They didn't think points were required when the game first came out, but so many of us asked for points they decided to create points. The reason they aren't free is because GW is a business, which makes money. Also a £15 book packed of content is hardly something to complain about, Lets be honest, if we can afford GWs models, we can afford a £15 book which is actually pretty handy. But hey, there's always something to complain about with AoS.
You can ask them yourself by writing them a letter at team@whitedwarf.co.uk. You may get your answer printed in 2-3 months tome along with a very friendly answer.
sLeEpYrOcK wrote: I'd jsut like to paly a fair game of AOS seeing as they stopped producing the other game system completely for it.
Just get the General's Handbook, or find someone who has it and ask for the point values. Write them down if you really want to on a notepad, and simply remember how many Battleline units you need for each size of game.
Because they tried a social experiment and brought the game back to how games were in the 80s, when points weren't a standard.
The social experiment failed.
The points have never been balanced though. GHB points are not balanced IMO. They provide structure but there is a lot to be desired in terms of balance.
The GHB isn't a replacement for working things out with your opponent to make things balanced, but it is an extremely useful tool for doing that. If you are relying on just the GHB to get balanced games you may be sorely disappointed since there are a lot of overpowered and underpowered models, some extremely so.
I believe they said during the recent stream that they would update the book yearly(?), and keeping the points separately is what allows them to do that.
They thought with no points we'd all start buying the £100 models which have an obscene profit margin for them, it was pure greed.
If people can't use their old models they'll have to buy the new ones.
All because they no longer communicate with the customers and in fact are so arrogant they figure they don't need to ask us what we want we'll just buy anything they make.
Had they asked they'd of known what people want more than anything else is a balanced Well written game.
Ghb was a panic move to try and get people they lost back it's really no surprise it's not balanced.
Their policies have changed since AoS' release. Considering they went out of their way to get community feedback during the development of the GHB I'd say ignoring it is no longer the standard.
Early AoS was basically Kirby flipping the bird on the way out leaving them to pick up the pieces and make it better, which they certainly have from those early days of AoS.
GW made a lot of mistakes with AoS' release, but it forced them to change their company culture and I think GW have become a much better company as a result.
And it worked out great for us too. The GHB is a great starting point and GW are already seeking to improve the balance within. GW asked all players from the Warlords event to email their lists to the Dev team could evaluate them, and it was also hinted that we'll get a yearly update.
This is great because no longer will armies be trapped with bad points until the army book/battletome is redone, instead each year we'll get better and better balance within the game.
Also works out well for GW because every year they get a massive cash injection from the entire player base purchasing points updates.
Bottle wrote: GW made a lot of mistakes with AoS' release, but it forced them to change their company culture and I think GW have become a much better company as a result.
And it worked out great for us too. The GHB is a great starting point and GW are already seeking to improve the balance within. GW asked all players from the Warlords event to email their lists to the Dev team could evaluate them, and it was also hinted that we'll get a yearly update.
This is great because no longer will armies be trapped with bad points until the army book/battletome is redone, instead each year we'll get better and better balance within the game.
Also works out well for GW because every year they get a massive cash injection from the entire player base purchasing points updates.
Also, happy the points were put forth later rather than at the start which, while very unfortunate for many who wanted them, kept them from focusing on benefiting only the big and expensive models as early AoS definitely focused on collector over player.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm glad they are making an effort to keep updating things. I hope my current tournament list won't be valid this time next year.
I don't know about that, but changing points on above/underperforming units is certainly welcome. Just try not to pull an Eldar on us
n0t_u wrote: Early AoS was basically Kirby flipping the bird on the way out leaving them to pick up the pieces and make it better, which they certainly have from those early days of AoS.
Yes, that's right, it was Kirbys fault. All of it. He wrote the rules and drove the whole project personally. Yes, he did.
n0t_u wrote: Early AoS was basically Kirby flipping the bird on the way out leaving them to pick up the pieces and make it better, which they certainly have from those early days of AoS.
Yes, that's right, it was Kirbys fault. All of it. He wrote the rules and drove the whole project personally. Yes, he did.
It was under him we lost specialist games, his decision to shift focus away from vets onto children, he oversaw the period where points were reduced to force people to buy more while he hiked up prices.
The CEO gives the company it's focus and vision it's really not unfair to say his disrespect for customers was reflected by the design team.
GW was just a way to pad his retirement fund nothing more that's why the company's in such a sorry state currently.
They wanted to encourage talking with your opponent and trying to be fair; it didn't work because they had to basically shoehorn points in as an afterthought to appease the people who can't bother to decide what is/isn't fair in a game and need a book to say how much things should be worth.
WayneTheGame wrote: They wanted to encourage talking with your opponent and trying to be fair; it didn't work because they had to basically shoehorn points in as an afterthought to appease the people who can't bother to decide what is/isn't fair in a game and need a book to say how much things should be worth.
Was wondering when someone from this crowd was going to interject.
WayneTheGame wrote: They wanted to encourage talking with your opponent and trying to be fair; it didn't work because they had to basically shoehorn points in as an afterthought to appease the people who can't bother to decide what is/isn't fair in a game and need a book to say how much things should be worth.
That sounds suspiciously like an veiled attack on what you perceive as a lesser type of gamer.
In reality, many gamers enjoy the min/maxing, "let's see how much I can tune this list" aspect of wargaming. The overwhelming majority of modern wargames include this. Age of Sigmar completely and totally lacked this element at launch. Many communities gave the game a shot and immediately realized that a balancing framework based on comparative levels of sportsmanship and not on actual game mechanics wasn't going to work for all of its members... many of whom didn't necessarily know each other. These communities simply moved on to other games. Now that a game mechanic based balancing mechanism has been added in, many communities are giving it another shot.
I find your insinuation that I "couldn't be bothered to decide what is/isn't fair in a game" and that I "need a book to say how much things should be worth" is insulting and inaccurate. GW doesn't pay me to write rules. I'm not going to spend potentially hundreds of hours of trial and error playtesting coming to a decision on game balance... only to have a new community member with a new army cause us to need to start over. I'm simply going to switch to a game where the publisher gave me a balancing mechanism I can use with strangers. I've been quite enjoying Star Wars X-Wing. Now that the General's Handbook is out, I'm enjoying Age of Sigmar again.
It seemed an attempt to put the responsibility for the game, the setting up and the scenario back into the players hands..........instead of having the players waiting to be told exactly what they could and could not do and the responsibility for this being with the design studio, who then get barracked from players for not fitting what they wanted from their games, but who don't just change as they see fit to suit them.
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: It seemed an attempt to put the responsibility for the game, the setting up and the scenario back into the players hands..........instead of having the players waiting to be told exactly what they could and could not do and the responsibility for this being with the design studio, who then get barracked from players for not fitting what they wanted from their games, but who don't just change as they see fit to suit them.
Bit like the old days in RT/WFB 3rd.
It failed, apparently.
RT was a whole different kettle of fish considering it had a literal Game Master.
Responsibility for ensuring a balanced game still is in the players hands, they just have a system in which to do it now rather than being thrown into the water without a life jacket.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm glad they are making an effort to keep updating things. I hope my current tournament list won't be valid this time next year.
I don't know about that, but changing points on above/underperforming units is certainly welcome. Just try not to pull an Eldar on us
I meant in the sense that the models I run would no longer fit in 2000 points.
Playing without points is how I grew up on wargames.
While I appreciate what GW was trying to go for, it did fail pretty hard because today's market is not the market for that type of game, and I don't think we will ever return to that. Even trying to introduce a game master element I feel would fail hard because thats just not what the bulk of players seem to want. (I'm gauging based on own personal experience plus personal anecdote on the internet)
The definition of player responsibility has also changed and is quite different today than it was then. This is where so many arguments seem to stem from.
If I'm a game publsher and I want to make money then yes I would have to write a game that catered strictly to the powergaming element because that is what is predominant. If your game doesn't have a thriving min/max tournament scene, it is going to be irrelevant.
auticus wrote: Playing without points is how I grew up on wargames.
While I appreciate what GW was trying to go for, it did fail pretty hard because today's market is not the market for that type of game, and I don't think we will ever return to that. Even trying to introduce a game master element I feel would fail hard because thats just not what the bulk of players seem to want. (I'm gauging based on own personal experience plus personal anecdote on the internet)
The definition of player responsibility has also changed and is quite different today than it was then. This is where so many arguments seem to stem from.
If I'm a game publsher and I want to make money then yes I would have to write a game that catered strictly to the powergaming element because that is what is predominant. If your game doesn't have a thriving min/max tournament scene, it is going to be irrelevant.
Agreed. Competition play is where the dollars are.
Quick question on the General's Handbook - do models that came out after the GHB have points posted somewhere, or do you have to wait for the next version of the GHB to get them?
NinthMusketeer wrote: We don't know, the Bonesplittaz and Beastclaw releases had their points included and there have been no releases since.
Not entirely true. Grombrindal, the White Dwarf's warscroll was released as an exclusive 'freebie' in the new White Dwarf relaunch. It did not include points. An email to GW confirmed that they have no intention of releasing points for him in the future.
While I REALLY hope that future releases get points, I'm concerned that they won't (as in the case with Grombrindal). GW has an abysmal track record at supporting optional expansions in an ongoing fashion.
Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.
Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.
But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.
Sqorgar wrote: Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.
Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.
But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
As to Grombrindal being overpowering in a tournament setting... well, that's sort of what points are for. Would be be overpowering at 50 points? Sure. How about 500 points. No way. He'd be useless since he's take up so much of your army. The goal with points is to find a reasonable value. GW, as the publisher should have some method for coming up with a reasonable value, be it play testing or some sort of standard formula.
I'm just waiting to see what the next non-Limited Edition release looks like. If it doesn't have Matched Play points on launch day, I'm going to assume the General's Handbook was a one time thing and won't be supported going forward on a consistent basis.
Kriswall wrote: It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.
