Now there's points in Sigmar, my local GW has seen it become the most popular game played, and it has won back some people that had walked away from GW entirely. The game has gone from one or two games a week to around 6/7 a day, all of which have been matched play. From talking to the manager I understand that he has had to increase his Sigmar orders to ensure there is enough stock on the shelves, and from what he understands this is not uncommon. My local club that was completely against Sigmar, due to a demo game in which one player took the game to its competitive extreme, is getting hold of a starter set so they can drum up some interest in it. So I was wondering what the handbook has done for other communities, and if it has all been positive, or if there is some negative repercussions

That's what I've gotten from my two FLGS, One was caught completely off guard and was on back order for a week or so. Both of them have had very good months since the campaign started, and unlike the campaign as a whole, my area has been pretty hotly contested, which has added immensely to the fun.

What has the Generals Handbook done for my local AoS community? I think it might have made one. Before NOBODY wanted to play AoS, but now there is interest. Interest doesn't mean there will be a community but at least a few people are talking now.

So far there is 3 of us, and hopefully get our first game this weekend. Now I need to get started and paint my minis.

No affect at all. It sadly came out shortly after warmahordes mark 3, so it didnt even register. I am still the only AoS player. Dont know how much longer I will last either, downsizing my sets, but holding out hope. I have a color scheme I may try on a stormcast set.

We have a small but active 40k community. The handbook really gave them the familiar tools they needed to get into AoS.

Mostly casual but we still run tournaments, AoS is a seemingly perfect fit for us and we have at least 6 active players with myself looking to get into it as well.

Between the GHB and the world campaign our casual AoS scene has picked up tremendously. There has yet to be ventures into competitive formats using the Matched Play rules though.

Personally it didn't do too much around here yet. We already had a strong group of 15-20 going. The campaign is pretty contested minus death though.

AoS was starting to slightly over shadow 40k. After it 40k's space is a 2 tile table while AoS currently has a 3x2 and 2 2x2 if I remember right. Haven't seen a 40k game in weeks.

AoS went from 3-5 people to 10+ each game night. The traffic on our Facebook page has increased significantly as well.

I feel its a combination of the Campaign and the GHB. The GHB has a lot of the old fantasy players looking into AoS as well.

Sadly My local store just fell to chaos, but we golden hammer bro's are on our way to fix that. On the topic of popularity, AoS has made some serious gains since the campaign and the generals handbook.



It's even stolen some of warmachines steam (pun intended) from their new edition buzz. I love them both, so I hope there is enough market for both.

We have some very salty vets that are ruining it tbh. That includes the store owner.

Sadly if a store owner shows no interest then people feel justified to not play or support it.

The 3-4 of us that do play are having fun without them.

I'd say I'm in the boat of not-interested before, into it now.

I'm trying to grow my army slowly (unlike what I've done with pretty much every other game I've played), but the GHB really pushed me into actually buying models.

The only thing that makes me sad is that I'm planning on using a decent amount of non-GW models for counts-as Witch Aelves (since that kit is a bit pricey), so I'm not sure how much I can play in the official GW stores.

IMHO, in our meta, the General's Handbook and the points system in particular have encouraged a few players to take a 2nd look at AoS.

Atm, it's a case of "let's give it another chance". However, I think the jury is still out.

While our FLGS is very supportive of AoS, going so far as to prepare special scenic tables for our Season of War scenario games, our players have yet to dive into AoS.

I was one of those weary about the gh, I thought it might be a quick fix that would ultimately fail and also ultimately alienate those already playing

I'm happy to admit I couldn't have been more wrong! I see loads more being played, discussed and bought. The shift has been incredible.

Again, my group was slightly different since we had a pretty strong following for a while now, but the campaign did make it more frequent. Speaking of the campaign, my store is very order orientated, and that Slaves to Darkness box is looking mighty tempting...

I know it seems to be popular at the local GW (not sure how popular it was before). However, I also notice that almost everyone wants to play using Matched Play, regardless of the fact it removes a lot of freedom and flexibility.that I felt wasn't that bad with AoS if you weren't being a jerk.

That was to be expected. A giant chunk of players won't touch anything without points.

There are a couple guys here that will do narrative games without points but the vast majority (I'd say about 31 out of the 35 people that go to the gw store and play AOS here) are points-only matched-play only.

 statu wrote:
Now there's points in Sigmar, my local GW has seen it become the most popular game played, and it has won back some people that had walked away from GW entirely. The game has gone from one or two games a week to around 6/7 a day, all of which have been matched play. From talking to the manager I understand that he has had to increase his Sigmar orders to ensure there is enough stock on the shelves, and from what he understands this is not uncommon. My local club that was completely against Sigmar, due to a demo game in which one player took the game to its competitive extreme, is getting hold of a starter set so they can drum up some interest in it. So I was wondering what the handbook has done for other communities, and if it has all been positive, or if there is some negative repercussions

this is pretty much the reality at my local gw as well. there are defiantly plenty of 40k players and most of us gaming AOS also play 40k but we are all about sigmar at the moment. It helps that the manager has been doing nothing but painting and playing sigmar. It is pretty much a points based game right now though. There is a line in the shop of people waiting for a table and often team games to fit every one wanting to play.

This is a good thing. We have some gamey fellows and others just wanting to play fun games. Right now 40k is an after thought.

A few more people playing than before (most of our fantasy players were already converted to AoS), but the games have turned from fun battles (from what I can tell as a spectator) to ruthless min-maxing now points and troops are a thing.

 Drasius wrote:
A few more people playing than before (most of our fantasy players were already converted to AoS), but the games have turned from fun battles (from what I can tell as a spectator) to ruthless min-maxing now points and troops are a thing.

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time? I mean naturally it will balance out armies and give people what literally almost every previous player wanted, which was a points system.

Now we have both, no one is forced to use the points if you want to play the open way.

I wasn't trying to debate necessarily as much as learn how this affected the community. From what I could tell, its what 90% of the population wanted.

Now we have both, no one is forced to use the points if you want to play the open way.

Unless you want to play with yourself then in a lot of cases you will have to use points. Very very very few people where I am would consider no points as an option, and from what I am reading on forums that is pretty much a universal.

It is indeed what the vast majority wanted. But it also does lead to min/maxing very much as thats the nature of the beast.

You can't min/max without points so when there were no points it was basically eyeball it but there was no efficiency coefficient to gauge because there were no limits.

Now that there are limits people are figuring out quickly what is the most cost effective builds. In my area, a chaos player without 6 or 9 storm fiends is very rare, for example, because storm fiends do a ton of damage and for their cost are very efficient at it.

That nearly every chaos player despite main build type are also including 6 - 9 stormfiends is an unfortunate (IMO) side effect of point systems, especially point systems that undercost / undervalue models and don't fix it later.

We had ZERO players within an hour of me six months ago. Since even the announcement of the book, and especially since I got my early copy and began running games for a few stores, we've had maybe 10-12 new players, and more interest.

Its been a huge improvement around here, enough so that I am finding AoS my "main" game. Matched-Play ended up being exactly what my local players wanted/needed.

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

The downside is some people are bitter now.

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

The downside is some people are bitter now.

the game was great without points people just couldn't look past narrow view of how wargames should be played

Summoning armies are way too easy to beat I don't know where people get that.

 namiel wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

The downside is some people are bitter now.

the game was great without points people just couldn't look past narrow view of how wargames should be played

Summoning armies are way too easy to beat I don't know where people get that.

The game was horrific. It took a negotiation to have a game that approached fair. If that was your idea of good then goodness knows what you think was bad.

I liked and still do like aos without points, it's great fun in the situation I am in, can understand how it'd differ for others. Points are grand though for making the game more popular which is good as it is less likely to be cancelled. Fortunately I don't play against min maxers or un fluffy armies, thankfully. Can see how those who can o ly get that sort of game now might dislike the book.

It's a bit sad in a way that the experiment failed, romantic war gaming is dead and gone.

Yea it was a fun social experiment, but it demonstrated pretty much on a global scale where the current modern wargaming community lies in its mindset and what they want, so now there can be no debate or questioning or wondering.

 auticus wrote:
Yea it was a fun social experiment, but it demonstrated pretty much on a global scale where the current modern wargaming community lies in its mindset and what they want, so now there can be no debate or questioning or wondering.

I don't think that's true, I think it just speaks to what people expect out of certain kinds of games.

Stuff like Frostgrave snuck up and carved a surprisingly nice little niche for itself, with (now) three expansion books, and another two on the way, plus a whole model line. And that entire game hinges on fun, interesting, fluffy campaign gaming with a group of friends.

There will always be games of all kinds out there for those who want to find something catering to their specific group's needs.

Its just that in "the" game(s) that aim to be the biggest/most popular, there needs to be a standard mode in place for complete strangers to be able to instantly set up a vaguely balanced game. Launch AoS wasn't that game, and as a result had a ceiling on how popular it could be. Now? The sky is the limit as it hasn't forgone its launch mode for people gaming with friends... It just shores up gaps on the other end of the communities wants.

And yes, people like Davor will immediately cry "Bu... but... power gamers?!?!", but keep in mind he not only wasn't playing the game a month ago, he in fact was posting here how much he hated the fluff, etc... He's gone to wild about the game in the span of time since the ability to discuss it, analyze it, etc... grew massively thanks to the mere existence of this handbook.

pm713 wrote:

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

I can say the same thing exactly for 40K right now. I can say the EXACT thing for Fantasy back in the day as well. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers.

