problems with balancing AoS go deeper than units not being "correctly" costed out (when they simply can't be).
coldgaming wrote: Now, it could be true in the end that as soon as any kind of points are established, that's all anyone cares about, and the whole forum becomes what the 40k forum is. But I think some of the fears of that are coming from the headline news of points and not what the people in charge are actually directing toward.
A forum is always going to be a shade or two (or a dozen if I'm honest) more negative than IRL because internet conversation thrives on disagreement whereas IRL interaction thrives on cooperation. So yes we can take that into account. Look, the real (and very important) role that an official comp will play is making players feel more comfortable about list building for organized play. And that will sync very nicely into the very positive atmosphere that the best TOs foster for their events. Meanwhile, on the forums - the storms of X being overcosted or Y being undercosted will rage. And yet another tidal wave of cries that AoS is unbalanced garbage will smash into DakkaDakka ... all because these folks still don't get the game and are now even more confused and angry because points are supposed to balance things.
Oh shut up already Manchu, there's no need to be so negative. No one is expecting this to be perfect. I prefer 40K's flawed point system over AoS's non-existed one, so I think this will be fine.
The point is that you're assuming that people are hoping the points to deliver something they can't. Most people here have played GW games with point systems before, we know roughly what level of balance to expect. And majority of people see this as good news. Besides, as has been said many times, this is just one option out of three.
NinthMusketeer wrote: the AoS I play has two sides with a fair chance of winning because they both have the same number of points so it can't be impossible.
Of course each side having a fair chance is not impossible. But tacking on some point values is not what makes it possible; it was already possible with the existing rules and units. So points are supposed to do something more. They are supposed to ensure that any two lists of equivalent points have fair chance against each other. But they can't do that. Even if the game had been designed in a way that makes balancing it possible, you still need more than just a points mechanic. But of course the actual problem is the game is not designed to facilitate balance - quitethe opposite, in fact: the unit special rules are supposed to create exciting opportunities for lucky rolling.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I am just really having a hard time imagining how GW listening to customers can end up as a bad thing here.
Because you are having a hard time understanding that the problems with balancing AoS go deeper than units not being "correctly" costed out (when they simply can't be).
coldgaming wrote: Now, it could be true in the end that as soon as any kind of points are established, that's all anyone cares about, and the whole forum becomes what the 40k forum is. But I think some of the fears of that are coming from the headline news of points and not what the people in charge are actually directing toward.
A forum is always going to be a shade or two (or a dozen if I'm honest) more negative than IRL because internet conversation thrives on disagreement whereas IRL interaction thrives on cooperation. So yes we can take that into account. Look, the real (and very important) role that an official comp will play is making players feel more comfortable about list building for organized play. And that will sync very nicely into the very positive atmosphere that the best TOs foster for their events. Meanwhile, on the forums - the storms of X being overcosted or Y being undercosted will rage. And yet another tidal wave of cries that AoS is unbalanced garbage will smash into DakkaDakka ... all because these folks still don't get the game and are now even more confused and angry because points are supposed to balance things.
Well I suppose I'd rather be an optimist proven wrong then a pessimist proven right, and you don't seem willing to be convinced so I'll just put you on ignore and we can go our separate ways. I hate doing that but you really seem dead set on a negative outlook no matter what and I really want to enjoy discussions here rather than experiencing more of the same doom-and-gloom that I see so many other places.
Crimson wrote: you're assuming that people are hoping the points to deliver something they can't
That's right, I assume some people are expecting more out of points than points can deliver. Some of those people ("optimists") are posting ITT or over in N&R. As for "most people here" having reasonable expectations of how well a GW game will be balanced, once again look no further than the 40k subfora.
Crimson wrote: as has been said many times, this is just one option out of three
As has been said many times, an official comp system - even if it is a total mess (per 40k) - has the potential to shift the brand completely away from being open/narrative. You may have noticed, there's basically no discussion of open/narrative games of 40k around here ... or anywhere ... certainly not compared to what we're now calling "match play."
Convinced of what point and by what argument? The question to hand is whether AoS can be balanced. I have stated that it cannot and given detailed support. This isn't a matter of being an optimist or a pessimist. In turn, you have ... threatened to put me on ignore? Because of my "negative outlook"? And yet in the very post you quoted:
Manchu wrote: Look, the real (and very important) role that an official comp will play is making players feel more comfortable about list building for organized play. And that will sync very nicely into the very positive atmosphere that the best TOs foster for their events.
Why even bother to put me on ignore when you have already been ignoring my actual points?
One of my worries is definitely that now that there are official points once again that the game shifts (again) completely away from the open/narrative.
auticus wrote: One of my worries is definitely that now that there are official points once again that the game shifts (again) completely away from the open/narrative.
I think part of the "three ways to play" is to emphasize that AoS can be played however you want. From my perspective it seems like GW did a heavy "you should play AoS THIS way" towards narrative at launch, but have realized since then that they failed to convince those players who simply didn't want to play that way. This new turn seems more like they have recognized that players are doing what they will with AoS and rather than double-down on their original approach GW has adapted to try providing content to a broader spectrum of the community instead of trying to build the whole game on just a specific section of it. Now whether or not the community continues the diverse approach we've seen or bandwagons onto a certain option is uncertain. Personally I think it will be the former because it's had a good amount of time to set in like that, but I can see your concern as a narrative player.
Yeah I totally agree with the premise that there are now these three options. I just worry that two of those three options are now false options, in that the vast bulk of people won't go down that road and you won't really get to do those anymore.
Kind of like when cityfight was introduced in 40k or planetstrike was introduced, or storm of magic for fantasy. I just had a very difficult time getting anyone to want to deviate from the standard core scenarios to do these other things because "it wasn't tournament standard".
Things may be different now who knows. I could definitely be wrong. Its just a worry nagging at me.
auticus wrote: One of my worries is definitely that now that there are official points once again that the game shifts (again) completely away from the open/narrative.
That worry is entirely justified. As you can see from how these discussions have gone, the preference for points is so incredibly strong that many posters have difficulty understanding that AoS doesn't actually need points.
auticus wrote: I just worry that two of those three options are now false options
One of those two is already a false option. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful mechanical difference between "open" and "narrative" play; or rather "open" play is really always "narrative" - you don't really need to come up with a series of linked scenarios to be playing the game primarily for the exciting combat (although a storyline will likely enhance the excitement).
auticus wrote: I just had a very difficult time getting anyone to want to deviate from the standard core scenarios to do these other things because "it wasn't tournament standard".
Imagine trying to get this kind of player to set aside points and just go for something based on what seems cool.
Crimson wrote: you're assuming that people are hoping the points to deliver something they can't
That's right, I assume some people are expecting more out of points than points can deliver. Some of those people ("optimists") are posting ITT or over in N&R. As for "most people here" having reasonable expectations of how well a GW game will be balanced, once again look no further than the 40k subfora.
The reason that 40k is such a mess is not because points can't deliever or due to 40k rules design philosophy. It is such a mess because of codieces and how GW refuses to alter point cost post print, not to mention they don't give the rat's ass in the first place, not putting enough work into it and changing their mind about their aproach every few months. Hell yes AoS should be better balanced with the warscrolls in place and tourney guys working on it, ofc you will hit the wall with both systems because of the design but 40k is far away from it.
Yes if GW wants to do it, they should do it right, what's so scary about people expecting some quality of work. Right doesn't mean perfect ofc just acceptable (read significantly better than 40k now), it is possible and not even that hard as you'd have to spoil it on purpose to make it as bad as 40k is atm.
Btw the "narrative" quirky rules providing swings on lucky rolls you mention all the time are actualy bad and cheap game design, even for narrative unless you go for comedy/ absurd, you can provide flavour without clown-out-of-the-box crazy effects. Not sure why would it be bad if those had to go at some point for the sake of balance.
Manchu wrote:
Crimson wrote: as has been said many times, this is just one option out of three
As has been said many times, an official comp system - even if it is a total mess (per 40k) - has the potential to shift the brand completely away from being open/narrative. You may have noticed, there's basically no discussion of open/narrative games of 40k around here ... or anywhere ... certainly not compared to what we're now calling "match play.
So much talking about how whfb didn't sell and is dead and deal with it. Guess what, open play narrative AoS probably sells even less and maybe it has to go too.
Still not sure why the styles can't coexist or what's the narrative players problem with it, what is there to loose for you if you are not going to play with points anyway and have established groups. If a new player comes because of points then he/ she wasn't going to play narrative anyway and if you loose existing players to the dark side then maybe it wasn't really that fun to begin with heh.
My hope is that once the 'points' do get released, is that this sub-forum remains as inspiring and positive as it has been.
I've seen a lot of great themed armies, ideas, stories and battle reports here. All encouraged by the ethos of what AoS aims to achieve.
What I foresee is a forum of people who weren't playing AoS until 'points' were introduced going "waaaaah, why is this one point more than this thing the Internet told me is undercosted, waaaaah", or "waaaah, why is this model expensive ($$$) but lower than I perceive to be the correct amount of points, waaah".
And the narrative games are slowly side-lined and the community support for that ethos dwindles. And the standard 'deathmatch' scenario everyone knows is the dullest then becomes the standard (see 40k). And then fething net-listing around those closed parameters.
I'm optimistic because all signs I've seen point to GW liking the SCGT crew not because they came up with points, but because they embody the spirit of AoS (which allowing the community to be in charge of themselves is a big part of) and took the game to new levels. I sincerely don't think either GW or SCGT are trying to bring the game back to past editions or 40k it. From the announcement, I think they are also going to put in resources into the narrative aspect.
This is the one ray of light for me in this whole 'points' announcement. SCGT get it. Their point system is not intended to be ultra balanced. It is there to provide a framework for creative armies and fun battles (hence 'pools' and not 'points').
coldgaming wrote: I'm optimistic because all signs I've seen point to GW liking the SCGT crew not because they came up with points, but because they embody the spirit of AoS (which allowing the community to be in charge of themselves is a big part of) and took the game to new levels. I sincerely don't think either GW or SCGT are trying to bring the game back to past editions or 40k it. From the announcement, I think they are also going to put in resources into the narrative aspect.
The cynic in me thinks that the process at GWHQ was more like AoS is failing everywhere except for the events these guys are running.
We were very very very wrong dismissing organised play as a community vertebrator and we can't lose any more time so we'll just take them on board. They've done this for free so far after all.
It doesn't matter who assigns the points to units and options in AoS because the units and options themselves do not provide a basis for balance. Please take another look at this thread for more detailed explanation of why; I am not going to type it out again tonight.
Appealing to some supposed expert "who gives damn" and who will magically "get the points right" is a perfect example of the unrealistic expectations I have been talking about. The best anyone is going to get out of any comp system is whatever comfort points currently provide 40k players - along with all the same headaches (including the headaches with 40k tourney comp). Just as is currently the case with 40k, some players will never really care at all that the whole thing is a mess. This is probably the best attitude. And there will be plenty of people who conclude that AoS wrapped up in points is a pitiful joke, the same way plenty of people currently regard 40k.
The argument ... well no ... the assumption that GW is forced to adopt a points-based comp because AoS sells poorly is pure nonsense motivated by sloppy, spiteful thinking. WHFB had points and - applying the same sort of assumption - points did not save it. If you can understand how simplistic the latter assumption is, you should be able to see that the former one is exactly as simplistic.
I think it is far more likely that GW sees "three ways to play" as means to support (and more importantly manage) organized play. I am hoping the official comp system is very "light touch" - and I know full well that this will not only fail to satisfy the people who want points the most but also make them hate AoS even more. But I suspect that what they really hate is the fact that AoS is not suitable for "balancing" in the first place.
I would rather that the same players who currently hate AoS keep on hating it than have something like this happen:
ShaneTB wrote: And the standard 'deathmatch' scenario everyone knows is the dullest then becomes the standard (see 40k). And then fething net-listing around those closed parameters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: Ultra balanced helps narrative players when faced with competitive ones, not sure what you are on about.