As to Grombrindal being overpowering in a tournament setting... well, that's sort of what points are for. Would be be overpowering at 50 points? Sure. How about 500 points. No way. He'd be useless since he's take up so much of your army. The goal with points is to find a reasonable value. GW, as the publisher should have some method for coming up with a reasonable value, be it play testing or some sort of standard formula.
Have you see his rules? He can teleport in 3" next to a HERO/MONSTER figure, reroll all hit and wound rolls, and do potentially 18 wounds. He's also almost impossible to kill and he can buff the crap out of a nearby HERO, allowing them to reroll ANY dice rolls. Even at 500 points, he would ruin nearly every opponent's strategy and decimate certain armies in a single turn. He might be fun, but there's no point value at which he becomes fair. Just a point value where he becomes too expensive to use.
I'm just waiting to see what the next non-Limited Edition release looks like. If it doesn't have Matched Play points on launch day, I'm going to assume the General's Handbook was a one time thing and won't be supported going forward on a consistent basis.
AoS is due some models, but between the Genestealer Cult and the Prospero board game, I'm not sure where they'll stick it. Late November?
Kriswall wrote: It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.
Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.
If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.
Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.
Technically, Grombrindal also had rules for use in Silver Tower, so the choice to not support him in Matched Play was a deliberate one. His rules are only found in the White Dwarf issue - they are not available on the website or the AoS app. It's just a fun little character model that nobody should ever get competitive with.
Age of Sigmar is a very modular game, and there is enough there for every play style that not EVERY rule, unit, or scenario needs to be appropriate for every style. It is okay that there are tournament-only rules, just as it is okay that there are open play-only rules. Not everything in Age of Sigmar is appropriate for every play style, and as such, if you lean too heavily towards one play style (as I do, with an avoidance of point values), you can't be surprised or disappointed if parts of the game are locked off from you. It's like being a solo, non-guild player on a MMORPG. You can access a lot of content, but your choices keep you from experiencing dungeons and raids.
If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.
Now you are arguing semantics. The General's Handbook is the ONLY place where points are listed, and that app/website and all the Battletomes/campaign books have warscrolls without points, and they are considered the full rules for the various units.
Points are a second class citizen in the Age of Sigmar ecosystem, as it should be. While tournament players tend to be the loudest, squeakiest wheels when it comes to their entitlement, they were the ones spending the first year of Age of Sigmar attacking it, so maybe their entitlement towards any Age of Sigmar play style is a bit unwarranted. Just my opinion.
While Kris seems to be a bit much when it comes to his thoughts.. Wow you manage to pull it right in the other direction of bad, seriously second class citizens? I mean lets be blunt, the points system certainly has reinvigorated the AoS scene quite well, not to mention being the first streamed tournament style by GW themselves.
Kriswall wrote: It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.
Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.
If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.
It's entirely possible Grombrindal was never meant to be used in Matched Play. Certain formations are narrative-only. If GW has no intention of seeing the White Dwarf in Matched Play, then the magazine did contain his full rules. Also as far as the GHB no longer being supported, the predominant theory is that GW will release new rules once a year to rebalance points and include new armies. Rumor has it that at least one AoS battletome is coming later this year, possibly Tzeentch Arcanites. We'll have to see how point are handled if/when that happens.
Kriswall wrote: It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
The General's Handbook didn't just have points in it, even if that's the only section a lot of players read. GW is trying their hardest to support multiple playstyles with Age of Sigmar, and sometimes, that may involve releasing figures that aren't intended for Matched Play, such as the hilariously overpowered Grombrindal. If that's a deal breaker, that's not really GW's fault. That's the fault of the people you play with, and as such, they deserve the brunt of your ire.
Agree to disagree. I don't think it's unreasonable to be a little aggravated when I'm presented by GW with three play methods, told to buy a magazine because it contains "full rules" for a limited edition model and then come to find out that the "full rules" only cover two out of the three play methods. I'm not entirely sure why you think the proper reaction is to get angry with my friends for choosing the unsupported play method and not with GW for not supporting all three play methods.
If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.
It's entirely possible Grombrindal was never meant to be used in Matched Play. Certain formations are narrative-only. If GW has no intention of seeing the White Dwarf in Matched Play, then the magazine did contain his full rules. Also as far as the GHB no longer being supported, the predominant theory is that GW will release new rules once a year to rebalance points and include new armies. Rumor has it that at least one AoS battletome is coming later this year, possibly Tzeentch Arcanites. We'll have to see how point are handled if/when that happens.
Not so much a theory as they were talking about it on the actual tournament stream.
Its a lost cause Sqorgar, this was already done to death in another thread where Kriswall extrapolated a lack of points for him into...
To have such an iconic Hero not be supported doesn't make me feel like AoS has a real future.
For those of us who think that the model who's only difference from a pre-existing product is exclusive packaging isn't meant to be taken seriously, the white dwarf 'release' has no bearing on the future of matched play.
If they intended Grombrindal to be compatible with only two of the three play methods, they shouldn't have billed the White Dwarf as containing "full rules". It doesn't contain full rules. It contains partial rules, only suitable for parts of Age of Sigmar. An entire play method is totally excluded from using him.
Not only is an entire play method excluded, but an entire group of people as well !!! They have made it perfectly clear that you DO NOT have their permission to play with Grombrindal and use his new rules unless you buy the mini and paint it using the provided painting tutorial (thus excluding players that do not paint) I would label myself pretty tough, but even I would think twice before playing Grombrindal without qualifying for their permission!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Its a lost cause Sqorgar, this was already done to death in another thread where Kriswall extrapolated a lack of points for him into...
To have such an iconic Hero not be supported doesn't make me feel like AoS has a real future.
For those of us who think that the model who's only difference from a pre-existing product is exclusive packaging isn't meant to be taken seriously, the white dwarf 'release' has no bearing on the future of matched play.
Let's call a duck a duck. The full conversation was more along the lines that Age of Sigmar without points doesn't appeal to large segments of the gaming population and has been considered a failure in those circles. The General's Handbook has changed this failure into a tentative success. If the GHB isn't fully supported, this tentative success is going to immediately reverse back into a failure. I'm really hoping that I'm wrong and that Grombrindal is an anomaly. I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.
Was I being a little hyperbolic with the Grombrindal example? Sure. In my defense, GW is really, really bad at supporting optional rules in the long run. If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.
I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.
On this point, I fully agree. Tzeentch is my favorite of the Chaos gods, and I absolutely love the models from Silver Tower. If I was told I could use the army after release because it didn't have points, I might have to take a trip to Nottingham, pitch fork in hand.
If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.
One model does not equal a trend. Grombrindal not getting points shouldn't in any way indicate the policy to which GW will adhere on future releases. If the next major release (as in more than one model) doesn't get points, then we can worry.
I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.
On this point, I fully agree. Tzeentch is my favorite of the Chaos gods, and I absolutely love the models from Silver Tower. If I was told I could use the army after release because it didn't have points, I might have to take a trip to Nottingham, pitch fork in hand.
If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.
One model does not equal a trend. Grombrindal not getting points shouldn't in any way indicate the policy to which GW will adhere on future releases. If the next major release (as in more than one model) doesn't get points, then we can worry.
I agree that one model does not a trend make... HOWEVER, they said points would be available for all future releases. This is not true. We've already seen one release without points. I hope we don't see more. Historical evidence doesn't make me optimistic.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:While Kris seems to be a bit much when it comes to his thoughts.. Wow you manage to pull it right in the other direction of bad, seriously second class citizens? I mean lets be blunt, the points system certainly has reinvigorated the AoS scene quite well, not to mention being the first streamed tournament style by GW themselves.
No doubt, but points are not included on the warscrolls or in any of the scenarios (outside of the GHB), and the battle report in the most recent White Dwarf was done without points. Not only that, but you have to pay for the points, while unit rules are free. Points are the second class citizens, not the players who prefer Matched Play. They are well taken care of, but they do have to accept that the game does not revolve entirely around points, and as such, there may be parts of the game they can't play as long as they doggedly adhere to only one of several play styles.
Kriswall wrote:The full conversation was more along the lines that Age of Sigmar without points doesn't appeal to large segments of the gaming population and has been considered a failure in those circles. The General's Handbook has changed this failure into a tentative success. If the GHB isn't fully supported, this tentative success is going to immediately reverse back into a failure. I'm really hoping that I'm wrong and that Grombrindal is an anomaly. I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.
First, the armies are still usable, just not in Matched Play. If you wanted to play the Tzeentch Arcanites without points, it is well within your ability to. If you choose not to, that's on you, not Games Workshop, and it certainly doesn't make the army worthless or unusable.
Second, we don't know how often the GHB will be updated. We can speculate all we want about it, but I don't think we can interpolate GW's plan from Grombrindal alone.
Third, competitive players have always been the squeaky wheels, and the volume of complaints against AoS for not having a point system came from a minority of players. In the early days of AoS, there were all sorts of complaints against AoS from it having a baby rule set, having space marines, not having points, having silly rules, and generally just being a "slap in the face" to long time WHFB fans. Getting points wasn't some magically trigger that turned Age of Sigmar from a worthless game into a passable one. It was always passable. It just took time, both so the wounds of WHFB's death could heal and so that GW could fill out the game with more AoS-specific armies and background lore. The tide started turning in January with the Fyreslayers, with the Iron Jawz and Sylvaneth receiving near universal praise after that.
Also, AoS already had several (third-party) point systems, almost from day one, so it isn't like the GHB suddenly made the game have a working point system. If I'm not mistaken, they even used one of them as the basis for the GHB's point system.
Was I being a little hyperbolic with the Grombrindal example? Sure. In my defense, GW is really, really bad at supporting optional rules in the long run. If we see a major release, such as a Battletome, come out without points, I would expect to see many players who were overjoyed by the GHB throw up their hands in frustration and just walk away from the game. I know my community will walk away.
I think you should probably expect future Battletomes to remain without points. The Sylvaneth Battletome came out around the GHB, when the points for those units were known, and it didn't contain points. And it would defeat the purpose of a living point system when you hardcode the points into army books.