Now that said, are you speaking from experience? Has this exact situation happened to you?

was bitter about fantasy dying before, once the handbook came out, a buddy of mine pulled me back in, and since then both of us have convinced another 10-20 people to hop into the game as well. All in all: Glad to see 'fantasy' being played, sad it's a different setting still, though

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

I can say the same thing exactly for 40K right now. I can say the EXACT thing for Fantasy back in the day as well. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers.

Now that said, are you speaking from experience? Has this exact situation happened to you?

You really can't because neither of those asks me to make the game have some semblance of fairness because the writers couldn't be bothered.

What situation exactly? I didn't mention anything that specific...

Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers. People will whine.

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

I can say the same thing exactly for 40K right now. I can say the EXACT thing for Fantasy back in the day as well. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers.

Now that said, are you speaking from experience? Has this exact situation happened to you?

You really can't because neither of those asks me to make the game have some semblance of fairness because the writers couldn't be bothered.

What situation exactly? I didn't mention anything that specific...

Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers. People will whine.

You said summoning. That is something pretty specific my friend. So are you talking from actual experience or just by going what other people on the internet have said?

Also I can and I just did. 40K and Fantasy had people who couldn't bother to make good/balanced/rules/codices/what ever the books were called in Fantasy as well and it seemed you have played them as well. You have people taking advantage and twisting rules so they can have an easier time of winning.

So again, nothing has changed, AoS didn't create anything new that didn't happen before.

Auticus is so right.

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

I can say the same thing exactly for 40K right now. I can say the EXACT thing for Fantasy back in the day as well. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers.

Now that said, are you speaking from experience? Has this exact situation happened to you?

You really can't because neither of those asks me to make the game have some semblance of fairness because the writers couldn't be bothered.

What situation exactly? I didn't mention anything that specific...

Nothing has changed. Nothing will change. The sun will rise, water is wet, and someone some where will always take advantage with plastic toy soldiers. People will whine.

You said summoning. That is something pretty specific my friend. So are you talking from actual experience or just by going what other people on the internet have said?

Also I can and I just did. 40K and Fantasy had people who couldn't bother to make good/balanced/rules/codices/what ever the books were called in Fantasy as well and it seemed you have played them as well. You have people taking advantage and twisting rules so they can have an easier time of winning.

So again, nothing has changed, AoS didn't create anything new that didn't happen before.

Auticus is so right.

It isn't really. It's a general mechanic of the game and what you said was incredibly vague. To asnwer the question yes I am talking from experience.

You can't. Last I checked they both have points therefore an attempt at balance. Which I cannot say for old AoS.

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Wow that's salty, I'll counter by hazarding a guess that people like fair fights more than waiving their metaphorical nerd bits about. I've watched dozens of battle reports from the pointless days, and AoS was awful, all of the scenarios were designed around the idea that there would never be a fair fight, and the scenarios were so gimmicky that sometimes actual combat wasn't required. AoS is a game, games have rules, winners, losers, and are played in the spirit of friendly competition. AoS is not improvisational theater with expensive plastic props. I get that my way of playing isn't for everyone, but judging from the traction AoS is getting after the GH I think people like yourself who were happy with the pointless AoS are in the minority.

Complaining about math hammer makes you look like you are angry there are better informed people in the world. I get that math hammer is yet another part of the hobby you are not into, but trying to twist it into some ego masturbatory thing that people only do to feel superior to others is so baseless that it says much more about you than than the targets of your remark. Also are L2P post a large enough issue on this forum you felt it necessary to turn your sig into a billboard showing your contempt for competitive players?

pm713 wrote:

The game was horrific. It took a negotiation to have a game that approached fair. If that was your idea of good then goodness knows what you think was bad.

*shrug*. Depends on the people, I suppose. I happen to quite enjoy the diy gaming that requires a bit of up front negotiation etc. I don't see anything at all wrong with it to be perfectly frank. I've found that this approach allows for a lot of creativity and for that, it can be hugely rewarding.

Then again, I'm also a huge fan of 'organised play' when it comes to games like warmachine etc.

Different 'itches' pm. And Both complement each other. Quite nicely. Focusing on one style of play as the 'one true way to play' (regardless of what style that is) does nothing more than limit your gaming horizons. There's plenty cool stuff out there. And to be fair, You might not be intending it here, but you are coming perilously close to the 'how dare you have fun in an unapproved way that I personally also disagree with' fallacy.

 Grimgold wrote:

Wow that's salty, I'll counter by hazarding a guess that people like fair fights more than waiving their metaphorical nerd bits about. I've watched dozens of battle reports from the pointless days, and AoS was awful, all of the scenarios were designed around the idea that there would never be a fair fight, and the scenarios were so gimmicky that sometimes actual combat wasn't required. AoS is a game, games have rules, winners, losers, and are played in the spirit of friendly competition. AoS is not improvisational theater with expensive plastic props. I get that my way of playing isn't for everyone, but judging from the traction AoS is getting after the GH I think people like yourself who were happy with the pointless AoS are in the minority.

Complaining about math hammer makes you look like you are angry there are better informed people in the world. I get that math hammer is yet another part of the hobby you are not into, but trying to twist it into some ego masturbatory thing that people only do to feel superior to others is so baseless that it says much more about you than than the targets of your remark. Also are L2P post a large enough issue on this forum you felt it necessary to turn your sig into a billboard showing your contempt for competitive players?

I dunno grim. The guy has a point. The sad truth is There are nerds like that. There are plenty selfish, self centred, toxic and entitled gamers who want to believe it's all about them, who only see it as about 'winning a duel' and will now feel empowered and enabled thst they can 'legally' abuse a game in order to one-up someone Instead of talking to people, showing some emotional maturity and collaborating on an interesting hook/scenario. Please note: I am not tarring competitive gamers with this (I am one myself). This is a tfg thing, and tfg's exist in every genre and every gaming style.

Games might have rules, winners and losers etc, and be played in the spirit of friendly competition (all things I fully agree with by the way) but this is not mutually exclusive with a 'narrative' approach. Some of the best gsming evenings I have had have been 'playing out the story in the spirit of the narrative' rather than trying to win a duel with my opponent. Don't dismiss it. 'Improvisational theatre' isn't a bad thing when it comes to injecting a bit of creativity into your wargames. Well, bar the pew pew noises. Leave them at home!

I am not surprised that an 'organised' approach to Aos is getting traction. Fair play - it'll be nice to see Aos generate some steam. Still not my game But it's nice for the aos community to see it succeed more than it has been to date.

That isn't my intention. If someone really doesn't like points I'm not going to force them to use them. I just think they're a much better system personally.

pm713 wrote:To asnwer the question yes I am talking from experience.

I can't argue with that my friend. If you experienced then it's proof. I thought maybe you were going off what others have said. But actually experiencing it, I can't counter your point. You are correct then.

Grimgold wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Wow that's salty, I'll counter by hazarding a guess that people like fair fights more than waiving their metaphorical nerd bits about. I've watched dozens of battle reports from the pointless days, and AoS was awful, all of the scenarios were designed around the idea that there would never be a fair fight, and the scenarios were so gimmicky that sometimes actual combat wasn't required. AoS is a game, games have rules, winners, losers, and are played in the spirit of friendly competition. AoS is not improvisational theater with expensive plastic props. I get that my way of playing isn't for everyone, but judging from the traction AoS is getting after the GH I think people like yourself who were happy with the pointless AoS are in the minority.

Complaining about math hammer makes you look like you are angry there are better informed people in the world. I get that math hammer is yet another part of the hobby you are not into, but trying to twist it into some ego masturbatory thing that people only do to feel superior to others is so baseless that it says much more about you than than the targets of your remark. Also are L2P post a large enough issue on this forum you felt it necessary to turn your sig into a billboard showing your contempt for competitive players?

I am not complaining about math hammer at all. What am I complaining about? Someone asked how, I replied as to how. No complaints about it at all.

As for making my sig into a billboard showing my contempt for competitive players? No you are wrong. When I see someone say the truth, I think it fits perfectly. It is you who are saying it is aimed at competitive players. It is not, and now you are just assuming now.

I have to say I never thought I'd agree with Auticus about this, but I'm kinda disappointed that matched play has become the default. Yes, I agree that AoS before was lacking something and was way too easy to abuse by just taking whatever you wanted, but I find matched play to be very restrictive. I've found too at my GW that matched play is now the default, and people are reluctant to play without using the points in the book. I don't mind that if we were doing a tournament or something, but as someone who bought a boxed set and really likes the battalion info that's in it, I'm kinda sad that I can't use my army as I wanted to because it has no points. Maybe I can find someone who will let me just use it, but it's doubtful and when I asked at the shop everyone was pretty much "Yeah, we only uses Matched Play now".

I think points are great to have in a system, don't get me wrong. But I feel that if you're playing a casual or narrative/themed game it's much easier to use a more open format instead, because it's a casual game as long as nobody is trying to blatantly min/max. A tournament or structured league with points, sure I get using points for that because you want things to be as "even" as possible.

I'm going to try to broach the idea of an in-store narrative campaign, maybe in the Fall, and I hope that I can convince people NOT to use matched play for it but basically have some etiquette guidelines. What initially attracted me to AoS, even though I knew the GH was coming out, was the idea of being able to very heavily flavor and style an army without having points hindering that. An all cavalry force, or a force specifically created for a specific narrative/fluff purpose, for example, which points often don't allow by requiring things.