I think you have your wires crossed. "Narrative player" is not a synonym for a casual (as opposed to competitive) player looking for a pick-up game.
How can a scenario that everyone knows is the dullest become standard. No logic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Narrative player doesn't buy the most efficient options, the more balanced the system the better his chances against competitive player and ir's easier to bridge the gap between playstyles, wider community etc.
If said player plays a narrative game, ultra balanced point system has exactly zero impact on him.
Manchu wrote: It doesn't matter who assigns the points to units and options in AoS because the units and options themselves do not provide a basis for balance. Please take another look at this thread for more detailed explanation of why; I am not going to type it out again tonight.
I saw it but don't buy it. You can provide limits, faq special rules, adjust cost.
It's nothing more than your opinion.
This is probably the best attitude. And there will be plenty of people who conclude that AoS wrapped up in points is a pitiful joke, the same way plenty of people currently regard 40k.
Probably the same people who consder it a pitiful joke now. There's close to nothing to loose.
The argument ... well no ... the assumption that GW is forced to adopt a points-based comp because AoS sells poorly is pure nonsense motivated by sloppy, spiteful thinking. WHFB had points and - applying the same sort of assumption - points did not save it. If you can understand how simplistic the latter assumption is, you should be able to see that the former one is exactly as simplistic.
I think it is far more likely that GW sees "three ways to play" as means to support (and more importantly manage) organized play. I am hoping the official comp system is very "light touch" - and I know full well that this will not only fail to satisfy the people who want points the most but also make them hate AoS even more. But I suspect that what they really hate is the fact that AoS is not suitable for "balancing" in the first place.
I said maybe. Stull, assuming that whfb had points and sold better, no it's not pure nonsense especially that you don't know GWs initial expectations. Maybe it went from "it will sell like 40k and space marines" to "let's make it at least whfb level".
But seriously, no. A reasoned argument is not the same thing as an opinion. You can go back and engage with the actual argument, or not - doesn't matter to me. Just keep in mind, if you bother to make a counterargument and it amounts to "hey someone could substantially redesign AoS so that it was balanced" ... then you end up actually supporting my original point.
Assuming adding points does not "let the genie out of the bottle" in the sense of contaminating the brand, in the way that auticus and others have described.
You don't even need a redesign to provide acceptable level of balance, far above what is in 40k now for example. Just faqs, limits and an ongoing ballancing effort using feedback and tourney data.
Manchu wrote: Why is this "narrative player" cruising for a pick-up game in the first place?
Answer: because that's all he can find now that there's an official points system.
Auticus - this is the future you fear!
Then the narrative player is either:
1 - living in a country where FLGS PUG is the established culture, unlike garage/gaming club culture (in this case it sucks to be him);
2 - agreeing to play a game with a friend that doesn't like narrative gaming much, which is just fine;
3 - not really bothering to go to a gaming club or looking for likeminded players - in which case he is both lazy and conformist.
4 - the great evil overlords of tournament playing have taken over the world and he is being led in chains to play against a complete stranger in an arena, where throngs of rabid onlookers cheer on. He will be forced to play with someone else's army, a min maxed list. The loser will be branded a noob.
If he does not do this, he will be flogged by the local Commisar, then dismembered and hung until dead!
I think it's important for people to know that are tight competition games in which points work, for example WRG Ancients or Field of Glory, and these have a very different design philosophy to 40K, WHFB or AoS.
The most important thing is what Manchu emphasised, these games are built from the ground up as competitive tournament rules. Points balance and fairness in stand-up pitched battles was a key design principle at the start. (This does not prevent players from using the rules for pick up and narrative games, though.)
While there is a huge number of potential variations and combinations of troop types, training, formations, weapons and armour, all costed, when you choose an army for a game you are bound by the restrictions of the relevant army list for the types and proportions of troops, and their usual equipment, that you can choose. For an easy example, Old Kingdom Egyptian armies do not have any cavalry options because horses hadn't been domesticated in 2,500 BC.
The next thing is that there are only a few special rules and they are all in the main rulebook.
Finally, the publishers issue all the rules in a single book, and don’t change them with supplements. The army lists books all conform to the original design principles and therefore fit properly into the system, whenever they are published.
These factors mean that the rules as a whole support a massive amount of variations. There are 300 or more army lists for WRG and FoG, all with options. Players aren't allowed to make up new combinations of their own, though, and this makes it difficult to find exploits.
All these things support a stable tournament ruleset in which contemporaneous armies are generally well balanced against each other, and non-contemporaneous armies are usually not badly balanced.
If player want to play narrative campaigns, mix and match units from different armies AoS style, or even invent new types of units, of course they can. For example in the fantasy rules for WRG, a Dragon is an elephant with flying (ignores terrain) and a fire syphon.
GW’s design philosophy is completely different. Their main purpose to launch a new unit or book every couple of weeks, with new items and special rules that change the game. The core game tells you how to do magic, movement and combat, then refers you to the war scrolls and option books to follow the rules there. This is brilliant for launching new models, but they are being retro-fitted on to a basic scheme that is open ended and uncosted.
I don't see why points in AoS should drive out narrative play. In GW terms, narrative play seems to mean buying a campaign book and playing the scenarios. That's not going to work at tournaments, but it's ideal for club play.
ShaneTB wrote: My hope is that once the 'points' do get released, is that this sub-forum remains as inspiring and positive as it has been.
I've seen a lot of great themed armies, ideas, stories and battle reports here. All encouraged by the ethos of what AoS aims to achieve.
What I foresee is a forum of people who weren't playing AoS until 'points' were introduced going "waaaaah, why is this one point more than this thing the Internet told me is undercosted, waaaaah", or "waaaah, why is this model expensive ($$$) but lower than I perceive to be the correct amount of points, waaah".
And the narrative games are slowly side-lined and the community support for that ethos dwindles. And the standard 'deathmatch' scenario everyone knows is the dullest then becomes the standard (see 40k). And then fething net-listing around those closed parameters.
I'm optimistic because all signs I've seen point to GW liking the SCGT crew not because they came up with points, but because they embody the spirit of AoS (which allowing the community to be in charge of themselves is a big part of) and took the game to new levels. I sincerely don't think either GW or SCGT are trying to bring the game back to past editions or 40k it. From the announcement, I think they are also going to put in resources into the narrative aspect.
This is the one ray of light for me in this whole 'points' announcement. SCGT get it. Their point system is not intended to be ultra balanced. It is there to provide a framework for creative armies and fun battles (hence 'pools' and not 'points').
I don't really think adding the options to play by SCGT point will change anything on the spirit of AOS.
I'm thinking most of the gamers that will be interested in this will be looking at things exactly like I am looking at it.
That is to say "I can now actually make a fluffy X or Y list and know roughly how much it costs, and arrange with my friends to do the same. We'll randomize a scenario and play it out, for the lulz"
Manchu wrote: What you prefer is irrelevant. The subject is not and has never been what any given person likes or dislikes.
Also - no one is forcing you to read the thread much less respond.
He's still right. Anything that helps making more easily closer to equal is by definition to system that doesn't do anything at all.
Even little improvement is better than nothing.
And clearly GW's previous style was failing as they changed things. Guess AOS sales were even worse than I thought since they changed course in 9 months. Which no company does without very big reason. Never mind advance warnings for investors despite having had big sellers in 40k...
I think there's way too much of a pessimistic look from a couple of people based on very personal views and opinions. Which is fine, mind you - I was, and still am, full of bile over the Old World going kablooey. However I do feel like a very few, very personal fears are tainting view points and painting what is overall a rather positive move from GW as the beginning of the end of their gaming group.
We need to remember that this change will not impact the spirit of AoS, and that is what drives the existing communities. Most of them will just shrug and carry on playing as they did before because they didn't care about points to begin with.
Also, it's long established that AoS is not and will never be serious tournament/competitive material (Bottle don't look at me that way.) Honestly I'd rather try a Ronin/Dragon Rampant/Lion Rampant tournament than an AoS one.
tneva82 wrote: Anything that helps making more easily closer to equal is by definition to system that doesn't do anything at all.
This would be true only if AoS was PUG in need of fixing ... which it isn't. You might as well say, any change that adds cards to AoS is better than nothing. Cards? Why should there be cards? This isn't a card game. And it's not a PUG either.
Oh ho ho delicious irony! But - again - my contribution isn't driven by optimism or pessimism. AoS is what it is. You can put a saddle on it but that doesn't make it a horse. You can tack points on, that doesn't make it a PUG. I'll admit to pessimism on one front: adding points could poison the brand. But I hold out hope that GW's system will be such an afterthought that it won't even live up to the low standards of 40k.
I am confused how can points be less balanced then bring what ever you want do what ever you want?
Thats like playing monopoly with the rules vs place hotels where ever ya like.
Also monchu we get it you hate points and want to play what ya like, but at this point your trolling. This is the second topic that ever third post is you bashing the point system. Like it or not it is here to stay, take a hint from the old wfb people play 9th or what ever and get over it. You said you do not play PUG then stick to your random fairness or not and well move on to a different game stop trolling for those who do like it.
Manchu wrote: What you prefer is irrelevant. The subject is not and has never been what any given person likes or dislikes.
Also - no one is forcing you to read the thread much less respond.
He's still right. Anything that helps making more easily closer to equal is by definition to system that doesn't do anything at all.
Even little improvement is better than nothing.
And clearly GW's previous style was failing as they changed things. Guess AOS sales were even worse than I thought since they changed course in 9 months. Which no company does without very big reason. Never mind advance warnings for investors despite having had big sellers in 40k...
At the moment we can only speculate about GW's reason to put this forward.
The cynic and the optimist in me are fighting it out right now. The optimist says that this finally GW listening to their alienated player base's feedback and doing something proactive with them, while the cynic bastard mocks the optimist and merely points out that this means AoS is selling like crap and GW is trying to patch up some points to get the PUG culture players interested and buying more miniatures, while masking it as a selfless action meant to give the playerbase more options.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote: I am confused how can points be less balanced then bring what ever you want do what ever you want?
Thats like playing monopoly with the rules vs place hotels where ever ya like.
It's not about balance, really. it's about these changes giving the idea that AoS will suddenly become perfectly balanced and pseudo-tournament material, therefore shifting the game from being the casual narrative game to a TFG infested feth fest and shafting the current playerbase.
Oh ho ho delicious irony! But - again - my contribution isn't driven by optimism or pessimism. AoS is what it is. You can put a saddle on it but that doesn't make it a horse. You tack points on, that doesn't make it a PUG. I'll admit to pessimism on one front: adding points could poison the brand. But I hold out hope that GW's system will be such an afterthought that it won't even live up to the low standards of 40k.
I am not pointing you out at all Manchu. And do keep the barbs off the conversation as they are clearly unnecessary.
Great summary of exactly how you don't get it. Points are just a game mechanic. I like 'em fine, where they are appropriate. Both of my favorite miniatures games (Bolt Action and Middle-earth SBG) are well-balanced PUGs. I even enjoy list building. But the thing is, not every damn game needs to be a PUG, which many posters (yourself included) seem to assume.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: this means AoS is selling like crap and GW is trying to patch up some points to get the PUG culture players interested
Nah, the more likely cynical explanation is GW sees that players have organized themselves very successfully and they need to be involved with that.
Another case of toneless text - that was supposed to come off as good-natured ribbing after our long history of arguments concerning AoS! I should have added one of these guys:
Agreed with Manchu on the likely reason GW are doing it.
They said AoS was a framework. Community creates a tournament from it. GW take what they see as the best elements and rebrand as their own.
Also, GW aren't changing course here (in the sense of a complete direction change). This is one of three ways to play. And the one that'll see the least books/product. However, my pessimism is that it will change their customers' course.