ZebioLizard2 wrote:While Kris seems to be a bit much when it comes to his thoughts.. Wow you manage to pull it right in the other direction of bad, seriously second class citizens? I mean lets be blunt, the points system certainly has reinvigorated the AoS scene quite well, not to mention being the first streamed tournament style by GW themselves.
No doubt, but points are not included on the warscrolls or in any of the scenarios (outside of the GHB), and the battle report in the most recent White Dwarf was done without points. Not only that, but you have to pay for the points, while unit rules are free. Points are the second class citizens, not the players who prefer Matched Play. They are well taken care of, but they do have to accept that the game does not revolve entirely around points, and as such, there may be parts of the game they can't play as long as they doggedly adhere to only one of several play styles.
Kriswall wrote:The full conversation was more along the lines that Age of Sigmar without points doesn't appeal to large segments of the gaming population and has been considered a failure in those circles. The General's Handbook has changed this failure into a tentative success. If the GHB isn't fully supported, this tentative success is going to immediately reverse back into a failure. I'm really hoping that I'm wrong and that Grombrindal is an anomaly. I will say that many players won't be happy if Battletome Tzeentch Arcanites (or whatever) is released without points. Waiting for a once per year Matched Play points update before the army is usable isn't a good option.
First, the armies are still usable, just not in Matched Play. If you wanted to play the Tzeentch Arcanites without points, it is well within your ability to. If you choose not to, that's on you, not Games Workshop, and it certainly doesn't make the army worthless or unusable.
Who am I going to play with? I'm just curious. You guys make it sound like it's my decision to play without points. There are multiple gaming stores in my area. NONE of them have a regular community of non-points using Age of Sigmar players. So, I ask you. Who do I play with? Let's say I make the decision to play without points. How, from a very real and practical standpoint, do you see that working out? I'm legitimately curious. ...or are you condemning not just me, but my entire community? I don't think you appreciate my predicament.
YES, an army release without points is a useless army where I and many others live because NOBODY I know plays the game without points. Everyone I know would simply rather play a different game that doesn't require the players to work out how to balance opposing sides. Name another popular, current tabletop game that gives it players only minimal guidance on how to build balanced armies. I can't think of one, so don't be surprised that the idea is unpopular with whole communities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: And it would defeat the purpose of a living point system when you hardcode the points into army books.
Sure, makes much more sense to hard code the points into a rules supplement instead?
Sqorgar wrote: Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.
Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.
But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.
Over powered? have you seen those frost lord on thundertusk move 13" shoot 18" and just do 6 mortal wounds?
Nah he would not be considered over powered in a game that has so many things over powered imo
FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.
Thommy H wrote: FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.
So AoS a game where rules are touted to be free will actually make you buy the army books, yep sounds like GW to me.
Kriswall wrote: Who am I going to play with? I'm just curious.
You have absolutely no agency in this, at all? You can't ask them if they would mind playing an open battle? Maybe say, geez, I really like playing this way and wouldn't it be swell if one of you guys I regularly play with could do me a solid and play this way with me for a battle or two? When I played Warmachine, I found several people who were willing (not overjoyed, but willing) to play smaller point sizes and non-tournament scenarios. And there were games I played that weren't exactly the format I would've preferred, but I did it as a thanks for earlier games and generally because I'm not a completely donkey-cave.
And yes, I would consider a group of uncompromising players who only considered what they wanted to be a bunch of donkey-caves. And really, if you've only got a bunch of donkey-caves to play with, then that's not really Games Workshop's fault, is it? If anything, maybe they were doing everyone a favor by not catering to their selfish desires initially.
YES, an army release without points is a useless army where I and many others live because NOBODY I know plays the game without points. Everyone I know would simply rather play a different game that doesn't require the players to work out how to balance opposing sides. Name another popular, current tabletop game that gives it players only minimal guidance on how to build balanced armies. I can't think of one, so don't be surprised that the idea is unpopular with whole communities.
First, you can use wounds/models/keyword limits as a rough guide to give you balanced enough forces. By that I mean that victory will largely be determined by the player and the dice - not the power imbalance of the units, and that any power imbalance in the game would not be noticeable unless you played multiple games with the same forces in the same scenarios against the same opponent. In other words, if it isn't perfectly balanced, you won't realize it while you play. In fact, most point systems aren't perfectly balanced anyway, and aim for balanced enough - they just don't tell us that because we don't want to hear it.
Also, a bunch of the GW scenarios don't require balanced forces at all. By having scenario objectives, model limits, reinforcements, and even wildly unbalanced scenarios where the sides aren't even remotely comparable, you can have a bunch of fun experiences without even trying to aim for a fair fight. If you (or the people you play with) let go of the idea that games have to be perfectly balanced to be fun/rewarding, or that points are the only way to balance the game, you'd find that Age of Sigmar does some cool things with scenarios.
Thommy H wrote: FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.
Does it? What page?
And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.
If it's all on one page in the back or better yet a removable insert I think that would leave them room to update it later with a GHB that says 'replace those values with these ones' and not cause too much trouble.
Thommy H wrote: FWIW, the General's Handbook says that the points values for units not included there will be found in the relevant Battletome. I imagine future releases will include a page at the back with the pitched battle profiles in the same format as the tables in the GHB.
Does it? What page?
And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.
Page 128, right before the pitched battle profiles, last sentence of the bold text at the top. It implies that points won't appear on warscrolls at least, or it would say you could get them from the GW site too.
Kriswall wrote: Who am I going to play with? I'm just curious.
You have absolutely no agency in this, at all? You can't ask them if they would mind playing an open battle? Maybe say, geez, I really like playing this way and wouldn't it be swell if one of you guys I regularly play with could do me a solid and play this way with me for a battle or two? When I played Warmachine, I found several people who were willing (not overjoyed, but willing) to play smaller point sizes and non-tournament scenarios. And there were games I played that weren't exactly the format I would've preferred, but I did it as a thanks for earlier games and generally because I'm not a completely donkey-cave.
And yes, I would consider a group of uncompromising players who only considered what they wanted to be a bunch of donkey-caves. And really, if you've only got a bunch of donkey-caves to play with, then that's not really Games Workshop's fault, is it? If anything, maybe they were doing everyone a favor by not catering to their selfish desires initially.
YES, an army release without points is a useless army where I and many others live because NOBODY I know plays the game without points. Everyone I know would simply rather play a different game that doesn't require the players to work out how to balance opposing sides. Name another popular, current tabletop game that gives it players only minimal guidance on how to build balanced armies. I can't think of one, so don't be surprised that the idea is unpopular with whole communities.
First, you can use wounds/models/keyword limits as a rough guide to give you balanced enough forces. By that I mean that victory will largely be determined by the player and the dice - not the power imbalance of the units, and that any power imbalance in the game would not be noticeable unless you played multiple games with the same forces in the same scenarios against the same opponent. In other words, if it isn't perfectly balanced, you won't realize it while you play. In fact, most point systems aren't perfectly balanced anyway, and aim for balanced enough - they just don't tell us that because we don't want to hear it.
Also, a bunch of the GW scenarios don't require balanced forces at all. By having scenario objectives, model limits, reinforcements, and even wildly unbalanced scenarios where the sides aren't even remotely comparable, you can have a bunch of fun experiences without even trying to aim for a fair fight. If you (or the people you play with) let go of the idea that games have to be perfectly balanced to be fun/rewarding, or that points are the only way to balance the game, you'd find that Age of Sigmar does some cool things with scenarios.
So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy? Sounds like an awesome plan. No. I don't have much agency in this. It is what it is. The community gave points-less Age of Sigmar a chance and collectively decided not to play it. I can't change that. If a new army is released without points, it's simply not an option for regular game play where I live. Yes, I could probably brow beat people I know into a game here and there, but that sounds awful.
AoS before the dark times of the GHB was GWs ultimate folley. It was what was bound to happen when they shut their doors and stopped listening to the customers. They literally thought people bought models to collect, paint and make PEW PEW noises at the localgaming store. The fact that, once the GHB dropped, AOS stuff flew off the shelved and sold maddingly is proof that people like the game, the miniatures everything, but wanted a balancing factor.
So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy? Sounds like an awesome plan. No. I don't have much agency in this. It is what it is. The community gave points-less Age of Sigmar a chance and collectively decided not to play it. I can't change that. If a new army is released without points, it's simply not an option for regular game play where I live. Yes, I could probably brow beat people I know into a game here and there, but that sounds awful.
Honestly, just talk to people - you may be amazed at the response. If you have a fairly large community, there is every chance that there is someone who wants to play in different ways but feels they too are locked into the predominant style - and, at the end of the day, you only need one other player to kick things off, be it in Open or (I suspect will be a richer hunting ground) Narrative Play. You can be the two playing a full campaign in the corner of a store, ignored by most of the gamers initially... but you will pull others in when they see cool battles happening, hear the cool stories coming from those battles, and watch you and the other guy doing things with the game that are just not open to them because they are locked into one play style.
It takes a bit of effort, but this is the kind of hobby that you get out whatever you put in. However, I rather get the feeling you don't really want to play like that - perhaps you are just trying to make a point here?
And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.
Agreed - a yearly GHB release would make Matched Play a very sweet concept.
There are a large number of gamers who are only interested in official balancing methods. I know you're a big proponent of one of the community generated points systems... but if you think I'm not optimistic about GW continuing support, how do you think I feel about a random group of internet strangers I've never met? I wish them luck, but I'm certainly not hitching my cart to their star. One car accident, heart attack, new job, etc from a key contributor and the whole thing could start to fold. I've seen it before with other community efforts. The core is usually driven by the passions of a limited number of people. Remove that core and... well... the process slows dramatically.