In my case, I wanted a horde of ghouls backed up by some harder dudes. I can still do that to a point, but since matched play forces me to take Battleline units, I can't have a huge blob of ghouls right now. because reasons. I can't say I like that.

 auticus wrote:

Now we have both, no one is forced to use the points if you want to play the open way.

It is indeed what the vast majority wanted. But it also does lead to min/maxing very much as thats the nature of the beast.

You can't min/max without points so when there were no points it was basically eyeball it but there was no efficiency coefficient to gauge because there were no limits.

As a horde player, I don't think I really agree with this. even with open play, there's no real incentive to take weaker-yet-similar units. Skaven slaves are worse then Clanrats, Clanrats are worse then Stormvermin, Night runners are worse then Gutter runners, etc.

With wounds as the basic model cost, these similar units clearly have one that is the better choice, and one that is worse. The only reason to take the weaker units in open play is for fluff reasons, while with points there's an actual in-game tactical reason to take cheaper units.

Now this Isn't always the case in open play. Other units do bring different skills to the table, so I would venture that there are reasons to take either Poison wind Globadiers vs. Jezzails, or Warp-fire Throwers vs. Rattling guns, for example. They offer different rules depending on what your opponent has. (say against a Warriors of Chaos heavy army with rune shields giving saves vs. Mortal wounds. one weapon is better against them, another against Seraphon.)

In theory points would level all that out for weaker vs. stronger units, and cause the player to think about a well-rounded army when it comes to choosing similar-yet-different units.

In theory yes. In practice, I have found no.

I'm working on publishing the statistical analysis of my azyr comp into graph format to graphically display the raw output and defensive capabilities of scrolls and show how they are "efficient" or not by how many points you pay per point of damage / longevity.

I find that the vast majority of everyone I have ever met in twenty years tend to always pull troops from the higher end of the graph, and typically the large chunk of armies that are over represented have the most of these.

Points *should* be used for balance, but GW points have never done a good job at this at all, and the current GHB/SCGT points are better than past GW attempts, but still fall short in many ways in regards to over powered / most efficient units for the points cost unfortunately.

A week or so into "official points" being a thing and the great exodus to the most efficient units being over represented on every table in the store has already begun with earnest here. Newer players with khorne armies are unloading them for stormcast. Stormfiends are everywhere in just about every chaos army regardless of chaos type. These things were expected.

As to matched play being default mode, thats how any game is at least in the US. Pick a game. If you see it in an FLGS its likely the players are following competitive event standards for their pick up games.

Getting people to do narrative / non point games is like getting them to do unbound 40k. Yes you can find someone to do that but you are going to have to put in a ton of work finding that person and it also often leads to receiving some flak/disdain from your community if its done in public.

I agree auticus (funny how I've done a 180 eh?). For AoS I'd rather, outside of a tournament setting, just talk and come up with something cool that works well enough and is flavorful. But it's my experience as well that people are like "Oh points! Only points or nothing now!" and I don't care for that right now.

I just meant I always saw that, even in open play. Most players would just grab the gold and field it, There really is no reasons to use Clanrats over Stormvermin, unless you don't own them.

I really feel that open play really culled horde lists, goblin armies, Clan Morrs, lots of empire troops etc. became moot.

I played a lot with both my eshin lists and my Clan Morrs list (what my army has always been built around,) and it always felt weird to handicap myself by taking clearly inferior units.

Its ok to change positions over time gods know I've done the same!

I don't mind points so much as I mind having to face the same type of armies every game on the same type of tables using the same scenarios. Points are a thing that I'm just used to.

However I would also not be against coming up wtih something cool with a like minded opponent and doing a narrative that tells a story that is something other than "lord a**kicker and his most efficient units took on lord smash-you-in-the-mouth with his most efficient units in another pitched battle".

I really feel that open play really culled horde lists, goblin armies, Clan Morrs, lots of empire troops etc. became moot.

I wish we had a better way to gauge global tendencies, but I'm finding even with points no one is using hordes. Why use hordes and have to paint all that up when you can just take 1/5 of that and a lot under the new "official points" are highly cost efficient!

 auticus wrote:
Its ok to change positions over time gods know I've done the same!

I don't mind points so much as I mind having to face the same type of armies every game on the same type of tables using the same scenarios. Points are a thing that I'm just used to.

However I would also not be against coming up wtih something cool with a like minded opponent and doing a narrative that tells a story that is something other than "lord a**kicker and his most efficient units took on lord smash-you-in-the-mouth with his most efficient units in another pitched battle".

I really feel that open play really culled horde lists, goblin armies, Clan Morrs, lots of empire troops etc. became moot.

I wish we had a better way to gauge global tendencies, but I'm finding even with points no one is using hordes. Why use hordes and have to paint all that up when you can just take 1/5 of that and a lot under the new "official points" are highly cost efficient!

Well for me, I had already painted up 13,000 points of skaven, with at least three of every unit available to the army. With AoS I can field a different army about 20 times in a row, haha.

I do love the more narrative driven games, although dropping a 1,500 point army of Skryre guns can be fun, I much rather prefer the more subtle units, all the clans have a hreat variety of modest-powered units. (giant rats, Night/Gutter runners, Plague/censor bearers, etc.)


I'm really excited to try out how my Clan Morrs list does with the new rules. slaves, Clansrats, Stormvermin, backed up by a little of everything else that's small. I'm also curious to see if horde armies make a return, and if they are viable builds.

pm713 wrote:That isn't my intention. If someone really doesn't like points I'm not going to force them to use them. I just think they're a much better system personally.

To be fair to you, I didn’t think it was your intention at all either, PM. But it did come across that way. Internet and tone is my guess.

Regarding points as a ‘better system’, I don’t necessarily agree or disagree. My favourite wargames - warmachine/hordes, infinity and weirdly, Lord of the rings sbg are all points-based games.Points can be a good system. With caveats. Points are a good system, when they’re well implemented. However, there are plenty bad ways to implement points, which begs the question – is it ‘points’ that are the good thing, or ‘the implementation’? If it’s ‘the implementation’ that is really what makes stuff work, then surely this can be translated over to other non-point-based systems that assign in-game value/structure? I mean, surely ‘eyeballing’ games for balance is just as good, if you implement it well, for example? A good structure is a good structure is a good structure, regardless of its components or shape. What makes points objectively ‘better’? I mean, when they’re done poorly, they’re terrible game-destroying things. At the end of the day it’s just a language/metric for assigning value and structure to stuff in a game, and there are other ways of doing that as well. And it must be realised points don’t work in isolation – a good points system needs a lot of load-bearing supporting structures to hold it up, and carry its weight and even then, the whole thing can be stressed, can creak and groan, and quite often there can be issues and fault lines. Narrative games are no different – they require different supporting structures to hold them up as well-often, a bit of cop-on, emotional maturity and other soft social skills that act as a shock absorber). Neither is necessarily ‘better’ if you ask me.

I think a lot of people, especially younger players and most especially those who ‘graduated’ through the school of GW think points are better for the simple reason it’s what (often, it's all) they’ve been exposed to, it’s a language/concept/world view they understand and are familiar with. And other ways of playing are ‘alien’ and ‘different’ and if it’s not something you’ve been exposed to, you can’t really empathise with it, or see its value, or how to make it work, hence the mental block that seems to come even with the idea of ‘not playing with points’. It amuses me how inconceivable and insurmountable it is to some people, when I’m quite happy to just get on with it and can it work to the point where it’s almost second nature to me now. Too many people are too set in their ways (how often to I say that player inertia is one of the biggest problems we have as a subculture), and would rather wallow in what makes them miserable, because its familiar, rather than be proactive, step out of their own self-imposed mental prisons, and try and do something different/something they’re not used to even if it would make things better. It boils down to ‘blind faith’ in their invisible ‘god’. With ‘points’ being that god. And that’s blind faith that simply cannot be questioned, (or for the true believers, even reasoned with). It’s an absolute. Points are unquestionable. They’re law. Points have to work, because surely there can’t be anything else, and every other way must be bad. And you can’t ever turn away from them. And you are a bad person for believing in something different. Because faith in ‘almighty points’. We all have real life examples of this too – this is not some abstract concept. This is just human nature.

I simply do not see points/narrative it as either/or. Or better/worse. From experience with both, both have value. The narrative/collaboration approach has just as much merit, if you ask me, and whilst it’s an approach with its own hurdles (and again, points-based games have theirs too) I do know people who grew up with the collaboration/narrative approach (it’s quite common in historicals, and amongst older players for example) for whom it’s just the go-to thing that they do, and it works seamlessly, and points are to them, just a really strange idea that doesn’t/wouldn’t necessarily add anything to the games they play.