I also agree that AoS was intentionally built from its very foundations to disregard the modern ideas of balance. It was going back to early GW days. AoS is not about balance in the conventional sense being used. As such, adding points can be fine but it won't provide what I fear a lot of posters are expecting. And that will only further the 'game is bad' idea.
There is no way there won't be loads of threads about the cost of this and that, or 'How can I Mathhammer this ASAP?', as soon as this points document is released. It shifts the conversation. At the moment it's more about cool warbands and narrative scenarios. I don't want that pushed aside and for it to fall to the same traps I see on the 40k subforum.
I'm not against points in a game. Absolutely not. They're a vital part of a game system that includes them in its design from the beginning.
But I am pessimistic about GW layering them on top, whilst the design team will continue to disregard modern notions of balance.
If you think about from a purely practical POV, just as far as organized play goes, you really need some way that players can make a list just so they know what to transport to the event.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think it's important for people to know that are tight competition games in which points work, for example WRG Ancients or Field of Glory, and these have a very different design philosophy to 40K, WHFB or AoS.
The most important thing is what Manchu emphasised, these games are built from the ground up as competitive tournament rules. Points balance and fairness in stand-up pitched battles was a key design principle at the start. (This does not prevent players from using the rules for pick up and narrative games, though.)
Yes but noone expects that level of balance from AoS, it's just that there is a lot to do before limitations of the system kick in.
As said before, if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well.
The next thing is that there are only a few special rules and they are all in the main rulebook.
Finally, the publishers issue all the rules in a single book, and don’t change them with supplements. The army lists books all conform to the original design principles and therefore fit properly into the system, whenever they are published.
These factors mean that the rules as a whole support a massive amount of variations. There are 300 or more army lists for WRG and FoG, all with options. Players aren't allowed to make up new combinations of their own, though, and this makes it difficult to find exploits.
...
GW’s design philosophy is completely different. Their main purpose to launch a new unit or book every couple of weeks, with new items and special rules that change the game. The core game tells you how to do magic, movement and combat, then refers you to the war scrolls and option books to follow the rules there. This is brilliant for launching new models, but they are being retro-fitted on to a basic scheme that is open ended and uncosted.
That's why the warscrolls and an ongoing balancing effort are important because it's the only method that can work with such a release model.
Plumbumbarum wrote: if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well
Let's set aside the word happy but otherwise we can agree on this point. I mean, it's already happening ... and the events run by the players seem to be actually ... well, very happy. I suspect this has something to do with the expectations set by the existing brand. Change those expectations, and the AoS tournament scene may look more like 40k's ... which is something GW spent the last however many years basically disassociating itself from.
Plumbumbarum wrote: if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well
Let's set aside the word happy but otherwise we can agree on this point. I mean, it's already happening ... and the events run by the players seem to be actually ... well, very happy. I suspect this has something to do with the expectations set by the existing brand. Change those expectations, and the AoS tournament scene may look more like 40k's ... which is something GW spent the last however many years basically disassociating itself from.
This is quite correct and it has me wondering if they are not attempting to reverse that particular situation, as schizophrenic as that sounds.
As I understand it the current style of tournament is that the organisers set up a number of standard scenarios, possibly taking these from campaign books or inventing their own. Players turn up with a recommended size of army, and negotiate with each other to balance the games.
This obviously is a tournament played for fun, rather than a hardcore competition to be top dog, and I heartily approve. However the addition of points does add two risks to the ambience.
The first is how much players will expect to get balance by using the new points system, and perhaps be disappointed. The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.
Both these factors are oppposite to the current state of play in AoS. By definition, the changed rules are going to attract different people to the game, which naturally is why GW are introducing them.
Of course it remains the right of individual TOs to decide how to run their events, and they won't be forced to use the new GW rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.
This seems unlikely to me becaus AoS by definition has such a vast selection of forces that there will be no possible cookie cutter OP list by default, especially if the points are kept a lower value.
For example, the amount of different lists I can build up just with my HE army alone makes it quite hard to predict what I may bring up to a specific event. Maybe I'll field a magic heavy gunline, or I'll field a cavalry only warband... or just brings flyers, etc etc. each with its own specific weaknesses and strengths.
Kilkrazy wrote: The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.
This seems unlikely to me becaus AoS by definition has such a vast selection of forces that there will be no possible cookie cutter OP list by default, especially if the points are kept a lower value. For example, the amount of different lists I can build up just with my HE army alone makes it quite hard to predict what I may bring up to a specific event. Maybe I'll field a magic heavy gunline, or I'll field a cavalry only warband... or just brings flyers, etc etc. each with its own specific weaknesses and strengths.
Or maybe I'm just being naive.
You sound optimistic; the opposite of my current position.
My pessimism says that this will result in more units collecting dust once again - whilst AoS dons la points has seen people dust off units they might not have otherwise used. Which was the intention of its design; no points = no "bad" unit.
Lower points means more units sharing the same value. Which means the best at that value soon being the dominant one at that bracket on the table (not that high/odd point values would solve this issue either).
Plumbumbarum wrote: if an abysmaly balanced game like 40k runs a happy tournament scene then AoS can as well
Let's set aside the word happy but otherwise we can agree on this point. I mean, it's already happening ... and the events run by the players seem to be actually ... well, very happy. I suspect this has something to do with the expectations set by the existing brand. Change those expectations, and the AoS tournament scene may look more like 40k's ... which is something GW spent the last however many years basically disassociating itself from.
Yes it was happy with a cheek punctured by a tongue heh. AoS can be much better balanced though if GW takes that chance.
GW seem to change now and imo for the better. You have 3 formats proposed, ofc no one plays unbound in 40k but 40k was established as a FOC limited points based game. Now AoS is established as an ultra casual, narrative game and if a competitive gaming mentality takes over (and it won't) then imo it would just mean it is what players want, vox populi etc. It's a matter of company support as well ofc but GW always supported narrative play and I doubt they will stop now.
Kilkrazy wrote: As I understand it the current style of tournament is that the organisers set up a number of standard scenarios, possibly taking these from campaign books or inventing their own. Players turn up with a recommended size of army, and negotiate with each other to balance the games.
This obviously is a tournament played for fun, rather than a hardcore competition to be top dog, and I heartily approve. However the addition of points does add two risks to the ambience.
The first is how much players will expect to get balance by using the new points system, and perhaps be disappointed. The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.
Both these factors are oppposite to the current state of play in AoS. By definition, the changed rules are going to attract different people to the game, which naturally is why GW are introducing them.
Of course it remains the right of individual TOs to decide how to run their events, and they won't be forced to use the new GW rules.
No, only WHW does the "negotiating for balance" thing. Community-run tournaments use one of the available points systems.
ShaneTB wrote: My pessimism says that this will result in more units collecting dust once again - whilst AoS dons la points has seen people dust off units they might not have otherwise used. Which was the intention of its design; no points = no "bad" unit.
I never really saw the basic AoS design opting out of points as a way of encouraging people to use units that were otherwise bad on the tabletop. It helps, sure, but that's not the main point.
This is simply because any competitive player looking at AoS with the cookie cutter, minmaxing mindset would find a way to exploit it to the max anyhow when preparing for an event. I have used the WHW events a few times as an example - if the maximum you can bring to an event is X models, why bother with the models with the crappier stats? Why not bring the best X models available to you? In that sense, we do have a point cost ascribed to a model. Every model is worth exactly 1 point, and you can field X points of models.
But why don't we see this in the reports we get from Matt? Because it's not in the spirit of the game, and the spirit of the game goes past minmaxing. It's as simple as that.
I'm not against the introduction of points to AoS - but my hope is that it's seen as a tool to get into the game and to then migrate to the 'cinematic' style of play, rather than becoming the de facto standard, which I believe is Manchu's point as well.
Kilkrazy wrote: The second is that 40K and old WHFB are won partly by list building which relies on finding exploits in the rules and poiints values.
This seems unlikely to me becaus AoS by definition has such a vast selection of forces that there will be no possible cookie cutter OP list by default, especially if the points are kept a lower value.
For example, the amount of different lists I can build up just with my HE army alone makes it quite hard to predict what I may bring up to a specific event. Maybe I'll field a magic heavy gunline, or I'll field a cavalry only warband... or just brings flyers, etc etc. each with its own specific weaknesses and strengths.
Or maybe I'm just being naive.
You sound optimistic; the opposite of my current position.
My pessimism says that this will result in more units collecting dust once again - whilst AoS dons la points has seen people dust off units they might not have otherwise used. Which was the intention of its design; no points = no "bad" unit.
Lower points means more units sharing the same value. Which means the best at that value soon being the dominant one at that bracket on the table (not that high/odd point values would solve this issue either).
Hope your optimism is right on this one.
The best way to prevent it is to balance the game properly, can't blame anyone doubting this will happen though. I say let's give them props now and trash them later, they can always blow it all up anyway.
The other way would be trying perfect imbalance and shake the meta as often as possible, noone buys the most efficient choices as in 2 months time everything would be different. Another thing that won't happen though.
But why don't we see this in the reports we get from Matt? Because it's not in the spirit of the game, and the spirit of the game goes past minmaxing. It's as simple as that.
And that's what I don't want us to lose. Will the introduction of 'points' as an option cause that? I guess we'll see.
Manchu wrote: Imagine trying to get this kind of player to set aside points and just go for something based on what seems cool.
Can't you do something cool, *with* points?
That aside, I wonder if this comp pack will limited to just points, or if it'll tighten up the rules too.
Doesn't look like it. Bad dice podcast is up. Points, new scenarios for different sizes, 6 flavours of pitched battle (thank Christ), campaign systems, but no rules changes - although it wouldn't be unusual for some very minor changes on specific battleplans.
But why don't we see this in the reports we get from Matt? Because it's not in the spirit of the game, and the spirit of the game goes past minmaxing. It's as simple as that.
And that's what I don't want us to lose. Will the introduction of 'points' as an option cause that? I guess we'll see.
No doubt.
I can't help but find it funny (and ironic, as Manchu put) that I - with my looong list of anti-AoS credentials - seem to have more faith (or optimism) in the spirit of AoS enduring this little addition than others.
The Generals Handbook:
First thing, its a book and will be release in the summer.
There are 5 new campaigns including path to glory,
22 new battle plans from small games all the way up to epic battles between the games biggest characters.
6 new ‘Pitched Battle’ scenarios
Multi-player and team play and of course,
full points values for every Warscroll in Age of Sigmar.
Well... i'm certainly going to buy it no matter what, and the only AoS book I've bought so far is the original big book, used for less than half price.
Mymearan wrote: Well... i'm certainly going to buy it no matter what, and the only AoS book I've bought so far is the original big book, used for less than half price.
.
The other content aside from points will probably make this the first AoS book I will buy...
All the online resources have been printed in hard copy, even those that have already been superseded.
I wouldn't think it unlikely that the actual points values are.maintained in a living format aside from the book, but the book is the 'state of play' to begin with.
Points are probably the lowest bullet point on my list in that book, and it will be a must-buy for me, just for all the inspiration about setting up games, different ways to play, and especially Path to Glory escalation-style campaigns.
I love how the naysayer argument is:
1) The point system is terrible and will ruin the game.
2) Everyone will want to use this terrible point system and force us to do so too.
This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.
This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.
I don't think that people forcing others to use points are idiots. I think thats just gamer culture and that yes by introducing an official point system, GW has largely killed off narrative and open play because few will want to touch that. I base my opinion off of the past twenty years of experience.
I can only speak for my own personal world but I know here if you want to play without points OR using something other than their new core-6 battle line variations (once the handbook is released) you'll have to fight mighty hard to get someone to agree to that.
Crimson wrote: I love how the naysayer argument is:
1) The point system is terrible and will ruin the game.
2) Everyone will want to use this terrible point system and force us to do so too.
This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.