Could be because I live in "GW Territory"... i.e., close-ish to the site of the old GW US HQ... but I've yet to meet a player who was willing to even try out a community driven points system. Believe me, I tried. I was an outspoken proponent for PPC. Never once got anyone to try it out. Eventually I gave up, closeted my models and started playing X-Wing and Armada like everyone else.
So, yes, options were there the whole time. Were they actual, realistic options for everyone? Nope. They weren't an option for me. My area just doesn't go for unofficial.
So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy? Sounds like an awesome plan. No. I don't have much agency in this. It is what it is. The community gave points-less Age of Sigmar a chance and collectively decided not to play it. I can't change that. If a new army is released without points, it's simply not an option for regular game play where I live. Yes, I could probably brow beat people I know into a game here and there, but that sounds awful.
Honestly, just talk to people - you may be amazed at the response. If you have a fairly large community, there is every chance that there is someone who wants to play in different ways but feels they too are locked into the predominant style - and, at the end of the day, you only need one other player to kick things off, be it in Open or (I suspect will be a richer hunting ground) Narrative Play. You can be the two playing a full campaign in the corner of a store, ignored by most of the gamers initially... but you will pull others in when they see cool battles happening, hear the cool stories coming from those battles, and watch you and the other guy doing things with the game that are just not open to them because they are locked into one play style.
It takes a bit of effort, but this is the kind of hobby that you get out whatever you put in. However, I rather get the feeling you don't really want to play like that - perhaps you are just trying to make a point here?
And I hope they don't go down that route. The moment they start printing points values in battletomes is the moment the points are tied to that publication and not as easy to update alongside everything else.
Agreed - a yearly GHB release would make Matched Play a very sweet concept.
I'm not interested in building a community. I'm interested in participating in a community. Building a community is work. I already have a job. I'm not really able to commit the time and consistency required to start something new. I'm more of an "I hope I can get to the store this week to play a game but don't know if my boss is going to send me to NYC" sort of player.
I do recognize that building your own community is an option... but it's not a real option for someone who can't commit to being there on a consistent basis due to family and work commitments. Building a community is hard enough when you're starting from scratch and have the time and effort to commit (speaking as an ex-GW store manager here).
Sqorgar wrote: Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.
Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.
But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
As to Grombrindal being overpowering in a tournament setting... well, that's sort of what points are for. Would be be overpowering at 50 points? Sure. How about 500 points. No way. He'd be useless since he's take up so much of your army. The goal with points is to find a reasonable value. GW, as the publisher should have some method for coming up with a reasonable value, be it play testing or some sort of standard formula.
I'm just waiting to see what the next non-Limited Edition release looks like. If it doesn't have Matched Play points on launch day, I'm going to assume the General's Handbook was a one time thing and won't be supported going forward on a consistent basis.
I hear this. Matched Play has become the "default" standard. If it's not in the General's Handbook, it doesn't get used. So on one hand I want GW to put points out, on the other I want them to not just because it will be a clear indicator that Matched Play is the exception and not the rule, only to be used for tournaments and leagues, not regular games. However, I feel that the community will still gravitate towards it even though it's obvious that the points are very rough estimates due to their complete inflexibility. I totally sympathize though my area is basically the same, people slammed AoS until the GH came out (I shamefully admit I was in that group), now that it's out though points or GTFO is the rule, which I no longer enjoy because I feel it puts a stranglehold on building and collecting an army.
I'd rather have seen more guidelines for approximating army sizes that don't involve points, like how in the last White Dwarf they just decided to use a couple heroes and about 10 units each, no mention of points. But people are lazy and don't want to discuss what seems like a fair and balanced game.
Sqorgar wrote: Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.
Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.
But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
As to Grombrindal being overpowering in a tournament setting... well, that's sort of what points are for. Would be be overpowering at 50 points? Sure. How about 500 points. No way. He'd be useless since he's take up so much of your army. The goal with points is to find a reasonable value. GW, as the publisher should have some method for coming up with a reasonable value, be it play testing or some sort of standard formula.
I'm just waiting to see what the next non-Limited Edition release looks like. If it doesn't have Matched Play points on launch day, I'm going to assume the General's Handbook was a one time thing and won't be supported going forward on a consistent basis.
I hear this. Matched Play has become the "default" standard. If it's not in the General's Handbook, it doesn't get used. So on one hand I want GW to put points out, on the other I want them to not just because it will be a clear indicator that Matched Play is the exception and not the rule, only to be used for tournaments and leagues, not regular games. However, I feel that the community will still gravitate towards it even though it's obvious that the points are very rough estimates due to their complete inflexibility.
I'd rather have seen more guidelines for approximating army sizes that don't involve points, like how in the last White Dwarf they just decided to use a couple heroes and about 10 units each, no mention of points. But people are lazy and don't want to discuss what seems like a fair and balanced game.
It's not fair to say that people are lazy. We need to get rid of that mentality. I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game. Do you think my not wanting to have to negotiate the terms of engagement every time is because I'm lazy or because I'm busy? I have a limited amount of time. I'm going to pick the game every time that lets me build a "standard sized" list ahead of time. X-Wing? Sure, show up with a couple of 100pt lists. Armada? Sure, show up with a 400pt list. Warhammer 40k? Sure, show up with an 1850pt list. AoS w/GHB? Sure, show up with a 1000pt or 2000pt list. Pure AoS? Show up with a random assortment of models and then just hope you're able to negotiate some balance? Yeah, that last one sucks when you have limited time. It's really easy to waste an evening when you make a mistake and play an unbalanced game because neither player realized how unbalancing XXX unit could be. Can an unbalanced game be fun? Sure. Is it usually fun? NO.
It's not laziness. It's wanting to get the maximum amount of fun out of a limited window of gaming. Please stop saying people are lazy when they don't want to negotiate balance terms during every game.
It's not fair to say that people are lazy. We need to get rid of that mentality. I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game. Do you think my not wanting to have to negotiate the terms of engagement every time is because I'm lazy or because I'm busy? I have a limited amount of time. I'm going to pick the game every time that lets me build a "standard sized" list ahead of time. X-Wing? Sure, show up with a couple of 100pt lists. Armada? Sure, show up with a 400pt list. Warhammer 40k? Sure, show up with an 1850pt list. AoS w/GHB? Sure, show up with a 1000pt or 2000pt list. Pure AoS? Show up with a random assortment of models and then just hope you're able to negotiate some balance? Yeah, that last one sucks when you have limited time. It's really easy to waste an evening when you make a mistake and play an unbalanced game because neither player realized how unbalancing XXX unit could be. Can an unbalanced game be fun? Sure. Is it usually fun? NO.
It's not laziness. It's wanting to get the maximum amount of fun out of a limited window of gaming. Please stop saying people are lazy when they don't want to negotiate balance terms during every game.
It is absolutely fair to say people are lazy. People have Facebook, cell phones, etc. If you're part of a regular gaming group and you make no effort to connect with the other members outside of just the time you spend gaming?
That's on you. I keep in touch with basically all my regular opponents(a couple of them I don't have contact information for, but I know they tend to be at my FLGS on Saturdays from 12 to 4 and they tend to bring a certain number of items), and most of my games actually get arranged by one of us texting the other to see if we want to get a game in.
Sqorgar wrote: Grombrindal seems like he could be a special case though. He's a limited edition model with rules only in White Dwarf, and his abilities would be overpowering in a tournament setting.
Personally, as someone who prefers not having points, I think I like the idea of new models going for a few months before they receive points. Gives them a chance to be experienced outside of a competitive environment, where even a slight miscalculation in points could render them worthless or overly worthwhile. And not initially having points means that competitive players will have to step outside of the competitive environment, briefly, to experience new factions and models.
But I'm guessing that having to wait on points could be a dealbreaker for some types of players.
It's absolutely a deal breaker for many players. I am perfectly happy playing without points... HOWEVER, my gaming community is not. As such, the overwhelming majority of my games are Matched Play games. A new unit/model released without points isn't even worth looking at since it's unusable in the majority of games I play. Had there been a points value for Grombrindal, I'd likely have have bought the model. Without points, it's a lost sale.
As to Grombrindal being overpowering in a tournament setting... well, that's sort of what points are for. Would be be overpowering at 50 points? Sure. How about 500 points. No way. He'd be useless since he's take up so much of your army. The goal with points is to find a reasonable value. GW, as the publisher should have some method for coming up with a reasonable value, be it play testing or some sort of standard formula.
I'm just waiting to see what the next non-Limited Edition release looks like. If it doesn't have Matched Play points on launch day, I'm going to assume the General's Handbook was a one time thing and won't be supported going forward on a consistent basis.
I hear this. Matched Play has become the "default" standard. If it's not in the General's Handbook, it doesn't get used. So on one hand I want GW to put points out, on the other I want them to not just because it will be a clear indicator that Matched Play is the exception and not the rule, only to be used for tournaments and leagues, not regular games. However, I feel that the community will still gravitate towards it even though it's obvious that the points are very rough estimates due to their complete inflexibility.
I'd rather have seen more guidelines for approximating army sizes that don't involve points, like how in the last White Dwarf they just decided to use a couple heroes and about 10 units each, no mention of points. But people are lazy and don't want to discuss what seems like a fair and balanced game.
It's not fair to say that people are lazy. We need to get rid of that mentality. I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game. Do you think my not wanting to have to negotiate the terms of engagement every time is because I'm lazy or because I'm busy? I have a limited amount of time. I'm going to pick the game every time that lets me build a "standard sized" list ahead of time. X-Wing? Sure, show up with a couple of 100pt lists. Armada? Sure, show up with a 400pt list. Warhammer 40k? Sure, show up with an 1850pt list. AoS w/GHB? Sure, show up with a 1000pt or 2000pt list. Pure AoS? Show up with a random assortment of models and then just hope you're able to negotiate some balance? Yeah, that last one sucks when you have limited time. It's really easy to waste an evening when you make a mistake and play an unbalanced game because neither player realized how unbalancing XXX unit could be. Can an unbalanced game be fun? Sure. Is it usually fun? NO.