Unfortunately, there is an all too common narrative out there of ‘how the hell can people have fun in collaborating in game-building, and negotiating in terms of what they’d like to play. I don’t play that way, and can’t conceive how it could even work! That’s just horrible!’ You said it yourself, however unintentionally - It took a negotiation to have a game that approached fair. If that was your idea of good then goodness knows what you think was bad. It’s not even ‘I prefer points’. It wasn’t even about having different preferences. Whether you intended it or not (and as you say, you didn’t) but your point was still kind of sneering between the letters in saying that having/wanting to talk with your opponent about game building is this horrifyingly bad thing (despite some of the best gaming advice out there being ‘play with like minded people’). I mean, really – how bad is having a chat about something for the sake of fairness and building an enjoyable game? Really? ‘mate, can we leave the ‘over 9000’ stuff at home for once and just field some of the more basic units for once?’ Is it so incomprehensible to play your mate’s scenario/theme this time, and do yours the next? Is it so difficult to say ‘sure, lets try it that way and see what happens’? or how about trying to tailor or theme a game between mates. You don’t need to have the ‘over 9000’ stuff to have fun – even if it’s just tac.squads raiding a facility defended by IG platoons and sentinels, there is a lot of scope there for fun games, and it’s fun to leave the power pieces at home, and let other stuff take the spotlight every now and then if you ask me. Your post, however unintentional you may have been in writing it, tries to dismiss and devalue that whole entire viewpoint by questioning the ‘values’ of,its adherents – again, having a chat about the type of game you want to play is 'bad', because its something you don’t like, therefore its objectively wrong, and they must be bad people with no value or legitimacy to their viewpoint. Too often you see people waxing hysterically about how wargames ‘should’ be played, shout self-righteous cries of what the ‘right’ way is to have fun, and essentially saying that doing anything else is having fun wrong. People almost don’t want to accept that others can and will have fun doing something different to how they think things ‘should’ be done. Its inconceivable. It’s almost like a huge and deliberate mental block. And the hysterics that follow when people cannot comprehend how people (sometimes effortlessly) do, and enjoy things that they themselves cannot, or rather, refuse to grasp. Sometimes it seems to be that people would rather not know, rather than explore and experience, and then complain endlessly, because it legitimises their preconceived and predetermined viewpoints of how things ‘should’ be. I’d rather challenge myself. AOS crystalized this conflict in a lot of ways, which is why I’ve found these debates on the ‘philosophy’ behind wargames so interesting and why I’ve been trying to portray how the narrative-focused game is both complimentary to organised play, can be very empowering and helps scratch that creative ‘itch’ that PUGs simply don’t do. And often, it’s an itch that people didn’t realise they had. For a lot of people, and especially those whose ‘gaming upbringing’ is almost total and exclusive immersion in ‘pick-up’ style gaming, there is a sense of ‘system shock’, ‘disbelief’ and sometimes ‘complete incomprehension’ that there are styles of play other than points-based pick-up games and that people not only make them work for them, but have fun doing it. And that they aren’t dicks about it either. The usual narrative of squeezing all the power out of your points is absent, the usual ‘problems’ of overpowered/underpowered are often sidestepped and quietly shrugged away and there is a far bigger onus on emotional maturity, and collaboration, so its often that ‘it’s on you’ is an ‘alien’ concept. Amusingly, there is often an incomprehension around how ‘what’s stopping me being a dick?’, which should surely be self-evident common courtesy and decency. You shouldn't need to be told this. I mean, if your first thoughts lean towards bellendery, points won’t necessarily stop you either. In fact, a poor points-system with enable you. All of a sudden, the players find that they themselves are the limiting factor and are what are getting in the way of good games, and part of me wonders if folks simply don’t like to see and acknowledge this, and therefore see themselves in an unflattering light, and would rather handwave away their own personal responsibility to their opponent (and themselves), and often their embracing of the faults of the game rather than step up to the plate themselves and make the game what they want it to be. Like I said, there are plenty lazy, selfish, self-centred and entitled players out there who complain about cheese, but simultaneously embrace that same cheese wholeheartedly and happily inflict it on everyone else, blame the ‘big bad’ for this instead, disavow any personal responsibility, then complain endlessly about everything wrong with their hobby, (but yet won’t do anything proactive themselves to change things or improve things,) and then scoff at any other approaches (even like ‘talk to you opponent…’) that would make their games better as somehow being illegitimate or unworkable. Because they can’t see beyond their tiny , narrow viewpoint. Too many people have embraced an attitude that is fundamentally self-defeating in the long term and refuse to look beyond it, then complain when their gaming is 'mined out' and that they’re not enjoying gaming any more, and of course the reasons are many and varied but of course never have anything to do with how they were playing their games.

These ‘other’ styles might not be what a lot of folks are used to, or have been exposed to (which, if you ask me is one of the primary reasons the initial push for AOS wasn’t hugely successful, but to be fair, GW didn’t ‘sell’ this style of play very well either, and its a big part of the reason why GW are doubling back on their approach with AOS, probably against their own wishes) but they have genuine worth and value that is all too are too readily ignored, and are too easily dismissed and sneered at by people at large, and I really do think it is unfair and quite undeserved.

pox wrote:

As a horde player, I don't think I really agree with this. even with open play, there's no real incentive to take weaker-yet-similar units. Skaven slaves are worse then Clanrats, Clanrats are worse then Stormvermin, Night runners are worse then Gutter runners, etc.

The issue here isn't with open play - the issue is you are still approaching it with the 'min maxing' approach of tournaments, and how to maximise the 'power' of your army. Square peg. Round hole. Open play requires a perspective shift as much as anything else. The incentive to take weaker units is to fit the theme/hook of the game you are playing. Fluff. Which you acknowledge. Why do I take weaker units instead of stronger units? Because they fit the context of the narrative of the game. There is nothing wrong with power units, but also, there is nothing necessary about focusing on them either.

No, I don't believe that is the issue for me. I'm not a min/max player, and I haven't played in a tournament in a decade. Again, my main Skaven army is Clan Morrs. Even when I did play competitively I don't recall a Clanrat/Stormvermin army being the optimal winning army for skaven!

I'm more of a escalation league/pick up game player, neither of which lends itself to open play. (field a box of ogres against a box of Stormvermin and see if you have balance.)

Ultimately I think part of the approach is that Open Play doesn't gel that well with pick-up games, which is often (?) the de-facto type of game in that it's not part of a a league/campaign/tournament, but an impromptu game on club/game night; it can be mitigated a bit if you are familiar with your regular opponents (i.e. part of a gaming club as opposed to just a random Joe going down to the game shop and seeing who else turns up looking to play), but that's where I think Matched Play has its merits, even at the cost of losing flexibility and thematic army construction.

What I don't like though is how Matched Play has now become the default, period. I think it should be treated as an option, not the only option or a "hotfix" to the game. As I said before, I'm all about themes and fluffy armies and narrative type of gaming; what is bugging me about matched play thus far is twofold:

A) I can't use a battalion that I want because it's not listed in the General's Handbook e.g. I bought the Flesh Eater Courts boxed army, but I cannot use the formation included with it despite it being what I want, because it's not part of Matched Play.

B) Matched play, as of this moment, will require me to either make my units less effective to fit into its Battleline requirements, or else spend more money I don't want to spend at this particular time e.g. I have 20 ghouls I want to field as a single unit for the bonus, but Matched Play requires me to take two Battleline units so I'd need to split my ghouls into two units of 10, reducing their effectiveness, until at such time I buy another box to split them up between them to make two units of 20. While it's "only" about $40, I don't want to spend the money on it right now.

C) Some "these units become Battleline" are IMHO inconsistent with the fluff. I'll use my own Flesh-Eater Courts as an example. Crypt Horrors only become Battleline with a Crypt Horror Courtier as the general, but in the default Flesh-Eater court organization, Crypt Horrors are in virtually every section of the court, and while I could have missed something this seems to indicate you can't really take the Ghoul King if you want that (because the Ghoul King would be the general; speaking fluffwise not rules wise here). Now I could be mistaken since I haven't played, so maybe I can take multiple groupings together e.g. a group of crypt horrors with a Crypt Horror Courtier, then a Ghoul King with some stuff, etc. but it seems like it's stifling creativity and army building.

Yeah to get around that I definitely think you need to set up a campaign or something where matched play is not being used, or is only being used as a guideline where the other formations can be houserule pointed in.

Pickup games tend to not want any houserules and will stick with whatever is "tournament official"

 pox wrote:
I'm really excited to try out how my Clan Morrs list does with the new rules. slaves, Clansrats, Stormvermin, backed up by a little of everything else that's small. I'm also curious to see if horde armies make a return, and if they are viable builds.

Depends on how many slaves/clannies you have compared to how many stormvermin and the everything else. Slaves are worse than clannies (140 for 20 vs 60 for 10) and clanrats at at least battle line. Clanrats are utterly worthless IMHO. I'm sure that there are some armies out there that might struggle against a hoarde of trsh mobs, but the vast majority of armies that I've seen are built to drop big scary buffed monsters in a single turn, and due to wound carryover, it puts 30+ wounds on a unit of rats just as easily as it does onto a monster (behemoth, whatever), but now you've got no save and you'd best hope that you're immune to battleshock, otherwise anything that's left is also vapourised too.

Stormvermin can do some work, especially if buffed up by a warlord, but it's still going to be easier to just take Stormfiends and/or Abombs and, if not faceroll to victory, at least have a considerably easier time.

Skyryre shooting does alright for backup or even as a main force, but IMHO, clanrats are a tax and should be taken as a min number of min squadsrequired to meet force org requirements, simply because they have nothing to offer that everything else does better. They're a screen/chaff unit and nothing more.

 Drasius wrote:

 pox wrote:
I'm really excited to try out how my Clan Morrs list does with the new rules. slaves, Clansrats, Stormvermin, backed up by a little of everything else that's small. I'm also curious to see if horde armies make a return, and if they are viable builds.