I've been witness to two gaming groups growing apart and one of the reasons was 40k's and Fantasy's point issues. This is not to say anything else other than points can be an issue with people that take their games seriously (seriously as wasting valuable time on a game at the very least). As for the second claim - I listened to Heelenhammer's podcast and gathered that there will be 6 standard scenarios in the book. I fully expect these to become the new norm in AoS playing worldwide. Also, just to make it clear - I'm not a naysayer in the sense that I will bash the new point structure, but I intend to fully ignore it and atleast for a time shield the two guys I play with here. Both are very new to gaming and I fully intend to protect their hopefully growing interest from the influence of 40k and point tackled AoS. I have other games with points that I will present to them in the future, but AoS remains pointless for the foreseeable future. I don't think things will remain as blissful at the clubs I used to visit in my old town.
Ive wanted a reason to do lizardmen for a long time. First they blew up the old world, which made me take a wait and see approach. Then, they released AoS and the fantasy community here completely died. Most people tried AoS a few times, hated it and either stopped showing up or switched to another game (typically one that didn't involve GW fantasy miniatures). Knowing my meta, the return of points will see a return in players. We aren't all a bunch of WAAC guys that try to break the game, but some semblance of balance is definitely important to us. If I have some people to play against, I'll give AoS with points a try.
This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.
I don't think that people forcing others to use points are idiots. I think thats just gamer culture and that yes by introducing an official point system, GW has largely killed off narrative and open play because few will want to touch that. I base my opinion off of the past twenty years of experience.
I can only speak for my own personal world but I know here if you want to play without points OR using something other than their new core-6 battle line variations (once the handbook is released) you'll have to fight mighty hard to get someone to agree to that.
Which only happens because vast majority of people prefer to use points. Which they wouldn't if points were a terrible idea.
Which only happens because vast majority of people prefer to use points. Which they wouldn't if points were a terrible idea.
People *expect* some form of composition system because that's what *every* major game system has told them they have to use for the last decade.
From X-Wing to WFB to WMH to FoW and beyond, people have been conditioned to think composition is a fundamental part of game design. Like a car isn't possible without wheels.
As AoS has ably demonstrated, to some people the idea of a game without points is horrifying. It's an abomination because it's not even similar to anything they've encountered before. Removing codified composition from the game results in an Ork shoota;
Those who don't believe it can work, hey presto, it doesn't. Those who believe it can work, it does.
Even a terrible points system is sufficient for people to see 'fairness' in a game.
With the announcement of matched play a pretty common sight is now the poster/tweeter saying "Time to give AoS a try" or similar.
That's great, I like AoS, I believe it's a good, fun system and the more the merrier.
But it is mind boggling to me.that these people are now showing an interest simply because of 'official' points. It's the same game. The minis are the same. The fluff is the same. Christ, there have been at least half a dozen 'proper' fanmade comps since release that could have been tried if they were curious but points were holding them off.
The concern of Auticus, Manchu, myself and others is that people will suddenly see AoS as a 'valid' system purely because of points, and won't be interested in playing any other way. Plenty of people have been firing their shootas and having a whale of a time prior to this, and enjoying playing without points. We would like to keep our shootas, and if you give it a proper go, you'll want one too.
My fantasy group was devastated by AoS and the prospect adding points has allowed me to coax them back into being interested. So for me at least this is a good thing.
They simply couldn't get over why they would ever take Clan rats over storm vermin, or Chaos Warriors over Chosen. Some semblance of points will likely give them some choice here.
Thats the thing though even with points often you'll say "why do i ever take this over that"
That never goes away. That pretty much summarizes every edition of 40k and whfb for the past couple of decades, an entire list of things where you say "why would i ever take this instead of that?"
In that regard, it sounds like it just has to do with the incompetence of the GW staff making the game. It always reminds me of the anecdote about determining point costs for Chaplains and Librarians- the writers noticed that a lot of the staff used Chaplains a lot, so decided to nerf them a bit while buffing the Librarians (who weren't as frequently used). Problem was the Librarians were already good, and staff were just using Chaplains because they thought they were cool.
If GW can't manage to put some thought into how units should be costed- Ogryns, Sisters Repentia, Flashgitz, etc etc- if they can't find the motivation to balance armies beyond those which are preferred by the staff members themselves, then things will never get better.
I am at least hopeful the shock to the system AOS sales have (probably) been, coupled with the noted drop in units sold for 40k, will help GW wake up to the fact that people want *some* semblance of balance, and things to be costed appropriately beyond "well, the unit seemed cool to us." Perhaps the support they've gotten outside of their walls will help send them in the right direction.
I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound. With the point system coming out you will see the light infantry making a return as some players will take a "boots on the ground" approach rather than taking x wounds of the best models they have.
ninepaces wrote: I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound.
That's pretty sad. They've been institutionalized in their minds.
GW really failed to prepare the market for their new product. I can't recall a product before where so many of the most passionate posters were essentially posting non sequiturs.
"Try these carrots. They're different and you might like them."
Seagull Gamer: " But carrots are terrible French Fries! How can they be Fries if they aren't fried."
"They're carrots. Fries are made from potatoes."
SG: "Look stupid, carrots can't be better French Fries than fried carrots."
ninepaces wrote: I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound.
What makes it funnier is that misunderstanding is a direct result of comp systems being prevalent. People have spent a loooong time pushing against those constraints, to hunger for the elite units.
Take away comp, that behaviour/perception still applies, like opening a shaken can of soda.
What a lot of people actually found is that the reverse is true. 'Crappy' units started getting more game time because they were no longer 'inefficient'. Due to the changes to the combat system you don't have the gulf between -say- goblins and a BT that you used to.
When we did play with points I found myself not taking a unit I liked using because the points didn't equate for me.
So after the games with the comp pack I told my group I didn't like it because I was dropping units that were fun to play. Because the points were twigging something in my brain to crunch more; to ask "what is that stat value of that?"; to disregard whether it'd be fun to have them on the board.
AoS made me realise that my mentality towards a game is impacted by points.
So we went back to vanilla AoS (w/ base measuring) and haven't looked back since.
From the snippets I've heard of Matched Play I am not optimistic. Thankfully, I do like every slither of info about the Narrative Play.
So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.
Spinner wrote: So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.
Sudden Death is rarely used as the vast majority of scenarios override it.
The photos (evidence) you're seeing online is likely from events/tournaments with comp packs where it is beneficial to take bigger models. It was clear from the SCGT, for example, that bigger models were more cost effective in points.
I run a blob of Plague Monks as they'll cool to use. Same with Pink Horrors if I fancy a Chaos horde.
My friend rotates through his whole old Dwarf army with different units each game.
That said, the Destruction force I'm working on will be more bigger models. And that's simply because they look cooler.
Spinner wrote: So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.
My mate has a forest goblin army purely for AoS. 6 trolls, two arachnoroks, converted warmachines, but everything else is green guys on foot or spiders.
Right, yes, I understand everyone ignores Sudden Death because it's pretty silly and the scenarios tend to drop it (even GW knows it!), but it was part of the original four-page rules, which seems to argue that from a design standpoint, there's a push for more 'elite' models and a nudge away from horde armies.
It's not just pictures; I haven't even heard of anyone really running a horde-type Age of Sigmar army, except for the occasional summoning spam list. Actually, most of the Age of Sigmar pictures I've seen are MongooseMatt's campaign battle reports. Whatever else I might think of the game, those things are absolute gaming eye candy and he's clearly having a blast, can't fault anything there .
I'm not saying that it's bad to want to use big models or killier troops, either personally or from a design standpoint. They do tend to look cool, although I'd argue that one or two big models surrounded by lots of little guys helps them look even cooler. I'm just pointing out that, as far as I can tell, there's plenty of units not being taken in Age of Sigmar that would have been commonplace in WFB, and not because they were overpowered. My personal theory is that it was a deliberate choice, given how focused GW is on 'cinematics' and with the addition of a Space Marine equivalent faction as the new power baseline.
Spinner wrote: So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.
My mate has a forest goblin army purely for AoS. 6 trolls, two arachnoroks, converted warmachines, but everything else is green guys on foot or spiders.
I'd love to see pics if he'll let you, forest goblins were always my favorites and drooling over arachnarok paint jobs is a personal hobby of mine! How do games with them generally play out?
When we did play with points I found myself not taking a unit I liked using because the points didn't equate for me.
So after the games with the comp pack I told my group I didn't like it because I was dropping units that were fun to play. Because the points were twigging something in my brain to crunch more; to ask "what is that stat value of that?"; to disregard whether it'd be fun to have them on the board.
I still can't understand why everyone equates points with absolute optimisation.
You can still take a fun, non-optimal list for fun. It may not be competitive against a min-maxing opponent but so what? Not everyone min-maxes. Most people play casual and narrative even with a points system.
When I first read the 3 ways to play announcement the first two wordsc that came through my mind were "Captain obvious".
You could play Open play on any previous warhammer edition. Actually that's the way I taught new players. Pick up a few units that looked more or less evenly matched and off we go. You could take the choosing an army section of any previous WHF book and there's a column about "balance" basically saying that points are optional and that you should field armies the way you feel like. Actually there were scenarios like that last stand one where the attacker destroyed units came again on the following turn and victory was awarded depending on how many turns the defender held.
You could play narrative. Either you made it, or through GW published supplements (like the end times books) or Mighty empires or whatever.
And, of course, you could play matched with the points system.
People take word as law. Look at 40k. They made open play official with a couple of paragraphs entitled Unbound in the last rulebook. The Internet was not pleased.
Look at Forgeworld and 40k...people still argue about whether FW units should be allowed because it doesn't say in the 40k rulebook "You can take Forgeworld units".
You may feel like a six year-old, but it would certainly appear that if a company does not directly state a method of play it is therefore unofficial.
Edit: To ensure nothing's lost in text, I agree with your above post. I originally played late 80s/early 90s GW games with complete disregard to points. I teach people the games with a complete disregard to points. That said, if we're using points I know my mindset changes. It's subtle. But it happens.
Which only happens because vast majority of people prefer to use points. Which they wouldn't if points were a terrible idea.
People *expect* some form of composition system because that's what *every* major game system has told them they have to use for the last decade.
From X-Wing to WFB to WMH to FoW and beyond, people have been conditioned to think composition is a fundamental part of game design.
Nice theory, I often see it around repeated as fact but it doesn't hold up at all imo. What if those are players who enjoy list building under strict limitations? The point system doesn't even need to be super balanced for that. What if the designers of those games, mostly seasoned gamers and very strong minds just decided it's better and their particular playerbase agrees? Maybe most people enjoy the sport aspect and fair competition like in real life where 8 year kids playing football instinctively know that you have to balance the teams? What if the choice is made consciously?
Who told them "they have to use composition" btw? GW ranted about unbalanced, narrative gaming and "balance-schmalance" since forever, they gave every unit in their WD batreps a fancy name ffs. They push and promote narrative gaming hard for at least 2 and a half editions of 40k along with unbound but hardly anyone changed the playstyle, dirty brainwashed kids just waiting to be freed from their misery by AoS apparently.
Btw fantasy/sf games, if for nothing else, really need composition just because the units are made up, to avoid the initial fethed up games where people don't know the units. Everybody knows what is most likely to happen when 3 Shermans go for a Tiger on the open field, at least before Brad Pit comes riding a Firefly bouncing off stielhandgranaten with his face and taking names. Can't say the same about fantasy units, it's just arrogant GW forcing players to go through the initial hurdles because their vision of gaming is oh so superior. With points you have a choice, without points you had a choice to write it all yourself or wait months for a decent balance system. It's AoS where people were told "they have to" by full of themselves know it all gaming hipsters and thankfuly it changes now.
As AoS has ably demonstrated, to some people the idea of a game without points is horrifying. It's an abomination because it's not even similar to anything they've encountered before.
Not similar to anything they've encountered before, does Space Hulk have point cost now or what. How many video games have last stand scenarios.