It's not laziness. It's wanting to get the maximum amount of fun out of a limited window of gaming. Please stop saying people are lazy when they don't want to negotiate balance terms during every game.
Sorry, I don't believe that. Your shop doesn't have social media or something to arrange a game? It's literally just show up and see who else turns up, and then play a game because you both happened to be at the store looking for a game? Yes, it's absolutely lazy to want to have the setup for a game be a single question and then start unpacking models. You want that, Warhammer is not the correct game to be playing; there are plenty of other good games that are balanced around points where you show up with your stuff, and just ask how many points and then determine a scenario and start playing. Warhammer is intended to be more of a social game. It is not something incredibly difficult that requires hashing out the Treaty of Versailles to play a game, just some common sense and an eye towards wanting a fair game so you aren't just going to take the most powerful stuff because you can.
Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).
auticus wrote:Because they tried a social experiment and brought the game back to how games were in the 80s, when points weren't a standard.
The social experiment failed.
The points have never been balanced though. GHB points are not balanced IMO. They provide structure but there is a lot to be desired in terms of balance.
Sounds like 40K and Who's Line is it.
Sqorgar wrote:I believe they said during the recent stream that they would update the book yearly(?), and keeping the points separately is what allows them to do that.
Bottle wrote:GW made a lot of mistakes with AoS' release, but it forced them to change their company culture and I think GW have become a much better company as a result.
And it worked out great for us too. The GHB is a great starting point and GW are already seeking to improve the balance within. GW asked all players from the Warlords event to email their lists to the Dev team could evaluate them, and it was also hinted that we'll get a yearly update.
This is great because no longer will armies be trapped with bad points until the army book/battletome is redone, instead each year we'll get better and better balance within the game.
Also works out well for GW because every year they get a massive cash injection from the entire player base purchasing points updates.
I really hope this is not the case. It's not that I don't mind paying $30 a year for it, but I have the feeling that GW hasn't really changed at all. Right now it's all smoke and mirrors. Especially when it comes to 40K. So I believe AoS will not be much more different than an illusion of change. So that said I fear that maybe next year the price will be the same but in two years or so, prices will double in price just to get price points. Also I am sure GW will "imbalance" point costs so people would be larger looking for next year when "new points adjustment" are made. So GW will make a reason for this "influx" of cash and give people reasons to buy it just like how they did with Fantasy and 40K. It might even make things worse because now instead of ever 4 or 2 years for a new codex update, GW can shaft entire armies now and make people want to switch armies. So instead of Flavour of the Month armies we have in 40K, we will have Flavour of the Year armies.
This can be really good if we are hopeful and positive or it can end up very badly for those of us who are very leary of what GW does and have no faith in what they do yet.
Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).
Yet this has been a thing in wargaming for quite sometime now (And I'm talking really early WHFB and 40k), and AoS had a massive interest regained upon gaining points, so it certainly picked up AoS rather then killed it.
Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).
Yet this has been a thing in wargaming for quite sometime now (And I'm talking really early WHFB and 40k), and AoS had a massive interest regained upon gaining points, so it certainly picked up AoS rather then killed it.
I can't speak for Wayne, but I put a significant emphasis on the "Pick-up game culture" aspect of his statement that you seem to be missing out on.
"Pick-up game culture" is the idea of "I don't have any free time outside of when I'm at the shop, so I won't even attempt to take a few minutes to talk to my regular opponents beforehand".
It is, in my opinion, the laziest way of gaming. It's exactly what people who cried for points complained about AoS pre-points, it's people just showing up with all their stuff for their army and figuring out a match then and there.
Kriswall wrote: So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy?
Yes? I mean, haven't you ever got together with a group of friends or coworkers and they all want to eat at different places? Did you contribute or compromise, or did you just sit in a corner pouting while they picked the vegan restaurant that puts too many raisins in all their dishes?
"The tree that does not bend with the wind will be broken by the wind". Or, to put it more succinctly, if you don't learn to be more flexible, one day you'll snap.
I have a 9 to 5 job. I then have to fight through traffic to get to a store by 6. That store is going to close by 9. I have three hours or so to play a game.
Well... you're a smart guy. Figure it out.
I run a publishing company that is re-launching two major product lines, am writing a novel, studying for a degree, have a niece who is like an un-guided missile, and set myself a goal to cover two narrative campaigns at the same time for two different game systems.
Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby.
I might not go that far, but I get where you are coming from.
Going back to Kris though, it may seem like people are getting on your back here, but they really aren't - they are just reacting to your initial statement about what is in Matched Play and what isn't. At the end of the day, GW have already provided the vehicle you need to do exactly the kind of gaming you describe (Matched Play). No, not everything in the game will appear in Matched Play, because it really won't fit (if you ever get a chance, flick through some of the formations in the campaign books for things that would really upset the cart). Matched Play will (I hope/wish/pray) be a subset of AoS that develops into a nice, tight tournament-style set - but it will never be the full game, the be all and end all, the alpha and omega.
And nor should it be. The game can support a great deal more than that.
Pick-up game culture is what is killing this hobby. That's harsh, but I feel it's the truth. That's fine for something with ease of setup, transportation and play like Magic and other card games, even some other fine wargames. It's not suited for Warhammer (or historical gaming).
Yet this has been a thing in wargaming for quite sometime now (And I'm talking really early WHFB and 40k), and AoS had a massive interest regained upon gaining points, so it certainly picked up AoS rather then killed it.
I can't speak for Wayne, but I put a significant emphasis on the "Pick-up game culture" aspect of his statement that you seem to be missing out on.
"Pick-up game culture" is the idea of "I don't have any free time outside of when I'm at the shop, so I won't even attempt to take a few minutes to talk to my regular opponents beforehand".
It is, in my opinion, the laziest way of gaming. It's exactly what people who cried for points complained about AoS pre-points, it's people just showing up with all their stuff for their army and figuring out a match then and there.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. The mentality of I'm going to just bring a "stock" army down to the game shop, see who else also decides to go to the shop today, and play against them because we are both here and both are looking for a game, and if I don't play this person then I likely made the trip to the shop for nothing. No forethought, no discussion, minimal of fuss, just I have an army, you have an army, let's play. Which is perfectly suited for like card games where it's easy to transport and easy to set up. But wargaming is so much more than that.
This is the age of social media. I frequently see posts on facebook groups for specific game shops or generic "X area Gaming" about "Anyone going to be at the shop today for a game?" and it doesn't take more than that to discuss either there or in a private message the nuances of the game beyond just "Want 1850? Sure! Ok see you then!" approach.
I like narrative games. I definitely enjoyed the first few games of Age of Sigmar I played.
The problem wasn't, as noted, the opportunity to pre-negotiate a 'size of game', it's my own ignorance of the contents of different warhammer armies.
More than once, I'd have thmy army and look for a game. The opponent I'm discussing with would bring out a...not exactly new, but new-ish warhammer unit.
"I'll use a Mortis Engine, if I may?"
"That depends. What the bloody hell does one of them do?"
The Death player in question would obviously know, but trying to translate it into how many knights it was worth (when he'd never really paid much attention to brettonians and hence couldn't speak in terms of my army) was an exercise in futility.
The Death player in question would obviously know, but trying to translate it into how many knights it was worth (when he'd never really paid much attention to brettonians and hence couldn't speak in terms of my army) was an exercise in futility.
For pick up games, honestly, just ask him how many Wounds it has - then add 10-20% if it is a big model, deduct that much if you know it is weak (Skinks and Ungors spring to mind...).
No, it is not perfect, but for a quick-for-fun game, it is enough to get set up fast and playing. We have been playing for more than a year now using that 'system' pretty much exclusively with no, repeat no, issues worth talking about. As you play the game more, you'll figure out what different units are like and will be able to do this more or less on the fly - you'll even be able to deal with the guys who purposefully try to twink out with, say, an all Retributor army. Becomes no big deal.
Kriswall wrote: So, your contention is that I should spend hundreds of dollars and countless hours to buy and assemble an army and then beg friends and strangers to take pity on me and play a game/play method they actively don't enjoy?
Yes? I mean, haven't you ever got together with a group of friends or coworkers and they all want to eat at different places? Did you contribute or compromise, or did you just sit in a corner pouting while they picked the vegan restaurant that puts too many raisins in all their dishes?
"The tree that does not bend with the wind will be broken by the wind". Or, to put it more succinctly, if you don't learn to be more flexible, one day you'll snap.
Your analogy is bad. It's more like a situation where 20 people like pizza and hate vegan food and 1 guy likes pizza AND vegan food. Asking the 1 guy to brow beat his friends into eating vegan is silly. He likes pizza. Whenever he eats with his friends, it'll be pizza (games that have well defined, player independent list building mechanics).
And I completely agree with your quote. I'm being flexible and going with what the community wants. If I do not bend and insist that they play without points, I probably will snap.
Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.
Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.
Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.
Warhammer as a pick-up game sounds like a dicey experience - will there be an opponent? Will the lists be somewhat even? Will the other person have the same attitude towards the game?
hobojebus wrote: Pick up games are the problem...Are you for real?
Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.
Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.
Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.
Right, but Warhammer doesn't work that way. It never really did even in the olden days when it was more pickup game friendly than it is now. The problem in general is not necessarily that people want a pickup game experience, it's that they are trying to shoehorn Warhammer into becoming that. If I want a game where I can just turn up with X points, expect an opponent to do the same, roll up a scenario and start deploying, I'll play Warmachine instead because that's what Warmachine caters to and makes it super simple. There are simply too many variables in any Warhammer game to be conducive to that sort of approach, even when it's tacked on a la General's Handbook in an abstract way that ends up being treated as gospel because omg points!
At the same time, and I apologize to always harp on this, I find it absolutely on the players. People COULD discuss a game with an opponent and actually try to socialize and make friends with people who share the hobby. Instead it's like people want the fast food of gaming; roll up, ask how many points, play a game, and leave and not care about fostering the community or having a regular opponent. I even sometimes see it among players who are familiar with each other and it boggles my mind that the thought never crosses their heads to do more than just have a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I would love to have a regular group of 4-5 others, even 2-3 others, that frequently play each other because the possibilities are limitless for coming up with campaigns and custom scenarios and really show everyone else what can be done.
hobojebus wrote: Pick up games are the problem...Are you for real?
Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.
Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.
Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.
Right, but Warhammer doesn't work that way. It never really did even in the olden days when it was more pickup game friendly than it is now. The problem in general is not necessarily that people want a pickup game experience, it's that they are trying to shoehorn Warhammer into becoming that. If I want a game where I can just turn up with X points, expect an opponent to do the same, roll up a scenario and start deploying, I'll play Warmachine instead because that's what Warmachine caters to and makes it super simple. There are simply too many variables in any Warhammer game to be conducive to that sort of approach, even when it's tacked on a la General's Handbook in an abstract way that ends up being treated as gospel because omg points!
At the same time, and I apologize to always harp on this, I find it absolutely on the players. People COULD discuss a game with an opponent and actually try to socialize and make friends with people who share the hobby. Instead it's like people want the fast food of gaming; roll up, ask how many points, play a game, and leave and not care about fostering the community or having a regular opponent. I even sometimes see it among players who are familiar with each other and it boggles my mind that the thought never crosses their heads to do more than just have a group that goes down to the shop to play random games.
Warhammer has historically worked that way. Warhammer 40k currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play an 1850 point game?" Age of Sigmar w/GHB currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play a 2000 point game?" You need to get past "the olden days". Those days are old. The gaming industry has moved on. How many commercially successful table top games/board games have a lengthy, vague, discussion/trial and error based system for deciding how any given game is going to be played? It works for some people, but it's clearly not what the industry or the market wants. The fact that Age of Sigmar sales ramped up when the GHB came out should be a clue that the market wants points. Sure, a vocal minority can complain, but a vocal minority doesn't push the sales numbers. A pretty large silent group clearly also wanted points.
Also, out of curiosity, how do you define gaming community? For me, it's literally a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I might become friends with some of these people and develop a relationship OUTSIDE the context of the gaming group, but that's separate from the gaming community.
hobojebus wrote: Pick up games are the problem...Are you for real?
Games where you can just set up and go are awesome because you can go in knowing no one's getting steamrolled, you can stress free just enjoy the game and have a laugh with the other guy.
Negotiations with a stranger present so many needless hassles, you can so easily put someone's nose out of joint telling them what they can and can't use.
Even with friends not using points never ended well one side always dominated no matter how hard we tried to balance it.
Right, but Warhammer doesn't work that way. It never really did even in the olden days when it was more pickup game friendly than it is now. The problem in general is not necessarily that people want a pickup game experience, it's that they are trying to shoehorn Warhammer into becoming that. If I want a game where I can just turn up with X points, expect an opponent to do the same, roll up a scenario and start deploying, I'll play Warmachine instead because that's what Warmachine caters to and makes it super simple. There are simply too many variables in any Warhammer game to be conducive to that sort of approach, even when it's tacked on a la General's Handbook in an abstract way that ends up being treated as gospel because omg points!
At the same time, and I apologize to always harp on this, I find it absolutely on the players. People COULD discuss a game with an opponent and actually try to socialize and make friends with people who share the hobby. Instead it's like people want the fast food of gaming; roll up, ask how many points, play a game, and leave and not care about fostering the community or having a regular opponent. I even sometimes see it among players who are familiar with each other and it boggles my mind that the thought never crosses their heads to do more than just have a group that goes down to the shop to play random games.
Warhammer has historically worked that way. Warhammer 40k currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play an 1850 point game?" Age of Sigmar w/GHB currently works that way. "Hey, you wanna play a 2000 point game?" You need to get past "the olden days". Those days are old. The gaming industry has moved on. How many commercially successful table top games/board games have a lengthy, vague, discussion/trial and error based system for deciding how any given game is going to be played? It works for some people, but it's clearly not what the industry or the market wants. The fact that Age of Sigmar sales ramped up when the GHB came out should be a clue that the market wants points. Sure, a vocal minority can complain, but a vocal minority doesn't push the sales numbers. A pretty large silent group clearly also wanted points.
Also, out of curiosity, how do you define gaming community? For me, it's literally a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I might become friends with some of these people and develop a relationship OUTSIDE the context of the gaming group, but that's separate from the gaming community.
To me the gaming community is closer to what would be a gaming club in Europe, a regular group that plays games (usually several, not limited to just Warhammer), but generally not "Hey I'm going to the shop, anyone up for a game?" type of random comments, and generally not limited to a specific game store, or any store at all, thus avoiding the "turf wars" type of mentality that many game stores seem to have where you "only" go to X shop and other game stores are "the enemy". however I freely admit it's a pipe dream of mine to have an actual gaming club rather than a store that everyone congregates at and you then have your "cliques" of card gamers, Warhammer players, Warmachine players, board game players, etc. it's just a gaming club so for example if someone found this cool lesser known wargame online, they can get a starter set and reasonably expect others to give it a whirl and see if they are interested, as opposed to "game store" mentality where it tends to be only a handful of games played at that store are played, and anything else is typically dismissed without so much as trying it out.
Also you mention Warhammer being that way, but GW themselves seem to constantly push the notion that Warhammer is NOT a "pick up game" type of game, despite the fact that it kinda sorta maybe if you squint really hard can fill that role because it has something resembling points. Warhammer always seemed closer to ye olde historical wargaming, something that you played with a regular group or club and made like an entire day out of it where you could come up with your own things to enhance it.
Also you mention Warhammer being that way, but GW themselves seem to constantly push the notion that Warhammer is NOT a "pick up game" type of game,
GW also used to believe that the rules were useless and that the only thing people wanted were the models, and that they should ignore the community at large.
Needless to say, going exactly by GW's word isn't the best idea.
despite the fact that it kinda sorta maybe if you squint really hard can fill that role because it has something resembling points
"Resembling"? It does have points, one can indeed play it that way if they or their club wants to play it that way.
I find the discussion of laziness/game negotiation similarly humorous, since the GHB points still need some level of negotiation to work. A strong GHB list will utterly crush a weak one, potentially needing only two rounds to do so, even. So the players still have to make sure their on roughly equal terms.
Yep. The GHB point system is pretty bonkers bad in regards to balance.
If you want to show up and play a game and have a good game without discussion you better be rocking the current tournament meta list, or you're going to have a bad time because if your opponent is doing that (which often seems to be the case) you're going to have a bad time.
Which I think is what the default expectation is in regards to pick up gaming without any pregame talk or "negotiation". That you are bringing a bad ass A list and expect your opponent to do the same.
Pick up game culture is not new. Its been a strong thing since the early 2000s or so in regards to warhammer.
No Points was never going to fly because pick up game culture requires points, and pick up game culture is the default and vast majority of interaction with the game I find (again through personal anecdote as well as internet anecdote).
Pick up game culture, like any culture, wants certain things and hates certain others. The problem, as in anything, is if you are not part of that culture and are a minority.
Where I am, you won't get any no point games of AOS either. Where I am, community driven point systems were for the most part universally rejected except for the events I ran which I used my azyr comp for, but even then there was griping that it wasn't "official" because "official" is the standard expected norm regardless of how lol-awful the official platform is.
I play for storytelling and campaigning. I am also in my area a huge minority so that means if I want to play AOS in that way I have to put forth the work to assemble that and its going to be a small tiny percentage of the player base that has any interest in that kind of thing because tournament metas are not something that I enjoy playing in.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I find the discussion of laziness/game negotiation similarly humorous, since the GHB points still need some level of negotiation to work. A strong GHB list will utterly crush a weak one, potentially needing only two rounds to do so, even. So the players still have to make sure their on roughly equal terms.
I disagree. I don't think this is a points issue. It's an army construction/player skill issue. The points let you know how much stuff you can bring. It's still up to you to consider synergies and to bring a variety of things to combat a variety of challenges. Any given system where you can pick your list will have weak lists and strong lists. I play Star Wars Armada. I can take 400 points of capital ships with no upgrades and no squadron support. It's a weak list and I'm likely to lose every game I play. This doesn't mean the points system in Armada is bad or that I need to negotiate with my opponent to modify the points... it just means I made a bad list. I need to get better at the game and better at choosing my army.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: It does have points, one can indeed play it that way if they or their club wants to play it that way.
But apparently it is impossible to NOT play that way...
Not impossible, but can be extremely challenging and generally not worth the effort for many players when you can't get community buy-in. It's such an uphill battle for me that I'm not considering it a realistic option.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I find the discussion of laziness/game negotiation similarly humorous, since the GHB points still need some level of negotiation to work. A strong GHB list will utterly crush a weak one, potentially needing only two rounds to do so, even. So the players still have to make sure their on roughly equal terms.
I disagree. I don't think this is a points issue. It's an army construction/player skill issue. The points let you know how much stuff you can bring. It's still up to you to consider synergies and to bring a variety of things to combat a variety of challenges. Any given system where you can pick your list will have weak lists and strong lists. I play Star Wars Armada. I can take 400 points of capital ships with no upgrades and no squadron support. It's a weak list and I'm likely to lose every game I play. This doesn't mean the points system in Armada is bad or that I need to negotiate with my opponent to modify the points... it just means I made a bad list. I need to get better at the game and better at choosing my army.
I would agree with you if the GHB balance were better, but the thing is the difference between lists can mean that there isn't even a real 'game' in the first place. Losing a game with a weak list is one thing, but bringing an average list and doing little more than picking up your models as they die is quite another. And the variation in GHB cost-effectiviness means such a thing can easily happen by chance, it doesn't even need a matchup of a bad player vs a good one, just two players who have different ideas of where the competitiveness scale is.