Depends on how many slaves/clannies you have compared to how many stormvermin and the everything else. Slaves are worse than clannies (140 for 20 vs 60 for 10) and clanrats at at least battle line. Clanrats are utterly worthless IMHO. I'm sure that there are some armies out there that might struggle against a hoarde of trsh mobs, but the vast majority of armies that I've seen are built to drop big scary buffed monsters in a single turn, and due to wound carryover, it puts 30+ wounds on a unit of rats just as easily as it does onto a monster (behemoth, whatever), but now you've got no save and you'd best hope that you're immune to battleshock, otherwise anything that's left is also vapourised too.

Stormvermin can do some work, especially if buffed up by a warlord, but it's still going to be easier to just take Stormfiends and/or Abombs and, if not faceroll to victory, at least have a considerably easier time.

Skyryre shooting does alright for backup or even as a main force, but IMHO, clanrats are a tax and should be taken as a min number of min squadsrequired to meet force org requirements, simply because they have nothing to offer that everything else does better. They're a screen/chaff unit and nothing more.

Clan Morrs is Slaves/Clanrats/Stormvermin lead by Warlord Queek Headtaker! They are the sixth strongest clan after the main five. (unless the fluff has changed.) I usually field at least 75% of my army with that in mind, and just a few choices from Skyre, Eshin, Moulder, or Pestilence.

I have 100 Slaves, 256 Clanrats, and 80 Stormvermin (35 of which are built in a unit to push a Screaming Bell.)

My point was that in pick-up games points make it a lot easier to make them viable, even at low-point game. when I tried open play, it was hard to find opponents that would recognize the inherent weakness of an army consisting of (relatively) weak troops.

My interest is to field my Clan Morrs list and keep to its thematic theme, while still have a chance of winning. As an aside I own full armies from all the other clans, but Morrs has always been my favorite. Before points it was not a viable list, I found more purchase with a combined Moulder/Skryer list. (big guns, big monsters.)

pm713 wrote:

 namiel wrote:

pm713 wrote:

Davor wrote:

 Rezyn wrote:

How has adding points changed the nature of the game that much in such a short time?

The answer is quite simple. Math hammer. Now nerds and geeks can prove their superiority over others now.

Also this quote in my sig should explain it.

Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".

Or it's made the game more popular because it's actually finished rather than a piece of rubbish and isn't auto win for summoning armies anymore.

The downside is some people are bitter now.

the game was great without points people just couldn't look past narrow view of how wargames should be played

Summoning armies are way too easy to beat I don't know where people get that.

The game was horrific. It took a negotiation to have a game that approached fair. If that was your idea of good then goodness knows what you think was bad.

Wow it must suck gaming with your people. We never had an issue, EVER because everyone was cool about it. We quite like it and it works well when you don't play with TFG

Bad would be anything privateer press, Kings of war, 9th age. Im sure theres more

As someone who spoke out about "negotiations" in the past, I think a lot of the problem is when you have a complete divide in gaming approaches.

For example, if Bob wants to play hardcore, I bring the best and try to crush you gaming, and Jim plays more laid back I have a cool idea/theme for an army and I want to build it, there's going to be conflicts regardless of if you have points or no points, negotiation or not because both people want something different, and generally speaking neither will budge in it.

AoS I think can work great if you play with like-minded people, that aren't 100% set on playing in a particular way. So maybe I want to try a "power list" and my opponent is cool with doing the same, or maybe (most likely in the specific case) I just want to play a casual fluffy army and with luck get a regular opponent to play a series of games against so we can make a mini-campaign out of it, and my opponent things that's a cool idea Wayne, I'm down for that and we do it.

It's just the "I want to play X way, no exceptions!" scenario that causes a problem. Is that scenario really so common??

Thats why I have for years and years said that the problem only occurs when two people with two different wants/approaches to the game try to play each other.

Recognizing what you want out of the game is a very important baseline step. From there, its a matter of finding people that want roughly the same thing.

The only time I really ever see any friction in real life is when a guy wants to play powergaming style vs a guy that doesn't and then the two go at each other.

Same thing online.

"Is that scenario really so common?"
In my experience - yes.

The people I know that are willing to play both narrative where they aren't min/maxing and also min/maxing is a fraction compared to the people that I know that are either all min/max all the time or all narrative all the time.

Forums exasperate the problem because often forum conversations are defaulted to finding the most efficient min/maxy combination, so it appears that's all thats out there. (In my experience thats not true, there are a lot of people that DONT want to min max but I find that they aren't regulars on forums or post very often for whatever reason)

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I have for years and years said that the problem only occurs when two people with two different wants/approaches to the game try to play each other.

Recognizing what you want out of the game is a very important baseline step. From there, its a matter of finding people that want roughly the same thing.

The only time I really ever see any friction in real life is when a guy wants to play powergaming style vs a guy that doesn't and then the two go at each other.

Same thing online.

"Is that scenario really so common?"
In my experience - yes.

The people I know that are willing to play both narrative where they aren't min/maxing and also min/maxing is a fraction compared to the people that I know that are either all min/max all the time or all narrative all the time.

Forums exasperate the problem because often forum conversations are defaulted to finding the most efficient min/maxy combination, so it appears that's all thats out there. (In my experience thats not true, there are a lot of people that DONT want to min max but I find that they aren't regulars on forums or post very often for whatever reason)

I think that's quite true! It's also a matter of where on the forum you're posting. I thematic army chosen for the ways the models look and fit the background (established or made up) can be hard to convey outside of a modelling/painting section. when posting about an army, most will look at synergy and if the army can cover all unit types/be well rounded.

A good example of this is my combined Dark Eldar/Eldar/Harlequin army. I made a point of picking four factions from the four books that would both work together fluff-wise, and fit with good color schemes working together while keeping them obviously unique. there's really no reason to post about the army outside of M&P, its chosen for a specific reason, isn't a tourney army, and isn't really designed to win. (it's for 40K end times scenarios, they are hinted at in the four books.)

Dude it's going nuts in my area. People are really having an absolute blast with it. I've seen an insane surge in the game both locally and online and it's fantastic.

It's the new battletomes that's really hooking in a lot here. The customising with spells and artefacts is just fantastic.

 auticus wrote:
Thats why I have for years and years said that the problem only occurs when two people with two different wants/approaches to the game try to play each other.

Recognizing what you want out of the game is a very important baseline step. From there, its a matter of finding people that want roughly the same thing.

The only time I really ever see any friction in real life is when a guy wants to play powergaming style vs a guy that doesn't and then the two go at each other.

Same thing online.

"Is that scenario really so common?"
In my experience - yes.

The people I know that are willing to play both narrative where they aren't min/maxing and also min/maxing is a fraction compared to the people that I know that are either all min/max all the time or all narrative all the time.

Forums exasperate the problem because often forum conversations are defaulted to finding the most efficient min/maxy combination, so it appears that's all thats out there. (In my experience thats not true, there are a lot of people that DONT want to min max but I find that they aren't regulars on forums or post very often for whatever reason)

You have perfectly stated how games become unfun. There are people I will play and people I wont play because of this. I understand most of the regulars around my store to know what kind of game to expect out of them. I also make my intentions clear. When it came to 8th ed I would state to a person before the game "hey I wanna just try this theme list today" most of the time the other person does the same. If I was prepping for adepticon I would tell the other person "this is my adepticon tournament list, bring the nastiest list you can come up with". Only ran into one issue over the years with that and it was during a game of LOTR when I was prepping for adepticon and in the end the manager even said "he told you it was his tournament list what did you expect"

This is why aos without points is not a bad game, its bad people that ruin a perfectly fine game

I think one of the issues with units like Clan Rats being inferior to Stormvermin, is mostly an issue with legacy armies. Which were designed for points, where 1 or 2 points per model could vastly effect an army that is comprised of hundreds. However the AoS Design philosophy is quite clearly moving to the bigger more heroic infantry, giant cavalry/monsters with god like leaders, backed up by a smattering of some chaff. The newer armies seem to suffer much less from this problem.

On the topic of points, I also fell into the camp of people that was flabbergasted when AOS launched and it seemed like it was "take what you want" before any real background had come down, before we'd got over the loss of fantasy, it seemed ridiculous.
But then I thought back to the GW game that easily gave me the most mileage; Lord Of The Rings. Now I collected fantasy since 5th, 40k since 3rd, and I have never enjoyed the gaming aspect of the hobby as much as I did in the LOTR heyday. Lord of the Rings had points and I almost never used them. Me and my friends would try and get as much stuff to recreate the scenarios from the rule books as closely as possible. Hell GW actively encouraged players to theme their armies as a 50/50 Good bad split, so you could always get a game against an opposite faction.
Where we couldn't match the forces required, we just eyeballed it, and swapped enough stuff around to keep the game fair but still stick to the core theme.
I played a couple of games with points and it was okay, but clash of the line battles weren't really why I played that particular game, I loved the narrative aspect. And I always played evil so I was used to fighting an uphill battle when I'd have 250 points of goblins vs almost 900 points of Heroes, yet with the right amount of cunning (and hobbit sniping) I could win more often than not.

I just see the General's Handbook as a return to the LOTR method. Now people who just want a straight up line vs line battle, can do so with Matched Play, and those of us who primarily game at home, can theme our armies with our friends and play how we want. And if either group decides they want to try it the other way, they can.

The fact is, is that the narrative aspect will not appeal to enough players to keep the game alive. It might feel like it's all points now but it's more likely this:
Before there were 4 guys playing in a store.
Now there are those same 4 guys who if they play each other can play how they want, but they also have an additional 10 players who are there for matched play.
The orginal 4 may never want to play with the other 10, but those 10 people are spending money on the same hobby as the 4, which means the game gets supported, which means models get released, which is good for everyone.