Everybody knows how a scenario driven gaming looks like, quit making things up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShaneTB wrote: People take word as law. Look at 40k. They made open play official with a couple of paragraphs entitled Unbound in the last rulebook. The Internet was not pleased.
Maybe it just shows that majority of the playerbase wants srategic, point based gaming, especialy when there is little tactical depth in 40k. Just like fantasy guys did.
But hey let's kill the playstyle and teach them.
Everybody knows you can do unbound and those who wanted to already did.
When we did play with points I found myself not taking a unit I liked using because the points didn't equate for me.
So after the games with the comp pack I told my group I didn't like it because I was dropping units that were fun to play. Because the points were twigging something in my brain to crunch more; to ask "what is that stat value of that?"; to disregard whether it'd be fun to have them on the board.
I still can't understand why everyone equates points with absolute optimisation.
You can still take a fun, non-optimal list for fun. It may not be competitive against a min-maxing opponent but so what? Not everyone min-maxes. Most people play casual and narrative even with a points system.
When I first read the 3 ways to play announcement the first two wordsc that came through my mind were "Captain obvious".
You could play Open play on any previous warhammer edition. Actually that's the way I taught new players. Pick up a few units that looked more or less evenly matched and off we go. You could take the choosing an army section of any previous WHF book and there's a column about "balance" basically saying that points are optional and that you should field armies the way you feel like. Actually there were scenarios like that last stand one where the attacker destroyed units came again on the following turn and victory was awarded depending on how many turns the defender held.
You could play narrative. Either you made it, or through GW published supplements (like the end times books) or Mighty empires or whatever.
And, of course, you could play matched with the points system.
I felt they were addressing me like a 6-year old.
This.
Everyone I know who plays competitively also plays scenario based, unbalanced games. I fielded mixed armies in both 40k 5th edition and whfb 7th.
Points actualy help narrative games because writing a scenario you have a tool to check how unbalanced the game is.
It makes no difference to my point if people enjoyed list building or not. I used to, up to the point where i realised it had killed my interest in playing (which predated even the rumours for end times, so I'm not trying to justify my enjoyment of AoS that way).
Even then I was gobsmacked that AoS had no comp because well, how do you play without it? I've been gaming for nearly 30 years and this was a completely new idea to me.
People expect points values because composition is pretty much synonymous with table top wargaming to the vast majority of gamers, especially those who got into the hobby from the late 90's onward.
Stockholm syndrome has been used to describe people who like AoS because "MUH GW" but the fixation on points and the reaction to their removal is actually a far better example.
Also, Space Hulk? Really? One-off standalone boxed game with fixed force options in fixed scenarios. No regular event/tournament format I'm aware of. You're really reaching there. Come on.
I'm not annoyed that GW are adding points to AoS. If it gets more people playing, great. My concern is that it will become seen as the standard format because, y'know, balance an' that.
Which is why I'm hoping the narrative campaign stuff is beyond good so that people have pause to think what sort of game they want to play.
ninepaces wrote: I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound. With the point system coming out you will see the light infantry making a return as some players will take a "boots on the ground" approach rather than taking x wounds of the best models they have.
i might be misinterpretaing here but my experience has absolutely not been only best units per wound, rather what we like to field. The best part about AoS for me has been games where stuff i never see on the tables or some cool models rarely used in 8th, not even for events, but pick up games as well. Models people said, love them but they suck.
Plan to keep playing like that. No idea what matched play Will look like but excited to see. I get the feeling it's a way of play I'll use only at tournaments. If that.
ninepaces wrote: I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound. With the point system coming out you will see the light infantry making a return as some players will take a "boots on the ground" approach rather than taking x wounds of the best models they have.
i might be misinterpretaing here but my experience has absolutely not been only best units per wound, rather what we like to field. The best part about AoS for me has been games where stuff i never see on the tables or some cool models rarely used in 8th, not even for events, but pick up games as well. And I don't just mean once in a while. Like the majority of my games so far, and games around me as wel. Models people said, love them but they suck.
Plan to keep playing like that. No idea what matched play Will look like but excited to see. I get the feeling it's a way of play I'll use only at tournaments. If that.
RoperPG wrote: It makes no difference to my point if people enjoyed list building or not. I used to, up to the point where i realised it had killed my interest in playing (which predated even the rumours for end times, so I'm not trying to justify my enjoyment of AoS that way).
Even then I was gobsmacked that AoS had no comp because well, how do you play without it? I've been gaming for nearly 30 years and this was a completely new idea to me.
People expect points values because composition is pretty much synonymous with table top wargaming to the vast majority of gamers, especially those who got into the hobby from the late 90's onward.
Stockholm syndrome has been used to describe people who like AoS because "MUH GW" but the fixation on points and the reaction to their removal is actually a far better example.
Also, Space Hulk? Really? One-off standalone boxed game with fixed force options in fixed scenarios. No regular event/tournament format I'm aware of. You're really reaching there. Come on.
I'm not annoyed that GW are adding points to AoS. If it gets more people playing, great. My concern is that it will become seen as the standard format because, y'know, balance an' that.
Which is why I'm hoping the narrative campaign stuff is beyond good so that people have pause to think what sort of game they want to play.
It's the opposite for me. I like narrative gaming, it's fun once in a while but a proper pitched battle sends shivers down my spine, I love it and imagine a lot of people do as well.. I am not invested in the stories enough for "let's see what happens" games, to stay interesting in the long run. WW2 I always play unbalanced and scenario based for example, seems natural just like pitched and "balanced" for whfb.
Space Hulk is just a one example of a scenario driven game that is unbalanced with difficulty varrying from mission to mission. A a lot of people played it, it's not an alien concept.
It's ironic that GW has been the biggest recruiter to tabletop games for years, using games with points systems. Since they started to dilute the points balance with power creep, power leap, formations and unbound both WHFB and 40K got less popular.
Then GW come out with a completely non-points-balanced game, AoS, and it turns out not to be very popular, so they introduce points and everyone who does like the current game is annoyed.
Points will work okay in AoS if GW build in some force restrictions, like percentage allocations to different keywords and high cost units and so on. Many even some standard formations for different armies.
It's impossible to have a remotely balanced game with or without points if you let players choose and use whatever they like. The current AoS model of balance by negotiation and consent is a socially driven non-points force restriction system.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's ironic that GW has been the biggest recruiter to tabletop games for years, using games with points systems. Since they started to dilute the points balance with power creep, power leap, formations and unbound both WHFB and 40K got less popular.
Then GW come out with a completely non-points-balanced game, AoS, and it turns out not to be very popular, so they introduce points and everyone who does like the current game is annoyed.
The series of shots in the feet mentioned here should have opened GW's eyes a few years ago, but that's off-topic.
Kilkrazy wrote: Points will work okay in AoS if GW build in some force restrictions, like percentage allocations to different keywords and high cost units and so on. Many even some standard formations for different armies.
It's impossible to have a remotely balanced game with or without points if you let players choose and use whatever they like. The current AoS model of balance by negotiation and consent is a socially driven non-points force restriction system.
I couldn't agree more and that's what's annoying the players - they want to be able to keep using whatever they want however they want, which is just fine as this is the spirit of AoS.
I get the feeling that the publishing of this BRB will be doing the true damage to the existing AoS communities, not the introductions of points as a whole.
Then GW come out with a completely non-points-balanced game, AoS, and it turns out not to be very popular, so they introduce points and everyone who does like the current game is annoyed.
I think one of the reasons is polarization of the players community.
For some time now, AoS players had to fend of against critics of the game rules and attacks from people who really dislike the design behind. However, a defense that you saw quite commonly was the counter-attack against "competitive players" and accusing points system to be the true roots of all evils - thus GW getting rid of it was the right thing to do. Over and over.
Of course the people who were in favour of that defense would be annoyed. They surely can feel GW is admitting they were wrong from the very beginning and everything they tried to defend was wrong as well. Even if that's not the case.
At least, it's just my humble opinion on the subject. Certainly not the truth, maybe a part of it.
Most of this sad debate is that we all are players in the end and we kinda have the same purpose; we're playing to have fun, in our own way sure, but still. Trying to fight against each other isn't worth it, IMHO still
What I find quite ironic is that GW is, in fact, giving more tools so that players can play AoS the way they want it. They will still need the agreement of their "opponent" - which was always the case for any game, anyway -, but in the end the way AoS players now used to enjoy the game will not change.
What will change is that other players, with other ways to play, will come. It's not competition in that case; it's richness of diversity.
Like all changes, fear come first in mind. It's natural, but I think the events after this won't be that cataclysmic as we may feel right now.
You make a really good point. It sure puts the long time AoS defenders in an awkward position when they've spent the last 6 months talking about how amazing a lack of points is, then sales are so bad GW has to go back and add points because that was the number one complaint. I also think the people worried that points will ruin AoS are missing the forest for the trees.
For the last 20 years, GW has taken the attitude of "You will buy what we tell you to buy, we make models not rules, nobody cares about rules anyway, our customers are mostly collectors." For the first time I can remember, GW has listened to customer complaints and made a huge, fundamental change to one of their two main products as a reaction to customer feedback. If that wasnt enough, they got together with the organizers of the largest fantasy tournament in the world to come up with the most fair and balanced point system possible.
Right now I'm not even all that concerned about points in AoS one way or the other. My biggest takeaway is that GW has finally realized the error of their ways and are doing something to fix it before it gets any worse. As much as I've blasted GW on forums, facebook and IRL, I have to give them credit where it's due. I'm sure it wasn't easy to backtrack on 20 years of not giving a feth about rules or customer demand, but I'm glad they have.
Toofast wrote: My biggest takeaway is that GW has finally realized the error of their ways and are doing something to fix it before it gets any worse.
I don't think that's it. The fact there will be "three modes to play" is plainly saying what it says; that's three ways to play AoS, with some differences sure but, in the end, with the same models in the same universe. The main design behind AoS is still there; it's just giving more tools for players to play it like they want how they want.
The mistake may have been in the message received by players - that playing competitive is a sin/not a "good way to play" and that point system was the basis of this "Evil".
I believe that the important part here is giving an official common basis. Players will be free to change the parts they don't like/use other rules, sure, but this is important because it gives more tools to find something fitting to each player.
Basically, it's extending the base of the community of players. And that's really important for the future of the game. If all players just play each in their side, with few visible ways to promote the game and show it's living, it will eventually fade and die. Giving a common basis for three different modes is one of the best messages GW could send to its loyal base - including those who were lost with the exclusive "no point system" play style.
It's much more constructive than saying "competitive players are the evil - we don't need them". Saying "all play styles are fine - just grab the one suiting you and play" is way more efficient on the long term. Instead of alienating a part of your community of players, you just invite them to enjoy the game like they want how they want.
I read the blog of Matt about this subject, and his opinion about it is quite showing. Playing competitive and liking point system doesn't mean you go to tournaments; there are players who just like to play that way and don't only go in tournaments for that. It's just their playstyle, how they always play and how they like it. Saying GW should say points system mode is for competitive tournaments only is, to me, a bad move; it's like saying campaign mode should be used by background loving players only and must be limited to play between friends. That's not true; you may make an event gathering unknow players from all sides of the country that would be basically a huge campaign for one or two days. The same is for "competitive players" who want to play with points systems: they're not limited to one way to "express" their playstyle.
Tournaments are mere events to gather players who want to play their favorite games together. That's their main purpose. They may have a theme/favored playstyle, of course, but it's not the generalisation of "competition at all costs".
For the last 20 years, GW has taken the attitude of "You will buy what we tell you to buy, we make models not rules, nobody cares about rules anyway, our customers are mostly collectors." For the first time I can remember, GW has listened to customer complaints and made a huge, fundamental change to one of their two main products as a reaction to customer feedback.
Yes, the change in question being taking a step back and turning a possibly differently oriented game into the old, familiar thing that their customers have come to expect and require on a monthly basis. What a service to the world of GW gaming...