For example, at my flgs we have a more casual meta; the lists we use aren't bad but they also aren't min-maxed very much. Recently I have brought in a competitive list to practice for an upcoming tournament, and knowing the list is pretty strong I warned my buds what I was doing, telling them to bring the strongest lists they could. Even with my opponents bringing their best the games were completely one-sided simply because my list was built from the ground up for competitive play; they couldn't match it with the models they owned despite knowing ahead of time what was coming. And that's the point; the difference in power is so great that players might not even be able to make an appropriate list no matter how good at it they are simply because they don't own the right models. And these aren't players with small collections I am talking about; any of us could throw down 5000+ points on the board easy and these are 2000 point games. When it comes down to a player potentially needing to buy a whole new army just to have a chance, I'd say that some level of negotiation is required, at the very least on a community level to ensure everyone is on the same page in terms of power-scale.
I saw a fb post on this very topic earlier today. The meme was basically sun tzu saying if you are prepared, you win before the game starts, and that this is what wargamers should strive for (to win in the list building phase so the game is already won before you start)
Definitely competing philosophies (I'm more a chess guy that wants two actual even forces fighting where table skill is more important than spreadsheet skill).
Much of my meta is competitive, so their answer is that list building is a skill and if you want to have a good game you need to chase the meta and not field weak armies.
To add to that, I think listbuilding-skill is both a valid and key part of the wargaming experience. But to to put in Sun Tzu terms, having the right balance of spearmen, crossbowmen, and cavalry doesn't mean much if your enemy is entrenched with gatling guns. This is to say that having units so much stronger than others actually takes skill away from listbuilding; just use the OP stuff or a cookie-cutter tournament list rather than weighing the odds or synergies of what you have. Don't have the right models for a tournament list? Too bad.
Apparently people who don't necessarily want to play with people outside of a club or store or have everyone's personal contact information are lazy and bad gamers and deserve bad rulesets.
Seriously people, not everyone has tight gaming pals for various reasons. Some people can really only ever get in a pickup game once in a blue moon, some people just aren't that tight with the club people, and some people just want a quick and easy setup method to play games with whoever without spending time negotiating everything. That doesn't make them lazy or bad or anything else. This is a past-time hobby, not a second job, not a sports team, or anything else, and it's not unreasonable for them to want a quick and easy pickup style of play without having to jump through hoops with rules, make game dates, etc. That AoS has such a method now isn't because of bad people doing evil things to the game, it's because quite frankly most people just want to be able to pick up and go.
NinthMusketeer wrote: To add to that, I think listbuilding-skill is both a valid and key part of the wargaming experience. But to to put in Sun Tzu terms, having the right balance of spearmen, crossbowmen, and cavalry doesn't mean much if your enemy is entrenched with gatling guns. This is to say that having units so much stronger than others actually takes skill away from listbuilding; just use the OP stuff or a cookie-cutter tournament list rather than weighing the odds or synergies of what you have. Don't have the right models for a tournament list? Too bad.
Precisely. Warhammer and 40k has always been about how good you are at basic 6th grade math and figuring out the 10% OP units and just using that, and the rest of the 90% of the units are pretty hosed in that environment.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I would agree with you if the GHB balance were better, but the thing is the difference between lists can mean that there isn't even a real 'game' in the first place. Losing a game with a weak list is one thing, but bringing an average list and doing little more than picking up your models as they die is quite another. And the variation in GHB cost-effectiviness means such a thing can easily happen by chance, it doesn't even need a matchup of a bad player vs a good one, just two players who have different ideas of where the competitiveness scale is.
The problem is the internet has greatly affected how list building is done. If you assume that all lists fall along a Bell Curve, a majority of them will comfortably fit towards the middle of the hump. So there should be a huge number of "average" lists with relatively few terrible or amazing lists. However, with the ability to share amazing lists on the internet, that top 10% of lists (which have a power imbalance that can win the majority of games) is now available to 100% of the players. The end result is a meta where only the top 10% of lists can play against the top 10% of lists, and the other 90% of terrible, average, and above average lists are completely overpowered by the fact that you are extremely likely to play against a top tier list against a random opponent during a random pick up game on Saturday afternoon. Of course, when it is really easy to spot overpowered units, those top 10% of lists become easy to spot.
The solution to this is to play different scenarios and use different battlefields. A unit which can ignore difficult terrain is worthless on an empty field, overpowered on a cluttered one. A slow moving defensive unit may not do much in a rush to the center mosh pit, but is invaluable at defending objectives. It also becomes much more difficult to figure out the top 10% of lists when the circumstances are individualized and unpredictable. I believe it is one of the reasons why Infinity has a decent point system. Every Infinity table is different.
Any given system where you can pick your list will have weak lists and strong lists. I play Star Wars Armada. I can take 400 points of capital ships with no upgrades and no squadron support. It's a weak list and I'm likely to lose every game I play. This doesn't mean the points system in Armada is bad or that I need to negotiate with my opponent to modify the points...
I follow you man.
it just means I made a bad list. I need to get better at the game and better at choosing my army.
That's a very narrow conclusion. At the very least you have left out the part telling how this is valid for a competitive meta, while there exists other ways to play. Scenario driven games and competitive games both require the right kind of opponents.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I would agree with you if the GHB balance were better, but the thing is the difference between lists can mean that there isn't even a real 'game' in the first place. Losing a game with a weak list is one thing, but bringing an average list and doing little more than picking up your models as they die is quite another. And the variation in GHB cost-effectiviness means such a thing can easily happen by chance, it doesn't even need a matchup of a bad player vs a good one, just two players who have different ideas of where the competitiveness scale is.
The problem is the internet has greatly affected how list building is done. If you assume that all lists fall along a Bell Curve, a majority of them will comfortably fit towards the middle of the hump. So there should be a huge number of "average" lists with relatively few terrible or amazing lists. However, with the ability to share amazing lists on the internet, that top 10% of lists (which have a power imbalance that can win the majority of games) is now available to 100% of the players. The end result is a meta where only the top 10% of lists can play against the top 10% of lists, and the other 90% of terrible, average, and above average lists are completely overpowered by the fact that you are extremely likely to play against a top tier list against a random opponent during a random pick up game on Saturday afternoon. Of course, when it is really easy to spot overpowered units, those top 10% of lists become easy to spot.
The solution to this is to play different scenarios and use different battlefields. A unit which can ignore difficult terrain is worthless on an empty field, overpowered on a cluttered one. A slow moving defensive unit may not do much in a rush to the center mosh pit, but is invaluable at defending objectives. It also becomes much more difficult to figure out the top 10% of lists when the circumstances are individualized and unpredictable. I believe it is one of the reasons why Infinity has a decent point system. Every Infinity table is different.
Scenarios help of course, but part of the solution lies in making that bell curve more narrow. If a top list is only a little bit better than an above average list, a player using the latter can still do well provided they are more skilled than the opposition. What I am complaining about is that a top list will utterly decimate even an above-average list because the bell curve is so wide. Ideally the metaphorical curve would be a negative skew where the average, above average, and top lists are all relatively close together. What we have more resembles a cow pie.
Kriswall wrote:
Warhammer has historically worked that way. Warhammer 40k currently works that way.
No. Historically, gamers have treated warhammer as a pick up game, regardless of its suitability for this. Often, because gw was 'the only game in town'. Currently, gamers still treat 40k as a pick up game, despite its obvious unsuitability for this.
There is a big difference.
Kriswall wrote:
Also, out of curiosity, how do you define gaming community? For me, it's literally a group that goes down to the shop to play random games. I might become friends with some of these people and develop a relationship OUTSIDE the context of the gaming group, but that's separate from the gaming community.
People who play wargames are the gaming community. The people at your local store are your local gaming community. They are not separate from each other. Making friends with people in your community is not a separate act from gaming with them.
Vaktathi wrote:Apparently people who don't necessarily want to play with people outside of a club or store or have everyone's personal contact information are lazy and bad gamers and deserve bad rulesets.
People who don't bother putting effort into their gsmes or their communities are lazy gamers. Especially when there are issues and they insist on doing nothing for themselves In Terms of personal responsibility and personal empowerment. You get out what you put in. No effort, no reward. No different to sports.
Vaktathi wrote:
Seriously people, not everyone has tight gaming pals for various reasons.
And therein lies so much of the problems .
Vaktathi wrote:Some people can really only ever get in a pickup game once in a blue moon,
Sounds like me. And I still got contact details or Facebook places to post. If all you get is one gsme in a blue moon(I'm assuming because of life commitments etc), then it becomes a far more valuable commodity, and surely one would put a lot of effort into something you like that you don't get to do very often.
Vaktathi wrote:some people just aren't that tight with the club people,
Therein lies the problem. This is a niche community. Small numbers on the whole. Surely it makes sense to not be strangers?
For what it's worth, You don't necessarily need to be 'tight'. You don't need to be bffs. But you need to know them. But trading details. Having some chat, and knowing likes and dislikes etc. And build up from there. Heck, go for beers after wargames. I've done this in multiple countries as a complete stranger to the local community.
Vaktathi wrote: and some people just want a quick and easy setup method to play games with whoever without spending time negotiating everything.
Which is fine. I like pick up games too. WMH is awesome. But if you be wanting a pick up gsme, then play a pick up gsme. Gw games are not those games. Wishing it were so will not change anything. Dealing with the reality on the ground is what counts.
Vaktathi wrote:That doesn't make them lazy or bad or anything else.
True. But when there are issues, when they do nothing about their issues, when they don't want to put any effort in and expect the perfect game. When they do nothing for, or to improve their community, and feel like they owe them nothing -that makes them lazy.
Vaktathi wrote:This is a past-time hobby, not a second job, not a sports team, or anything else,
So that excuses no effort? Sports teams are not past time hobbies either? And There's no social aspect to them at all? Or team/community building? Are you for real? Really, I guess all my marathons, half marathons and all those miles I've run have been me doing it wrong all this time! I should have been putting in absolutely no effort at all all this time for the hobbies I love!