Another great example for me right now is 40k. I hate 40k now, I don't like the lack of balance and the gakky over powered crazy stuff rolling around, but I love 30k. I will only play 30k, but I am more than happy that 99% of players are only doing 40k because it keeps the whole game alive, which does benefit us 30kers. Now sure, I will find it much harder to get pick up games if I refuse to play 40k, but I'm fine with that. I only get a couple of games in a year, so I'm fine with waiting so I can get a came with a like minded player.

I think the GH will prove to be a good thing in the long run.

I'm not keen on the sudden decline on the more hobby/fantasy/narrative posts (mainly talking of the AoS facebook groups rather than here) since the release of the GHB

The past 12 months were excellent time for hobby. Loads of new things too see, people experimenting with new themes, lots of painting and hobby discussion.

Now it feels that 90% of the posts are variations of: how many points is this list, I need to know what to take to completely smash this list, what's the most OP force to take right now... etc etc etc...

I get that people enjoy the math/points side of it, but its pretty dull to see the same thing day in, day out. (its the same when seeing people post pictures of the boxes of the newest release when they buy it- the same day everyone else has done exactly the same thing! we don't all need to show the same unopened boxes online!)

Another point I'm disappointed on, which I know I will be alone on, is that I'm pretty sick of seeing posts that say 'I had no interest in AoS in when it came out but now there is points its made me come back'

Yes, its good for business, but these floods of people coming back could turn out to be a bad thing. I hated the way wargaming had become in general, and with so many people throwing in the towel with the release of AoS, I felt that a lot of the negativity went out with it- the people that enjoyed the game for all its aspects stayed whilst the people that were only in it for winning left, which with it, took a lot of the more negative aspects of the community.

The AoS community has been cheerful, helpful and seem to be having a lot of fun. But since shortly before the release, I've already seen arguments break out over min/maxing, people still hating on AoS but will now play it because it has points. I had too block a couple of people on facebook, just because I was sick of seeing troll post from them in AoS groups.

Its not all doom and gloom with me though! I personally love the book. The GHB is fantastic, the art and layout is great, its jammed pack with info and stuff to work with, it feels like they went to town jamming stuff in (like the back cover having the rules printed on it! no wasted blank pages!)


I had quit warhammer and gone strictly 6mm fantasy during 8th as I was just sick to death of painting hordes and not finishing anything (and I wont play with unpainted minis!) 6mm was faster, cheaper, and I could finish a unit in a weekend!
I've become pretty much in the same boat with AoS- the smaller sized forces work great for grabbing new and interesting forces I'd otherwise not touch, but the trouble is, my ideas and passions out weigh my talent for getting stuff painting and done!! I've overloaded myself with stuff and been having too much fun!

I agree with you Rexhavoc. Thing for me is though I am getting my first game of AoS this weekend if plans don't change for both parties. The only reason I am getting games in is because of points.

I tried, to get people to play AoS, not one person wanted to play. Now I might start getting games in now.

So it's a double edged sword. It's good I get to finally get a game in, have to take in the bad of how math hammer it can become now.

Funny, I didn't consider AOS until GH was announced. But now... I'm finding the drawback.

I think the fact that the GHB is easily min/maxed or nearly broken is almost a good thing:

When it is so easy and obvious to make an OP list its easier to spot them and talk with the other player to tone it back. GHB is not a good replacement for negotiating with your opponent and I think in some part it wasn't intended to be. It is, however, a great resource for newbies/casual players and still an excellent guideline for veterans. Jerks will still be jerks, and can now 'hide behind the points' but then its a case of communicating or not playing with them. This can be difficult to deal with, and is less appealing in the short term than just putting up with it (and complaining on the forums later ) but in the long term if the overall attitude changes then it will really just be a lot more enjoyable for everyone.

I think the rough start of AoS has made both the game and the company better at this point, and it seems like it improved the community as well (what was left of it). YMMV locally but I know my local group is much better than during Fantasy and remains so post-GHB (though we were already playing AoS with points for nearly a year at that point anyways, so it may be a factor).

GW gaming in the store closest to me used to be divided between Sunday (WFB) and Monday (40K), but slowed to the point that during 8th WFB was slotted into Monday as simply GW night. Now GW gaming is nonexistent to the point that Flames Of War is played on GW night. I asked if I could schedule Classichammer on Mondays and had no opposition because of how poorly gaming has been in the club. I'd love to pop in tomorrow to see if GHB has done ANYTHING to garner interest, but I really doubt it has. I'd also need to see the other two shops in town, but I don't expect much being different.

Also, what dictates min/max? It seems on here that WAAC, Min/Max, optimization, and competitiveness are synonymous. I don't think I've run anything min/max with the exception of a HS unit that will have half the unit unable to shoot at range with the rest of the unit, or costly Elites like Terminators. If I run 4x10 SM Tac squads with both optional weapons and a Vet Sgt with Power Fist, and chase it with a single character, and Devies and Termies at 5 man with max load out for them and some vehicles to taste, does that make me a min/maxxer?

I'd say that WAAC is the most egregious of optimized list building where any legal exploit or loophole is used, min/max constitutes varying degrees of taking only the best options but is not as bad as WAAC, while being competitive means a strong list that mainly just avoids options that are poor rather than specifically seeking out the best ones available. Dunno if that helps.

I just had my first AoS game yesterday, my opponent insisted we use points. Honestly, I didn't like it. Not only did it hamper my list construction (as I've stated previously, it forced me to split my unit of Ghouls into two) but I also was not able to summon units because they cost points now.

The game wasn't loathsome, but also wasn't very enjoyable for me. That could have been the basic rules alone (shooting into combat??) but I didn't find anything really exciting, and overall the attitude of the people at my GW seemed to be points or nothing, which i don't like at all.

I think sometimes the only way to accept that playing without points can work is to experience it working first hand, which often means playing against someone who plays that way and understands the right way of approaching it in order to get as much out of it as you can. Often in means both people stepping up and putting in the work themselves.

Basically, You need to play old dudes who grey up playing historicals!

I would say though, when we play historicals we are usually refighting battles whose results are already "known" so its more of a matter of "can i do better" no points in AoS more often than not for me ended up with a one sided arse whuppin either way

Points AOS games also usually end up in butt whippings lately. Mainly because 2000 pts is not 2000 pts in many cases.

But that is what inspired me to compile a list of everything and find its actual worth (which I will be publishing soon)

 auticus wrote:
Points AOS games also usually end up in butt whippings lately. Mainly because 2000 pts is not 2000 pts in many cases.

But that is what inspired me to compile a list of everything and find its actual worth (which I will be publishing soon)

You could just use PPC...

The power index I'm writing is just to show what units are actually worth taking mathematically.

Its for new people who get frustrated with guys steam rolling them and its for showing the power of one list vs another list.

Where I am, third party comp systems are a big no no. Azyr was used for our current campaign but only until official points came out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, what dictates min/max? It seems on here that WAAC, Min/Max, optimization, and competitiveness are synonymous

Min/max, optmization, competitiveness are to me synonymous. WAAC is not, though often WAAC players are also min/max optimizers so lazily they get lumped all together (which is wrong IMO).

That could have been the basic rules alone (shooting into combat??)

I don't like that either, but its something you just have to get used to.

The idea being you could compare the costs since they are the same scale. There are a few outlying models, but generally speaking if the cost is similar the model is average, if the cost is greater the model is sub-par, and if the cost is less than its a better choice for the points.

Of course, the rule of thumb 'monsters and characters are undercosted' also works pretty well

[edit] This might be helpful!

 thekingofkings wrote:
I would say though, when we play historicals we are usually refighting battles whose results are already "known" so its more of a matter of "can i do better" no points in AoS more often than not for me ended up with a one sided arse whuppin either way

My experiences are entirely different.

Reenactments are fun, but by no means do they represent 'all' you can do with historicals. In no different than using 40k to reenact the battle of orks drift or using flames of war to reenact Normandy - that's what we've been running lately. It's undeniably Fun, but there is so much more 'what if' or 'what could have happened'.So much of our history is a blank tapestry, and we often only know the vaguest hints of what went on. It's not unknown for example to not know where a famous battle took place, or even where/if certain kingdoms existed (fortriu in Scotland, for example) or to not know a lot of the details of the people that rules.The historical narrative is as much a blank slate as anything in the 40k-iverse. There is no end of battles you can run with my Normans versus your Anglo Saxons or my celts and your Romans 'somewhere' in the historical narrative, and no end of hooks that can be used to build your games around.

We were only a few guys playing AoS since it came out. It's simple, yet engaging with cool fantasy miniatures. We used SDK points and switched to PPC after SDK stopped updating.
A few from our 40k group picked it up after seeing us play. Since the GH dropped, nearly all 40k players picked up an AoS army, a campaign is already planned and there's talk about "the next Apocalypse game will be AoS instead of 40k". It's funny, really, what an "official" points can do for a game system, altough we will likely be sticking to using PPC.

I appreciate that GH brought people to the game (I wasn't even going to look at AoS until I saw it was bringing points) but in practice it didn't work out that well. Be careful what you wish for, and all that. The over reliance on points when it hasn't balanced much, and IMHO non-competitive games would be much better just by a bit of talking, has honestly soured me on the game again which is a shame because I thought it would be better, but on the same token at least I know now. I may give it another shot or two, maybe try out a different army (Flesh Eaters, while awesome fluffwise, seem fairly difficult to run and having to pay points for the units I summon when that's their big thing is kinda harsh) before I write it off completely.