Yes, the change in question being taking a step back and turning a possibly differently oriented game into the old, familiar thing that their customers have come to expect and require on a monthly basis. What a service to the world of GW gaming...
How is giving more options to play a "step back"? I don't understand that conclusion.
If you want to play the actual AoS, you will still be able to do so. You just have two others ways to play for those who want to try different things. You will never be forced to use them.
About the "monthly basis", well...it's weekly, now, and already here for quite some time, actually.
Well I'm still of the opinion that the points are still not then main issue with the game so much as the lack of structure to the game. I mean I have always been more of a fluff player but I also know that my way of playing the game is very much in the minority. That overall seems to have been the problem, GW thought more people would enjoy that type of game, the narrative fun game where playing with a handicap is part of the fun.
I mean if they introduced something to the effect of 0-3 Heroes, 0-2 Monsters, 0-2 Warmachines Max 10 Warscrolls per army, max 30 wounds per scroll. You know, a way for people to build and plan an army right from the get go we probably wouldn't be in this position to begin with.
Toofast wrote: For the last 20 years, GW has taken the attitude of "You will buy what we tell you to buy, we make models not rules, nobody cares about rules anyway, our customers are mostly collectors." For the first time I can remember, GW has listened to customer complaints and made a huge, fundamental change to one of their two main products as a reaction to customer feedback. If that wasnt enough, they got together with the organizers of the largest fantasy tournament in the world to come up with the most fair and balanced point system possible.
Actually, this is the second time. The first time being the 6th edition Dark Elf Army book...although even then it didn't help all that much.
How is giving more options to play a "step back"? I don't understand that conclusion.
If you want to play the actual AoS, you will still be able to do so. You just have two others ways to play for those who want to try different things. You will never be forced to use them.
It has been discussed already at length that this new option could lead to a prevalent gaming habit of meeting for 2k points and rolling on the 6 mission table. When it becomes prevalent it will drive what players expect with new releases and with GW actually listening we will end with something entirely different form what we thought AoS would be ( which in the context of a living game with malleable rules, if one views AoS as such, may not matter at all). There is also the possibility that, due to the game's rules, stapling points to it may not work as well as players entering it for balance (which isn't said anywhere in GW's announcement) may come to expect. Pain, self flagellation, anguish and much suffering may erupt worldwide and the civilization as we know it will be drown in the blood and bile of the innocent.
About the "monthly basis", well...it's weekly, now, and already here for quite some time, actually.
The "monthly fix" would be the new unit expected to be used against other faction's new units with the appropriate sweet point cost. Should the point cost not meet the demand of customers the model will not be bought. It is an additional statistic that will always be compared to all the other things the model can do and henceforth drive the sale for that model. Does it sound familiar?
Always remember that GW's key motive is to increase sales.
GW clearly think there are a lot of people who so far have avoided AoS because it didn't have points. These people are likely to buy the new book, buy armies, and play with points. They are unlikely to play without points, because if they were interested in doing that they would have started months ago.
All the people who started AoS before now obviously are happy to play without points? So why should they change their minds now?
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Well I'm still of the opinion that the points are still not then main issue with the game so much as the lack of structure to the game.
Except, people want to play with the big, expensive centerpiece models... That is unbound.
All the people who started AoS before now obviously are happy to play without points? So why should they change their minds now?
Great question. I'll give my view point. They aren't really changing their mind. However what has always existed in my community is a desire to get everyone playing the same game the same way.
Event organizers are going to largely be doing things the tournament way. Because all events are the tournament way, that becomes the community default.
A lot of folks can only play once a month or so due to family, work, college, etc. They are going to pick that one day a month carefully and will likely pick the event that has the most people to play against. That's natural.
Its like a snowball rolling downhill.
So the current AOS players aren't changing their mind, rather they want to maximize their gaming experience with the biggest events / collection of players which will be the point system.
If people would be willing to rotate freely and do events one way or another and switch it up it wouldn't be a problem, but thats never how its' run here.
I've made it a point to run narrative events for the past fifteen years or so, and its been successful but takes a LOT of work to get people wiling to do those type of events, and our attendance fluctuates depending on how tournament crazy our region is currently in (right now the tournament arc has deepened and we are in tournament mode for the next couple years). There is a lot of argument and people taking things personally when they get penalized for bringing a min/max army to a narrative event or having to use a scenario thats not one of the core six tournament scenarios and is not perfectly balanced.
We shall see how it goes though. My prediction is that once the points are released, getting narrative games of AOS in my area will be a challenge unless by narrative we mean there's a story but you are taking the optimal builds again and disregarding a good chunk of the game and scenarios (which technically that is correct, you can play narratively with min/max armies, the narrative is that everyone commands super elite efficient armies. they don't usually correlate to any of the novels but the story can be written anyway you want so its also narrative)
Yes every game is narrative. The tabling is a story of a decesive victory of a superior force.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
via Lady Atia
https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/720 - GW is working with tournament organizers to get the stuff right
- There will be points
- There will be unit categories similiar to 40k, Leaders, Battle Line Units, Behemoths and Warmachines (working titles).
- You build your army similiar to 40k now, so you have Battalions and some kind of FoC, depeneding on the points size of your army - Core Rules + FAQ's stay the same.
- Books are not invalidated
- All warscrolls get points, even Tombkings/Squattonia
- Basically it's Unbound, Story Mode and Tournament Mode
- Open play is basically Unbound or Apocalypse, including rules for multi player battles
- Narrative Play will give you campaign rules similiar to FW's Imperial Armour/HH Campaigns
What do you think so far?
Edit :
- 5 Campaign in the book with a story arc for each. (path to glory included)
- 22 batte plan (small to very big)
- Must have book
- Rules for multiplayer games
- people from the podcast playtested the game.
- 2000 points = 2.5hours battle
However what has always existed in my community is a desire to get everyone playing the same game the same way.
That's an interesting thing to say, and actually it's not specific to AoS. The same thing happens for others games as well; that's why it's important to agree with your opponent first about what you want to play.
The thing is, you don't know if these new players going into AoS won't agree to play narrative games with you. You assume it will not be possible, certainly from a past experience - but then, if there are three modes, that means there is the possibility to shift from one to the other. So, why not giving it a try and see what will be the answer? You may be surprised, I think.
In the end, if it means more players for AoS - and thus, better sales for GW that will then keep on supporting the game -, wouldn't it be better in the end? Players who are fine to play without points would certainly still be there (except those who will quit because point system are coming back as an option - that would be quite a dumb reason to quit, IMHO, but well). So I don't think it won't be possible to play "unbound" like you were doing it until now.
True, in 40k, Unbound isn't that played in the open. But then 40k went differently; showing unbound as an option while points system was still firmly at the basis. Here, AoS is doing the opposite; Unbound was the basis before and now, points system is coming as an option.
Because in 20+ years of playing GW games, any mode other than competitive in my area has never really happened without a ton of effort and hurt feelings.
What this is doing (and you're right its a good thing overall it generates more sales) is that the competitive players are flooding back which as I explained above means the competitive events will be back as a normal occurrence and people want to play where the majority of people are playing when they have to choose either/or.
If for whatever reason narrative gaming is still being done on a fairly large scale and people are posting their narrative games on forums and I am able to not have to fight tooth and nail to get someone to do narrative format as opposed to min/max format, I will *gladly* reconsider my stance.
auticus wrote: which as I explained above means the competitive events will be back as a normal occurrence
Competitive events, even with AoS as it was already, were already a normal occurrence, though. They were just all using their own points or points-like (wound count, etc) systems.
For GW to make one in light of the fact that that is already how the game was being played in many venues is just common sense, and if it brings more popularity for the game, that will be a very good thing!
True, in 40k, Unbound isn't that played in the open. But then 40k went differently; showing unbound as an option while points system was still firmly at the basis. Here, AoS is doing the opposite; Unbound was the basis before and now, points system is coming as an option.
So, why thinking it will be going the same way?
I am afraid the same thing that happened in 40K will happen in AoS and AoS will become more toxic than it ever was because of the "play my way" or "this is how 40K should be played with no Unbound" It's one of the reasons why I never got into 6th edition because of peoples attitudes towards Unbound. I thought it was a great idea, but sadly Nerds and Geeks are set in their ways and can't change, and have to play their way.
I just really hope people don't try and play AoS as if it were 40K. While I don't play, can't find anyone in my town anymore, I like to collect. I just got back into AoS because of the nice small community we got here and the toxicity has died down. Now I hate to see it come back. I know, I know, I shouldn't let the internet toxicity effect me, but it ruined it for me. Just love how you guys have shown me the how good AoS can be.
I am truly happy about this announcement, yes, it can lead to people min-maxing and such but I think it will be good for the overall community.
Having the knowledge that I can post up I am looking for a game and at what points level I think will be able to make it the pick up game people are saying that it can't be. It can help newer players who might not have have a collection as large and diverse as you plan out their purchases with the knowledge that they need to build up to a certain level to start with and can change their list to suit their tastes. This is a problem I run into Malifaux a lot, when I first got into the game I bought about 100 models and went nuts. Playing at my local store though, I had more ways to counter other factions than the other guy. The game was still fun though, even though I had certain counters, the balancing mechanism of Soulstones made it not be a complete blow out.
I understand people fear of points becoming the standard way to play, but I have to ask, when/if you go out to play Age of Sigmar at your local store how do you address playing a game against a stranger?
"Hey, howsabout you don't be a douche and we just just slap some crap on the table and hope we get it kind of right."
Do you just see what they place and keep going (an option not everybody has)?. I know in my community, Age of Sigmar started out great until some of the older players brought in their 10k points of whatever and when the scenario they are playing gets rid of one of the few defences that a newer player has, why would they ever want to not only play that that location again (not helping the community grow and gain exposure to get more people to play) but want to play a game that it seems punishes you for not already having had an army or punishes you for starting a new one.
At least with a points system, I know what I will have to have ready for the one day I have to play games and if I have enough ready, have a few lists ready for what the local scene plays at. Sure you will get that neck beard who spent the last month doing all of the math in his head as to the best model per point ratio yada yada yada. But you are going to get that regardless in most games, most groups have that one person. So it's not like it's really changing much.
Like I said, I am pumped. Because of this news I pulled out my High Elves again today and began the process of stripping and rebasing them to repaint.
NH Gunsmith wrote: I am truly happy about this announcement, yes, it can lead to people min-maxing and such but I think it will be good for the overall community.
Having the knowledge that I can post up I am looking for a game and at what points level I think will be able to make it the pick up game people are saying that it can't be. It can help newer players who might not have have a collection as large and diverse as you plan out their purchases with the knowledge that they need to build up to a certain level to start with and can change their list to suit their tastes. This is a problem I run into Malifaux a lot, when I first got into the game I bought about 100 models and went nuts. Playing at my local store though, I had more ways to counter other factions than the other guy. The game was still fun though, even though I had certain counters, the balancing mechanism of Soulstones made it not be a complete blow out.
I understand people fear of points becoming the standard way to play, but I have to ask, when/if you go out to play Age of Sigmar at your local store how do you address playing a game against a stranger?
"Hey, howsabout you don't be a douche and we just just slap some crap on the table and hope we get it kind of right."
Do you just see what they place and keep going (an option not everybody has)?. I know in my community, Age of Sigmar started out great until some of the older players brought in their 10k points of whatever and when the scenario they are playing gets rid of one of the few defences that a newer player has, why would they ever want to not only play that that location again (not helping the community grow and gain exposure to get more people to play) but want to play a game that it seems punishes you for not already having had an army or punishes you for starting a new one.
At least with a points system, I know what I will have to have ready for the one day I have to play games and if I have enough ready, have a few lists ready for what the local scene plays at. Sure you will get that neck beard who spent the last month doing all of the math in his head as to the best model per point ratio yada yada yada. But you are going to get that regardless in most games, most groups have that one person. So it's not like it's really changing much.
Like I said, I am pumped. Because of this news I pulled out my High Elves again today and began the process of stripping and rebasing them to repaint.