Summoning is just one of those things in a matched environment that does not work well as it superbly unbalances the game by giving in essence free points and in some cases free points in spades.

One of the things I have started really noticing now is the power disparity. This exists no matter what format you play.

My area is super competitive and some of the lists being run on the weekends here are... well they are filthy lol and if you aren't matching the lists in power you're going to get run over like you are a lawn and they are the lawnmower.

The points don't really help that because the points aren't very accurate for balance. Yesterday while painting my battleboard I watched a stormcast game with a lot of their dragon cavalry and they totally dominated the opponent (bretonnia/free people).

It wasn't even a game. It was an exercise in removing models for the non stormcast player. And this was with matched points.

The stormcast cav are operating at roughly 25% higher than their points cost, which was one of the issues (giving the other player 25% more points would have helped "balance it")

You might want to keep giving it a try Wayne. I run very very successful Flesh Eater Courts, and only play points-matches.

It might not suit the models you happen to own, but the only "outside" element I brought in as support was a couple Screaming Skull Catapults and a Necrotect.

Those, combined with Terrorgeists are hugely effective. The rest of my competitive FEC list is built around large Ghoul blobs, and then bolstered exclusively by things like Vargulf's that replenish, but not summon, those units.

 auticus wrote:
Summoning is just one of those things in a matched environment that does not work well as it superbly unbalances the game by giving in essence free points and in some cases free points in spades.

One of the things I have started really noticing now is the power disparity. This exists no matter what format you play.

My area is super competitive and some of the lists being run on the weekends here are... well they are filthy lol and if you aren't matching the lists in power you're going to get run over like you are a lawn and they are the lawnmower.

The points don't really help that because the points aren't very accurate for balance. Yesterday while painting my battleboard I watched a stormcast game with a lot of their dragon cavalry and they totally dominated the opponent (bretonnia/free people).

It wasn't even a game. It was an exercise in removing models for the non stormcast player. And this was with matched points.

The stormcast cav are operating at roughly 25% higher than their points cost, which was one of the issues (giving the other player 25% more points would have helped "balance it")

Which is part of why I feel the "points" for AoS are A) a rough guideline, not rigid adherence (i.e. you cannot use it like points in the old WHFB or in 40k, it looks the same and sounds the same, but it's not the same), and B) Are only really appropriate when you're playing in a tournament to have some rough (very rough!) idea of balancing.

I do get that summoning was OP before, just bugs me that Flesh Eaters for instance are based around being able to summon units and such, and points really screw that over (like maybe it should have been either you pay the points to get additional units, or if a unit is destroyed you can re-summon it for free, basically you get the points on that unit back and can spend it to resurrect them). Maybe I should have looked at something else instead.... Chaos is always appealing to me (always has been, always will be) and seem like they are hardier, just lack shooting and from what I can tell, shooting is insanely OP in AoS right now because there's little/no restrictions to what you can shoot.

Shooting units are indeed more powerful than straight melee units typically.

I wonder if that's intentional seeing as Stormcasts have a lot of good shooting, and Chaos has little. I wouldn't doubt it

Going to alternating initiative instead of rolling for it each round helps with the shooting issue (since there's no double-turns).

Flesh-Eaters are actually overpowered in the GHB. Forget summoning new units -- they bring dead models back into existing units better than anyone. The Ghoul Patrol battalion is an auto-take because it's so cheap and a Terrorgheist King w/ ring of coming back when he dies is a brutal general.

On the topic of GHB balance, I've said from the start that it's a guideline. Its not the same as WHFB points were and I'm pretty sure its not intended to be. For casual players its fine to balance matches but if people are trying to min-max then the players need to go back to doing some pre-game negotiating of 'hey can you tone this down a bit'.

Noticing in the current area a difference between online community based solely on sites vs. twitter or Facebooks group vs. local GW store, where the community continues to explode, can't fit in the store and has new local tournaments/events starting next month. Day of Sigmar was a victim of its own success last month so looks likes team games may be how we all fit I actually have trouble finding a 40K game when I fancy, but thats' all good. AoS has been on (warp)fire these past few months

See, in the last five posts alone we've seen FEC called super weak with points, and over-powered... To me, the implication is the local meta, player tastes/tactics, etc... and a suggestion that the game is in a better place than many of these posts suggest.

Again, from my own finite perspective, pre Handbook we had ZERO players, and post Handbook, we get 6-16 players every time we hold an AoS night. For us, that's a big win.

I am not denying that I just suck. After all:

1) I only have the "King Vlagorescu's Ghoulish Host" box, but was unable to use the battalion included due to points/not being in GH

2) It was my first game, and my first game of Warhammer in some 15 years

3) We were playing a Season of War scenario where you had a monster and your opponent won if they killed it; my opponent had Seraphon and had two monsters (a Bastilodon and a Troglodon) while I had only my King on Terrorgheist

4) I had no shooting while his Bastilodon got like 2d6 shots a turn, and I didn't know you could shoot out of combat so I tried to run my ghouls to engage him and stop him shooting me

5) My dice were awful

So it could be that FEC are good and I just need to expand (although I dislike "must takes" especially since while the Ghoul Patrol was on my list to get, I prefer Horrors/Flayers for the elite units in my fluff), or it could be that I just need to try something else to compare (I am kinda considering Chaos or even Skaven Pestilens for a change).

I still do not like the fact that points seems to have become the de facto standard, since they are rough guides not fast limits and people seem unwilling to really discuss things now that they don't have to.

Dude... you don't suck. :-) Its just a learning experience.

As i've said to folks I teach... AoS has loads of tactical/meaningful decisions for a player to make, but they are often SUCH different decisions than Fantasy/40k/etc... ask of you, that it takes a while to "see" the nuances.

The reason Ghoul Patrol is auto-take is because you need three Ghoul units as battleline anyway, then all you need is the 80-point courtier and the 100 pt battalion cost. This nets you outflank on all the composing units and each Ghoul unit recovers 1d6 models a turn, automatically. It's very cheap for what it does.

But that ties into the GHB balance as a whole, depending on what your opponent brought it make be more fair to not take it in order to dial back the power level somewhat. Players abusing the GHB points need to be called out on exactly that; they need to be told that they are hiding behind the points to make OP lists. For those who don't do that, it's a matter of refusing to play those opponents as long as they continue such activity. Granted that is all easier said than done, but GW has recognized they aren't going to get precision costing and have gone for rough values instead, leaving the fine-tuning to the community. This is to say that any min-maxing problem isn't going to go away on its own and it is very much down to the players to build a better community if they want it. And I think at the end of the day forcing players to be responsible for their own sportsmanship is one of the few ideas AoS got right from the beginning.

Maybe I just don't get something about the GH and points. You can still take multiple battalions, just you have to pay for them, and that doesn't preclude you from taking just plain warscrolls?

For example, if I had the points I could take Ghoul Patrol, with the Courtier, then still take Crypt Horrors and the King, and still nominate the king as my general?

WayneTheGame wrote:
Maybe I just don't get something about the GH and points. You can still take multiple battalions, just you have to pay for them, and that doesn't preclude you from taking just plain warscrolls?

For example, if I had the points I could take Ghoul Patrol, with the Courtier, then still take Crypt Horrors and the King, and still nominate the king as my general?

Yeah, it confused me for a while, too. I keep thinking in terms of 40k where every unit has to be a part of a detachment, but detachments don't exist per se in AoS. Instead, if the units in your army fit into a warscroll battalion, you can spend the points to get the battalion's special rules on those units.

You can still only have one general though, right? I think that's what bugs me, Crypt Horrors and Flayers are only Battleline if you have their courtier as the general, but fluffwise they would not overrule the Varghulf and/or the King.

Ah well. Have to see how I like the game, in any event.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can still only have one general though, right? I think that's what bugs me, Crypt Horrors and Flayers are only Battleline if you have their courtier as the general, but fluffwise they would not overrule the Varghulf and/or the King.

Ah well. Have to see how I like the game, in any event.

I king might still defer to his general in battle if the general has proven to be a better tactician, but the king still outranks the general.

This has kinda swayed away from General's Handbook (sorry!) but I have to say while I wasn't insanely thrilled with the game, it wasn't total garbage either. My issues with it stem from rules that I disagree with (e.g. shooting out of combat, as that means you have no way to stop units from shooting you to bits), and the fact the scenario was a little biased towards my opponent (which admittedly we both knew, but I said screw it as I wanted to play at least one campaign game, and since it was both of our first games of AoS ever, I didn't care if I was disadvantaged). I do think I may have had more fun with Chaos or something more sturdy, though. I can always buy the starter box though for some Khorne

I do wish my local area had more narrative campaign style approaches, maybe because that might sway some folks to not always adhering strictly to points, but the impression I got is now that GH is out, it's here to stay and is the default/only option outside of maybe demo games.

WayneTheGame wrote:
. . . you have no way to stop units from shooting you to bits

An axe to the face seems to work nicely

Seriously, though, I would imagine shooting will be the next point of contention now that summoning is no longer the most broken mechanic in the game.

I don't mind shooting, but like as an army with little or no shooting (and I'd likely play another army with little or no shooting) it seems like you need some way to prevent just being shot off the board. Like in my game, my opponent had his Basilodon shoot halfway across the board, across a bunch of models to kill my Varghulf who was sitting partially in a forest attacking some Saurus.