I think the answer is that the people who are worried about the points system don't play in stores. In Europe most gaming is done at clubs or at home, there aren't many stores to play at (the UK is an exception obviously).
Yes, I don't go out of my way to field the most competitive list most of the time. But even playing a game, there are two or more people trying to win. I tone things down against newer players and try different things that I normally wouldn't against that faction/army, but just by putting our models on the table, my opponent(s) and I have come into an agreement that one of us WILL win because we are competing in a friendly game.
I honestly don't get why you wouldn't play to win, it doesn't mean that you have to play a win at all costs game. I am excited that points will give us a baseline to compete in a friendly matter. I do my best to provide a fun friendly game, because I have noticed a change in the attitudes of people I play. But, I am not going to hand my opponent the game either. I will try charges that I might normally not, cast a different spell, take a different shot. We are both still trying to win while having laughs and a good time though. Sorry for the rant!
You can play to win without having to field the most cost effective / optimal force all the time.
Thats for me the biggest issue to resolve. Points, while good overall I agree, will contribute to an internet meta returning to fantasy, which I know is just the way things are, but thats kind of where the butthurt flows from
auticus wrote: You can play to win without having to field the most cost effective / optimal force all the time.
Thats for me the biggest issue to resolve. Points, while good overall I agree, will contribute to an internet meta returning to fantasy, which I know is just the way things are, but thats kind of where the butthurt flows from
Oh I get it, it is tough but with or without points we have run into "that guy" during all the games I play, promote how you would like to play and build your own group at your store. Shoot, once people have seen how much fun we are having, we have gotten more people to try out wacky ideas, create their dream armies and have a fairly balanced game. Giving both sides a decent chance at victory.
Many games that work well casually have a "meta" that can be safely ignored by casual players. Two of the games I play (X-wing and Warmachine) have this to an extreme.
Doesn't affect me one bit as I "fly casual" with my friends or play casual-machine. Do I know the unit / list I'm taking isn't viable in a tournament? Yep... and I take it anyway, and my local group calibrates accordingly. If someone's taking an OTT list folks just ask them to tone it down a bit.
This will make it way easier to get folks interested in playing AoS, and easier to build towards a "list / army" than currently. I think it will be a huge boost for the health and adoption of the game. I'm excited about it because it means they'll be much more likely to be able to justify making sweet new monster kits like the Maw Krusha, which I can pick up and convert for whatever I like as per my usual. I imagine you'll see a bunch of conversions of these models to 40K, too, which given how cool the Ironjawz are is also welcome!
Yes I prefer cutthroat gaming (not into it for wins and glory but mental work) but if I meet a guy who hates it to the point he can't play it, I will accept his terms and look for other things to enjoy in the game. Hell I'd play Age of Sigmar with model count if someone asked me to, never happened though heh.
Toofast wrote: I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.
I mean, it's the concept of a game, ie "a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."
God forbid you actually *want* to win (whether the game is fluffy, competitive, or just Mouse Trap).
To me there is a difference between, "I want to win by playing better than the other side," and, "I want to win (partly) by having a better side." The second thing depends on list building if you take the view that building a powerful list is an inherent part of the game.
I'm not going to say that is wrong. For one thing, all generals in history try to make their side the stronger, though of course it's rare that generals get to build the army they want.
I will say that it creates problems when the game concept is fair balance, the points tell you all codexes/army books/war scroll compendia are created equal, and they are not.
I like there to be strategy in list building. To me a good points system is one that has a wide variety of strong builds for every faction/race, allowing the player to theme their army or base it around certain synergies. Tweaking your list and working out how it could be stronger is a fun part of the hobby too.
If there was a theoretical points system that gave players an equal chance no matter what they picked, I actually think it would be boring. On the other end of the spectrum a points system that only allowed a handful of strong builds (creating obvious choices) - removes the strategy too and makes for a bad points system.
There was a very good variety of builds at SCGT (the winning list being a Spider Grot themed force with some big Ogor monsters too), so I have high hopes for the points from GW as they have been working hand in hand with the SCGT guys over the past few months and will continue to do so.
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
Davor wrote: When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
Only in a bad points system though. In a good points system they would be costed appropriately so that there could be a build that incorporated them - or the difference between a "strong" army and a "weak" army would not be as large meaning that good tactics could overcome the minor disadvantage of taking them.
Have hope, my friend! :-)
(Plus - the Genestealers could come out for the "open" and "narrative" games too)!
Davor wrote: When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
Only in a bad points system though. In a good points system they would be costed appropriately so that there could be a build that incorporated them - or the difference between a "strong" army and a "weak" army would not be as large meaning that good tactics could overcome the minor disadvantage of taking them.
Have hope, my friend! :-)
(Plus - the Genestealers could come out for the "open" and "narrative" games too)!
You've completely missed his (no pun intended) point.
Once you start putting points into play, the game becomes mathy.
A big reason for 40k (and Fantasy) point costs being what they are is that there is a fair amount of fluff in them. There is no reason for example that terminators cost twice (or thrice) as much as marines, but they "have to be expensive" because they are elite and rare. Same with elven infantry back in 6th Edition. Goblins with shields were more or less equal to high elf spearmen, as neither didn't really any damage in melee, but because elves were elite and rare, they were over double the cost. No surprise that everyone played only with cavalry.
Bottle wrote: I like there to be strategy in list building. To me a good points system is one that has a wide variety of strong builds for every faction/race, allowing the player to theme their army or base it around certain synergies. Tweaking your list and working out how it could be stronger is a fun part of the hobby too.
If there was a theoretical points system that gave players an equal chance no matter what they picked, I actually think it would be boring. On the other end of the spectrum a points system that only allowed a handful of strong builds (creating obvious choices) - removes the strategy too and makes for a bad points system.
There was a very good variety of builds at SCGT (the winning list being a Spider Grot themed force with some big Ogor monsters too), so I have high hopes for the points from GW as they have been working hand in hand with the SCGT guys over the past few months and will continue to do so.
Formations theoretically offer off the shelf variant builds that represent themed armies (Tau Stealth Cadre and the like) with a bonus for taking them. The problem is the bonuses are often under-valued, making them no-brain picks if you have that army.
However this doesn't address the idea of letting the player make their own picks.
I don't think it's possible to make any possible selection of equal points value actually work. Armies in real life, in 40K and to a lesser extent in AoS don't work like that. An effective army needs some infantry to occupy objectives, vehicles to carry them near the obective, mobile support units like tanks or battle-suits that carry firepower with the infantry, some anti-vehicle firepower to attack the enemy's mobile support, some long-range support, anti-aircraft units, and so on and so on. Why should a player be OK taking just anti-aircraft guns, and how it is possible to make that work?
Davor wrote: When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
Points and restrictions is not necessarily a bad thing - it requires a robust system though, and unfortunately, for the most part, gw do not write robust systems and things like your gene stealers get left out in the cold. Even then, it's entirely possible to run gene stealers in 40k as they are now - just organise ahead of time, converse and co-operate with your opponent beforehand, theme the board, theme the armies appropriately and have a god scenario as a 'hook'. And off you go. Point based games don't need to be open ended, with all options available to be fielded unquestioningly all the time in a 'line up, face off and GO!' Type duels where only the best can be played. Clearly, approach it with some level of emotional maturity, co-operation, and judgement, and it can work just fine.
Everything is likewise desirable and useable in Aos, but only Until the point that the other guy says 'no, I don't want to play that'. And he might not even be the villain in the story for not wanting to play your x.
Everything is useable in Aos, provided you pass the 'social restrictions', and requires that your opponent enables you and doesn't veto what you want to bring. At its worst, Aos can easily become a race to the bottom for fear of not taking cool units because all the other guy has to do is say 'no'. Aos is often a compromise o. Intent.
Davor wrote: When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
Points and restrictions is not necessarily a bad thing - it requires a robust system though, and unfortunately, for the most part, gw do not write robust systems and things like your gene stealers get left out in the cold.
Everything is desirable and useable Until the point that the other guy says 'no, I don't want to play that'. And he might not even be the villain in the story for not wanting to play x.
Everything is useable in Aos, provided you pass the 'social restrictions', and requires that your opponent enables you and doesn't veto what you want to bring. At its worst, Aos can easily become a race to the bottom for fear of not taking cool units because all the other guy has to do is say 'no'. Aos is often a compromise o. Intent.v
It's not necessarily a good thing either. It's not just a GW thing or GW sucks and can't make good rules. Look at Star Wars X wing, Star Trek Attack Wing, 40K, Fantasy, a lot of units are never used? Why? Because they are not "cost effective" or there are better units/cards to be played.
For what ever reason, once points or numbers start getting thrown in, us geeks and nerds go math crazy. It's called Mathhammer for a reason. A lot of ships are not used in Star Wars/Trek games. Why? Because there are better ships. Or people buy the ship packs but only for the cards and will not play the ships because they are no good. We are picking and choosing for the better options and these are games that SCREAM to be played fluffy and especially in Star Trek Attack wing, the game is not being played fluffy.
That is why is see it a a bad thing, because no matter "how balanced" something is, some nerd/geek somewhere somehow will exploit it just so he can show his superior brilliance.
In the end, it's a wait and see approach. Hopefully a lot of people will have an open mind about playing the 3 ways instead of just with points. Then again seeing how unbound was taken in 40K, I am not seeing this as a good thing for AoS at all.
Toofast wrote: I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.
There is a difference between not playing to win and purposely throwing the game. Personally, I view games as a social experience, a way to interact cooperatively with others rather than competitively. "The object of the game is to win but the point of the game is to have fun." That's an apt description, however I suborn the object of winning to playing thematically, using my imagination, and taking the opportunity to converse. I would prefer to think of it as seeing what happens when these guys fight those guys rather than thinking about tactics and rules purely as a means to victory. If I want competition and mental exertion, I'll go take the Putnam exam. My hobby is supposed to relax me.
My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.
jamopower wrote: Goblins with shields were more or less equal to high elf spearmen, as neither didn't really any damage in melee, but because elves were elite and rare, they were over double the cost. No surprise that everyone played only with cavalry.
...except that one of them was highly-disciplined and had better stats that made it easier to hit their opponent, while the other was unreliable rabble that might actually turn on the unit next to it and frequently panicked away from the fight. So yes, more or less equal if you ignore all the stuff that made them different.
I'll grant they probably had some overlap of role - both are pretty squarely in the 'anvil unit' category - but there's solid reasons to make an elf more expensive than a goblin.
Davor wrote: When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
Only in a bad points system though. In a good points system they would be costed appropriately so that there could be a build that incorporated them - or the difference between a "strong" army and a "weak" army would not be as large meaning that good tactics could overcome the minor disadvantage of taking them.
Have hope, my friend! :-)
(Plus - the Genestealers could come out for the "open" and "narrative" games too)!
You've completely missed his (no pun intended) point.
Once you start putting points into play, the game becomes mathy.
Lol, did I? The example of Genestealers highlights to flaws of a bad point system.
Bottle wrote: I like there to be strategy in list building. To me a good points system is one that has a wide variety of strong builds for every faction/race, allowing the player to theme their army or base it around certain synergies. Tweaking your list and working out how it could be stronger is a fun part of the hobby too.
If there was a theoretical points system that gave players an equal chance no matter what they picked, I actually think it would be boring. On the other end of the spectrum a points system that only allowed a handful of strong builds (creating obvious choices) - removes the strategy too and makes for a bad points system.
There was a very good variety of builds at SCGT (the winning list being a Spider Grot themed force with some big Ogor monsters too), so I have high hopes for the points from GW as they have been working hand in hand with the SCGT guys over the past few months and will continue to do so.
Formations theoretically offer off the shelf variant builds that represent themed armies (Tau Stealth Cadre and the like) with a bonus for taking them. The problem is the bonuses are often under-valued, making them no-brain picks if you have that army.