I'm also not a big fan of rolling for initiative every turn, but I can see why that appeals just it sucks to have your opponent get to go first twice in a row on key turns

Still need to experiment. I certainly feel that AoS is as of this very moment more fun than 40k, and while I don't want to say it's more balanced, i feel there's more of a framework to theme and modify the rules because they are their core so simplistic.

I do wish my local area had more narrative campaign style approaches, maybe because that might sway some folks to not always adhering strictly to points, but the impression I got is now that GH is out, it's here to stay and is the default/only option outside of maybe demo games.

It will indeed be the default pretty much anywhere unless that area has an event organizer willing to step up and run campaign events.

I want them to expand on the Path of Glory charts to include more factions, that would be a good way to support more narrative play IMO.

Heck I've seen quite a few reasonably balanced games in my local store without points.
On topic of FEC if i was you id technically just use the warscrolls for them out of the grand alliance book as they are still legal.

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can still only have one general though, right? I think that's what bugs me, Crypt Horrors and Flayers are only Battleline if you have their courtier as the general, but fluffwise they would not overrule the Varghulf and/or the King.

Ah well. Have to see how I like the game, in any event.

Unless of course, the king and the Varghulf are so insane that the courtiers have to 'hold up the court' of their higher ranking fellows. I mean sure they are giving commands, but everyone knows who really is leading.

I just have to say how restricting I find points again. Thinking of a 2K point army, and it's like oh I can't really field half of what I want. Funny, because I hated the idea of AoS before it had points, based on what I had heard, but now that it has points I find it less fun than I thought it would have been :(

Serves me right I guess

Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I find loose restrictions to make the game mean much more.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I find loose restrictions to make the game mean much more.

Perhaps, but I find that they also greatly limit the creativity. Yes, taking whatever you want is bad for any semblance of balance, but I feel there should be a good balance between having restrictions without feeling too restricted, if that makes any sense.

They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

 auticus wrote:
They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

This is my problem with the GHB points in a nutshell.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

This is my problem with the GHB points in a nutshell.

I agree. Again, I think part of the issue is everyone is thinking "Points! Like 40k/WHFB of old!" when they aren't the same thing. They look the same, they seem the same, but they are not the same. AoS points, and I've said this several times before so apologies for repeating myself (I like to discuss things, if you haven't noticed!), are more of a very rough guideline to have some way of gauging approximately equal forces. No different than that wounds system or whatever people were using beforehand. They aren't "Pick to exactly 2000 points". In fact, I think this is the reason they are so bland and rigid; to reinforce the fact that they are there as rough estimates. Points were added as an afterthought, and it seems it was done in such a way that it's clear that they aren't intended to be absolute values like the old WHFB Army Books or current 40k Codexes (Codices?) try to be.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I find loose restrictions to make the game mean much more.

You are starting on the premise that list building is interesting. It isn't.

You are also jumping the conclusion that no points means somehow take what you want without regard for a good game, it doesn't.

List building is interesting to me.

WayneTheGame wrote:
I just have to say how restricting I find points again. Thinking of a 2K point army, and it's like oh I can't really field half of what I want. Funny, because I hated the idea of AoS before it had points, based on what I had heard, but now that it has points I find it less fun than I thought it would have been :(

Serves me right I guess

If you only have half what you want to play with then play a larger game at 4000 points! I don't see how point has much to do with what you are arguing about, as opposed to it being a size of battle issue which may equally apply without points.

Me again

I feel list building is interesting when it's still flexible enough to not be restrictive. For example, I really liked how KoW (1st edition, at least, not sure about 2nd) had list building. It was basically take what you want, at X points, and you get 1 hero/monster/artillery for every unit you had (I can't remember if they had to be a certain size, I think so). It wasn't so restrictive that it didn't allow for, say, an all cavalry army to represent a specific force, but it wasn't "Here's 10 dragons GG" either.

That's where I think the General's Handbook fell short. List building feels, as is common with a lot of GW games, like a tax. It doesn't allow for some themes because it requires you to take X troops, and sometimes the troops you want can only be made Battleline if you do something that might not fit your army concept either. I do like paying for Battalions; I think that's a good balancing factor to them to avoid something like 40k has where you can get tons of free stuff. It feels bland with GHB, for whatever reason.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 auticus wrote:
They key there is *meaningful* choices. Often the way the points are laid out coupled with the output and defensive capabilities of a choice, the *meaningful* choices are made for you.

This is my problem with the GHB points in a nutshell.

I agree. Again, I think part of the issue is everyone is thinking "Points! Like 40k/WHFB of old!" when they aren't the same thing. They look the same, they seem the same, but they are not the same. AoS points, and I've said this several times before so apologies for repeating myself (I like to discuss things, if you haven't noticed!), are more of a very rough guideline to have some way of gauging approximately equal forces. No different than that wounds system or whatever people were using beforehand. They aren't "Pick to exactly 2000 points". In fact, I think this is the reason they are so bland and rigid; to reinforce the fact that they are there as rough estimates. Points were added as an afterthought, and it seems it was done in such a way that it's clear that they aren't intended to be absolute values like the old WHFB Army Books or current 40k Codexes (Codices?) try to be.

I completely agree.


Also add me to the list of people who find list building to be fun/interesting. But what kills listbuilding for me more than anything else is when there are obvious good and bad choices, which is compounded in Matched Play with all options being the same; a unit with the best weapon option and full command costs the same as a unit with the worst weapon option and no command. My Night Goblin units pretty much want as many nets as I can physically put on the models, which is a fine example of list building becoming 'how much money did I spend?' which is something I really dislike. Now to be clear I still think Matched Play is a great system and a great release for GW, particularly because it is rough, as I have described previously. But it simply isn't the system for me. Though I am coming from a different perspective than many because my group has been playing with points for a year or so now, so the GHB hasn't actually introduced anything new for me beyond the basic force-org chart.

Isn't having to make meaningful choices part of why list building is interesting? If you can just take whatever you want, it doesn't feel like an exercise in tactics and strategy to me.

I don't think list building is supposed to be "an exercise in tactics and strategy". I know people use the rules different ways, but it seems clear that building your list is intended to be an exercise in creating a background and story for your force or for the particular scenario you are playing. Or even just an exercise in using the models you really like. It's not supposed to be tactical.

Don't take that as an argument that people shouldn't like tactical list building. It's just that I don't think the designers of the game intended that to be part of how forces are chosen.

For matched play it is definitely meant to be strategic - and it is in my opinion.

If i may address the core question and break the convo up a sec...

I work in a large gaming shop in the uk .
When i started 6 months ago ,AoS was dead stock.Even people stocking up for their fantasy armies were rare, we almost stopped stocking it and really only kept it on the shelves just to show that we did have it available.

6 months later it's our second biggest seller and one of the most played games after 40k and x wing. (it's easily balancing out with warmachine).
Much of this new interest came with the announcement of the generals handbook and the storm of sigmar starter set as people finally had what they felt was a "proper" rulebook and a cheap way to test the water of the game.

I have a theory that the delayed release of the GH was a deliberate tactic by GW. They knew AoS would be the biggest gak storm since sigmar had a case of beer diarrhea, so why bother releasing all your products straight up?
Instead you let the community grow with new players ,and int he m ean time you release nice little products like silver tower and mighty heroes that make people buy into AoS covertly.
A year later when the game has found its core player niche and has been accepted as not going anywhere, they tell people points and OP are coming and all those players who have picked up a few of the new releases whilst still crying for AoS to be exorcised look at their collection of WQ figures and think "well, i may as well try it..." .So they pick up the handbook and see that they can play anything they want with it! Full games, campaigns, narrative,even realm of chaos style warband skirmish, and a well times campaign making them feel like this is just the right time to build an army.

I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

Old GW... i'd agree, but the Age of Roundtree is showing too many good decisions in a row to be a fluke.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

I would say they've never really had too before. Never have they made such a drastic decision. Even new editions that were recieved as happily as a bumble bee enema didn;t destroy the core mechanics of a game.
I highly doubt they were sat thinking the game would just go off without a hitch, so it only makes sense to me that they would put in place a stepped release schedule to ensure the game grew naturally and they could respond to fans without dumping all their products into a game people would refuse to look into on principle.

People who told me 6 months ago they would NEVER collect or play AOS, who said it was rubbish and they hated it, who said they hoped it got retconned, are now playing with the generals handbook. I think had it come out on the release date it would have done no good because these arguments weren't based on any real long term insight, just fan rag. (justified, but rage non the les.)

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

Old GW... i'd agree, but the Age of Roundtree is showing too many good decisions in a row to be a fluke.

I was referring the idea that GW planned ahead knowing AoS would launch badly and had the General's Handbook lined up as a future release over a year ahead of time. I don't think that's very plausible.

It seems more likely to me that AoS launched terribly, surprised GW and served as a wake-up call, and gave Roundtree the foothold he needed to make a large number of positive changes, including listening to customers. The aforementioned listening leads to them realizing 'hey, people want X, Y, Z" and then creating the GHB to satisfy that demand.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I don't think GW is competent enough to pull that off, honestly.

It seems more likely to me that AoS launched terribly, surprised GW and served as a wake-up call, and gave Roundtree the foothold he needed to make a large number of positive changes, including listening to customers. The aforementioned listening leads to them realizing 'hey, people want X, Y, Z" and then creating the GHB to satisfy that demand.

Wasn't a points/organised system mentioned during the initial release as being a future release?