However this doesn't address the idea of letting the player make their own picks.
I don't think it's possible to make any possible selection of equal points value actually work. Armies in real life, in 40K and to a lesser extent in AoS don't work like that. An effective army needs some infantry to occupy objectives, vehicles to carry them near the obective, mobile support units like tanks or battle-suits that carry firepower with the infantry, some anti-vehicle firepower to attack the enemy's mobile support, some long-range support, anti-aircraft units, and so on and so on. Why should a player be OK taking just anti-aircraft guns, and how it is possible to make that work?
Yes, I agree. There should be strategy in list building and it should mean taking units that compliment each other and fulfill different battlefield roles. This is something the AoS keyword synergies enable and do well.
Toofast wrote: I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.
snip
My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.
^^^ this right here. The podcasts relayed a Jervis quote about the game being two directors and the scene unfolds before them, which Is how I've always viewed it. I've had more fun playing AoS, all things considered equal. Than 8th I think because it feels more fun and less at stake, even at, no, especially at events. That's not all simple rules and awesome opponents. It's just a different experience which works better to me. It's liberating to be able to take whatever units I like and not have to worry about impossible match ups or anticlimactic rounds which should be anything but. Doesn't mean warhammer never had those but for whatever the playing conditions are now, it suits me better.
Sounds silly but kind of reminds me of improv. First rule, never say no. Opponent rocks Archaon and his legions and a very outmatched Order faction has to make this interesting. But they will get to have their scenes and not just be obliterated or removed without some memorable moments. Hope that makes some kind of sense
Toofast wrote: I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.
snip
My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.
^^^ this right here. The podcasts relayed a Jervis quote about the game being two directors and the scene unfolds before the, which Is how I've always viewed it. I've had more fun playing AoS, all things caused equal. Than 8th I think because it feels more fun and less at stake, even at, no, especially at events. That's not all simple rules and awesome opponents. It's just a different experience which works better to me. It's liberating to be able to take whatever units I like and not have to worry about impossible match ups or anticlimactic rounds which she be anything but. Doesn't mean warhammer never had those but for whatever the playing conditions are now, it suits me better.
Sounds silly but kind of reminds me of improv. First rule, never say no. Opponent rocks Archaon and his legions and a very outmatched Order faction has to make this interesting. But they will get to have their scenes and not just be obliterated or remove without some memorable moments. Hope that makes some kind of sense
I agree. It's like shooting hoops with my friends. I'm not thinking about how much I want to beat my buddies and staking my enjoyment on my performance. I'm thinking how fun playing with them will be. I'm still trying to shoot the ball into the net, but it's the experience of playing with my friends that I'm after, not winning.
Toofast wrote: I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.
snip
My point is that one can play without actually caring about winning and still have fun. It is freeing.
^^^ this right here. The podcasts relayed a Jervis quote about the game being two directors and the scene unfolds before the, which Is how I've always viewed it. ... ...
That's an interesting thing. I've always viewed a war game as two generals fighting each other and the battle takes place around them.
To me an RPG is closer to a directed narrative experience than a war game, especially if it's an actual narrative game like "My Life With Master" or "Prince Valiant".
I do get the idea that you can try to arrange an exciting cinematic visual narrative using a war game. I agree it's useless being too competitive because it sours the fun when you lose. I've mellowed over the decades because of that reason.
I've played wargames as narrative vehicles for a very long time. They are to me as valid as RPGs if that is your desire.
I also know a LOT of people that play RPGs competitively. While its not a tournament per say its definitely about winning the campaign and having the most optimal build for whatever system they are in to do that.
Davor wrote: When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
Points and restrictions is not necessarily a bad thing - it requires a robust system though, and unfortunately, for the most part, gw do not write robust systems and things like your gene stealers get left out in the cold. Even then, it's entirely possible to run gene stealers in 40k as they are now - just organise ahead of time, converse and co-operate with your opponent beforehand, theme the board, theme the armies appropriately and have a god scenario as a 'hook'. And off you go. Point based games don't need to be open ended, with all options available to be fielded unquestioningly all the time in a 'line up, face off and GO!' Type duels where only the best can be played. Clearly, approach it with some level of emotional maturity, co-operation, and judgement, and it can work just fine....
Thing is, points allow people to play with as minimum amount of discussion as possible.
People I've seen playing pick up games tend to want to know points values and if there is a scenario (if applicable----usually it's line up, face off and GO as you put it).
No agreements other than we're about to be opponents and I need to know which side of the table I need to put my minis-transport so I can start deployment.j
Points should be good for GW's bottom line and AoS's survivability.
But they will become the default in many if not most gaming groups.
And that's okay.
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
This argument holds no water.
I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card. Lack of points actually makes this problem worse because 1 goblin apparently equals one chaos lord. Clearly they are not the same, but under zero points and zero restrictions I can field as many of the best things as possible without consequence. At least with points I can say that maybe 50 goblins equals 1 chaos lord (or whatever the case is).
There are already units that are sitting on the shelf because they are not as good as something else. Without points this difference is felt even more keenly.
With points It's harder to decide whats worth taking and what isn't, especially with restrictions that force you to take generic troops that would otherwise never be used (and just sit on the self). Complete lack of force organization or restrictions even allows me to pick and choose the most broken units from every faction to create an un-fluffy, un-fun, WAAC monstrosity of an army that looks like gak on the table.
The complete opposite of what you are stating about points is true.
Complete lack of points and restrictions causes the game to spiral out of control.
I guess the assumption is that the players try to have somewhat equal forces, in which case you can justify taking worse units by simply taking more of them I.e. Like they would cost less. That way the genestealer effect doesn't happen as they have the points "set" and the genestealers cost so much more than they are worth that they never see game. There is nothing stopping people from playing so that genestealers would cost, say 8 points, but as the points are official no one dares to dabble with them. That's the great part in AoS community generated comps. The points are closer to the actual value than ever in any previous Warhammer.
auticus wrote: Its only going to be okay for you if you don't mind playing battle line with the same internet builds all the time.
That being the default sucks IMO.
Concur. We've been playing with the starter box as a self-contained game (no more or less models) and it's worked super well.
That said, I understand that GW need to make some money off AoS in addition to putting out some recently kick-ass board games (B@C, DWOK, Execution Force)...
It's kind of funny, to me, that many of the AoS-Sucks! crowd who so adamantly opposed it are suddenly interested in giving it a chance now that points are back on the table.
The line 'em up and play meat grinder mission approach overcomes even the old world getting blown up, sounds like *
*On a fluff note, I honestly don't think it's too far-fetched to think Sigmar/somebody will have had or recover a restoration artifact that'll make everything good as new.
GW are clearly listening and it costs them pretty much nothing to retcon the whole cataclysm.
Sigmar will smile as the old world is restored and wonder why only he knew that the Seraphon were once known merely as lizardmen.
Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.
This argument holds no water.
I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card.
Missed the point there, and you're still coming from an efficiency standpoint because you went straight for the 1:1 comparison.
It's not that every unit becomes good - it's that every unit stops being "not worth the points" which always seems the primary driver in not using something. There's no reason to not take lower-powered stuff.
Yes, it frees up the other end if the spectrum as well but that wasn't the point being made.
auticus wrote: I've played wargames as narrative vehicles for a very long time. They are to me as valid as RPGs if that is your desire.
I also know a LOT of people that play RPGs competitively. While its not a tournament per say its definitely about winning the campaign and having the most optimal build for whatever system they are in to do that.
I don't get that idea at all. I know people do it but I can't see the point.
I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card. Lack of points actually makes this problem worse because 1 goblin apparently equals one chaos lord. Clearly they are not the same, but under zero points and zero restrictions I can field as many of the best things as possible without consequence. At least with points I can say that maybe 50 goblins equals 1 chaos lord (or whatever the case is).
After you place down a chaos lord, the other player gets to decide what they think is equal to a chaos lord. They can put down fifty goblins or Nagash or whatever else they think is equivalent. Then its your turn to add something. Each player stops adding troops when they are comfortable with the forces on the table.
With points It's harder to decide whats worth taking and what isn't, especially with restrictions that force you to take generic troops that would otherwise never be used (and just sit on the self). Complete lack of force organization or restrictions even allows me to pick and choose the most broken units from every faction to create an un-fluffy, un-fun, WAAC monstrosity of an army that looks like gak on the table.
Under warhammer point systems, many special characters were banned explicitly or implicitly because they were too good for their point costs, and other forces were rarely or never included in armies because they were ineffective for their points values. Without points values and without force restrictions, you can actually use everything in your model collection, not just the "optimal, permitted" figures.
I can easily look at any unit from AOS and decide which is the most superior based on it's stats card. Lack of points actually makes this problem worse because 1 goblin apparently equals one chaos lord. Clearly they are not the same, but under zero points and zero restrictions I can field as many of the best things as possible without consequence. At least with points I can say that maybe 50 goblins equals 1 chaos lord (or whatever the case is).
After you place down a chaos lord, the other player gets to decide what they think is equal to a chaos lord. They can put down fifty goblins or Nagash or whatever else they think is equivalent. Then its your turn to add something. Each player stops adding troops when they are comfortable with the forces on the table.
So they are just using points, but without any actual numbers and a lot of guesswork?
They are still putting a value on how many goblins in a chaos lord instead of the points system saying there are 20 or whatever. What happens when people don't agree on a relative value?
I wrote azyr. I don't mind points. I mind points that are obviously deficient and unchanging that let internet metas dominate with the same 4 or 5 builds using the same basic scenario over and over.
Thing is, points allow people to play with as minimum amount of discussion as possible.
Not sure how to take this. On one way I can see you may mean, "let's play as soon as possible with little effort" then again, I am also reading it as "I don't want to talk to you, let's just play and be done with each other" which I have seen lots of time. If it's the former I agree with you, if it's the latter, might as well stay home and play computer games online.
What is wrong with discussing? After all we are going to what play 2, maybe 3 hours a game. A few minutes of discussing how the game you like to play and make those 2 or 3 hours more enjoyable, I see nothing wrong with.
I almost read your statement of "discussion" a bad thing.
I've seen him post intelligently before to know he is a fairly bright fellow. I know he got the point, he is just hellbent on taking a pooh on the game and cheerleading for other games.
Don't you need to prove Q and not Q for it to be reduction ad absurdum? I'm not sure any contradictory points have both been asserted, but I am open to hearing what you think, hobo.
Thing is, points allow people to play with as minimum amount of discussion as possible.
Not sure how to take this. On one way I can see you may mean, "let's play as soon as possible with little effort" then again, I am also reading it as "I don't want to talk to you, let's just play and be done with each other" which I have seen lots of time. If it's the former I agree with you, if it's the latter, might as well stay home and play computer games online.
What is wrong with discussing? After all we are going to what play 2, maybe 3 hours a game. A few minutes of discussing how the game you like to play and make those 2 or 3 hours more enjoyable, I see nothing wrong with.
I almost read your statement of "discussion" a bad thing.
Hmm you need to Fix your quote mate - I didn't say what you've apparently attributed to me.
Under warhammer point systems, many special characters were banned explicitly or implicitly because they were too good for their point costs, and other forces were rarely or never included in armies because they were ineffective for their points values. Without points values and without force restrictions, you can actually use everything in your model collection, not just the "optimal, permitted" figures.
Sure, the issue is with the points values allotted, not the points system.
Thats like blaming math for not understanding how to use an equation.
And you could always use your whole collection if you and your opponent agree to it, just like it is now with lack of points and restrictions.
I don't think people should completely write off the points system before seeing how GW has implemented it - that's got to be putting the cart before the horse!
I also don't think it should be viewed as a negative that this got people interested - surely that's the idea
I'm excited for this. I don't anticipate problems for myself as no matter where I play we will play what we want with the rules we want, and if it is an event, then what their comp pack or guidelines are. Simple simple. But I do hope this makes the gaming forums a bit more pleasant for a while. 