Lol but no. This is a very laborious and time consuming hobby at the best of times. If you wanted a no-effort hobby, this is probably the last one on the lists, You buy models.you prep thrm. You paint them. Which can take hours in itself. You read lore. You can write lore. Games themselves take hours. It takes a long time to get things off the ground here. Everything you do requires a degree of effort.
You say it's not a second job and you are right - you are also completely missing the point. Hobbies, and past times take both times and effort in return for reward. And funnily enough, the older I get, the more I realise how sports teams and wargaming clubs operate on a lot of the same levels with w lot of the same thinking behind them. There is a lot of common ground.
All you are doing is excusing and trying to validate laziness.
Vaktathi wrote:and it's not unreasonable for them to want a quick and easy pickup style of play without having to jump through hoops with rules, make game dates, etc.
But then why aren't you playing a pick up game?
No, it's not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is how people want only this, and dismiss and refuse to try any other approaches and devalue any other approach, despite its value and worth, and despite (often) the relative ease of effort of the social shock absorber. Pick up games are fine. They can be great fun, and there is great value to them. But theirs is not the only path. Pick up gsmes all the time every where, and only pick up gsmes? Bloody hell, you'll burn out if that's all you do!
And 'games dates' -organising when to play next is an issue? Really? I'm free next Saturday. Four and a half words of effort.
Vaktathi wrote: That AoS has such a method now isn't because of bad people doing evil things to the game, it's because quite frankly most people just want to be able to pick up and go.
It's got very little to do with bad people doing bad things to the game- it's Also got to do with a lot of people never bothering opening their minds to new ways of playing. Along with a whole host of other reasons as to why aos' launch was such a bad thing, done in a really bad way.
Its not the gamers fault. If you are a company after max profits, you have to cater to what the majority of the community wants:
power gaming competitive tournament games that require little effort to set up and that cater solely to pick up gaming. Is it lazy? Maybe yeah you could call it lazy technically. Its about putting the least amount of work in to get the most gains (show up and play with no negotiations required), but regardless if we want to label it lazy it is what it is. That is our culture and you're not going to change that culture - particularly when so many other games feed it and cater to it. GW expecting to change that failed. And failed hard.
The rest, the campaigns, the narrative, etc... those are not really what the majority of people seem to want - so use your resources wisely. This argument has existed since time immemorial.
There are people that wish and want narrative and campaigning and friendlier style of gaming to be more common and accepted but thats been a frustrating uphill battle since the internet gave way to internet netlisting and tournaments were pushed into the spotlight way back in 1999 or 2000.
You can be a frostgrave, in which case you are small and even a small success is a big thing but GW is a huge public traded company trying to max stock prices.
What is the community asking for? Largely - a game that caters to powergaming, listbuilding, min/max play, competitive play, and pick up gaming.
AOS on release didn't really cater to any of that (we can nit pick over players fielding 5 nagashes and that would be min/max play but the whole point of min/max is to cleverly break a structured set up (2000 pts) with things that make your list operate at more than 2000 pts. When you have no restrictions, you are essentially not breaking anything)
NinthMusketeer wrote:Scenarios help of course, but part of the solution lies in making that bell curve more narrow. If a top list is only a little bit better than an above average list, a player using the latter can still do well provided they are more skilled than the opposition. What I am complaining about is that a top list will utterly decimate even an above-average list because the bell curve is so wide. Ideally the metaphorical curve would be a negative skew where the average, above average, and top lists are all relatively close together. What we have more resembles a cow pie.
I'm not sure that is possible unless the units themselves were very similar in power. It is impossible to design a point system that universally values every model accurately in every situation, and with gamers liking to play only one scenario over and over again, you'll end up with that one scenario having grossly undervalued units - unless you do it like Warmachine did and only have one scenario and create points based on that scenario and only that scenario.
auticus wrote:The rest, the campaigns, the narrative, etc... those are not really what the majority of people seem to want - so use your resources wisely. This argument has existed since time immemorial.
That is a self fulfilling prophecy. Some products require more money and effort for smaller profit, so they don't make it, and because they don't make it, all the gamers that did want it leave, with only the gamers that didn't want it left as your customers. Then you only have customers who don't want it. There's crossover appeal between miniatures and pen and paper RPGs, so narrative experiences are totally possible and potentially profitable, but because you have to appease the gamers that are currently your fans (the gamers that don't want it, and complain when you release a single miniature for non-competitive play), it is even more difficult to move in that direction.
Competitive players like minmaxing so much, they minmax social interactions and THAT can't be healthy for the long term. And honestly, I REALLY like the narrative approach that AoS has been taking. From day one, there's been a storyline moving forward that ties into the units released, the scenarios you can play, and the books being written. GW isn't approaching AoS a tournament game, and thank goodness.
I agree that can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but GW is in the business of maximizing profits.
If they were a smaller company then releasing supplements that hardly sold at all (historically, the campaigns, expansions, etc) wouldn't be that bad, but for a company the size of GW thats not worth it to them.
Now we have seen a giant chunk of the community flip off GW because there was no powergaming competitive play catered to them. So they brought the GHB out and you saw a giant chunk come back.
Here's the next question though... will GW continue to cater to the narrative approach when the numbers seem to favor the power gaming approach vastly more?
As a business if I was making the call solely based on the numbers I'd say no. But we will wait and see.
If they were a smaller company then releasing supplements that hardly sold at all (historically, the campaigns, expansions, etc) wouldn't be that bad, but for a company the size of GW thats not worth it to them.
Actually, speaking as a publisher, it is the other way around. A smaller company has to maximise profits on every product - a larger company has the leeway to do things 'just because'. We have done this ourselves, bringing out books (even whole lines) because we wanted to, even knowing they were unlikely to return much profit.
GW is slightly different in that it has a much wider range of shareholders, but it certainly has enough margin to experiment.
auticus wrote: Here's the next question though... will GW continue to cater to the narrative approach when the numbers seem to favor the power gaming approach vastly more?
That is indeed the Question
My advice? Email White Dwarf (team@whitedwarf.co.uk). Email the web site blog (webstoreblog@gwplc.com). Post on their Facebook pages. Let them know about the narrative games you are playing, make them aware that there is a decent horde of us out there.
This kind of approach _does_ work. After all, if they hear nothing, how will they know what kind of games we are playing?
You're right Matt my bad. What I meant more was like Joe is doing with Frostgrave... if he doesn't make a ton of money it doesn't matter. Frostgrave is a great game but is very niche and does not have many players overall because it is not a tournament powergame. It doesn't attract what is apparently the majority element. Joe is fine with that though or appears to be, because he has no stockholders to appease and appears to basically be a one man shop.
I don't know that there is a horde of us out there to be honest. I know when I hear stories about metas rejecting anything but pick up games and official points, I can only nod because my own is that way as well.
Narrative games are something you might get to do if you have a close knit group of like minded friends, but I notice even in RPGs people want to be very competitive and min/max.
I don't have an answer either though. I'm just reflecting.
What I notice more, and this goes far beyond just wargaming, society as a whole seems to want more groupthink and "conform to the herd". If one person disagrees with something, and everyone else agrees, the one who disagrees is often forced or otherwise persuaded to change viewpoints to match the others. This can be something as relevant as a narrative gamer having to forgo narrative play and min-max and netlist in order to even get a game, or go deeper to someone at a job being forced to do things in an ineffective way because everyone else does it that way, and they only see someone who is voicing dissent, not someone with equally valid ideas.
I think that specific topic can very quickly devolve into a psychological discussion, but on the wargame front I definitely see the mentality that if you don't play the way everyone else wants, you either change your viewpoint, or you don't get games. Someone who built an army that didn't rely on points but is equally or more thematic than one built with the General's Handbook can be forced to kowtow to the "points only" crowd just because they get fed up with going down to the store every week with their fluffy and thematic and interesting army, only to find that nobody wants to play them because it's not using points, as if it can't be built well simply because it wasn't built with points, even if they could look at the list and see nothing min-maxed. Several weeks of wasted time and effort with nothing to show for it will, in my experience, quickly get someone to throw up their hands in frustration and "give in", all the while having a miserable time of it because they can't play in the way they prefer simply because they have no like-minded, or even open-minded in some cases, people willing to expand their viewpoints rather than expect everyone else to conform.
That is far too often what happens. An exact quote from someone at my local GW during a casual talk of AOS: "I'd never play without points". No reasoning why, just absolute law that the game is unplayable without points, even though all it would take is a very simple discussion of what to bring and the general expectation to not be a douchebag and try to game the system. Yet it seems many players are incapable of that and are so afraid that playing without points means spamming the best units or taking all monsters or all heroes or something equally far-fetched. I find that rigidly adhering to points tends to limit the narrative aspects of the game; I fondly recall in 5th edition Fantasy when I started (the edition that had Bretonnians and Lizardmen in the box) there were a couple of scenarios that were uneven points, intended to be part of campaign games, such as Last Stand where the defender had half as many points as the attacker. People today would seemingly balk at that sort of game, because oh my god it's uneven points, how on earth can it be balanced?
Honestly I'm just amused at the people saying that others should try something the way they enjoy playing it.. While belittling and calling those who don't play it THEIR way fearful, lazy, or other such negative terms simply because they don't like playing that way.
WayneTheGame wrote: What I notice more, and this goes far beyond just wargaming, society as a whole seems to want more groupthink and "conform to the herd". If one person disagrees with something, and everyone else agrees, the one who disagrees is often forced or otherwise persuaded to change viewpoints to match the others. This can be something as relevant as a narrative gamer having to forgo narrative play and min-max and netlist in order to even get a game, or go deeper to someone at a job being forced to do things in an ineffective way because everyone else does it that way, and they only see someone who is voicing dissent, not someone with equally valid ideas.
Past couple years, using social media as a peer pressure platform to oppress dissenting ideas has become REALLY popular. Even an off color joke between friends can result in angry mobs calling for you to be fired. That attitude has always existed, but I think the ability to block and unfriend those you disagree with have lead to echo chambers so enclosed that you never have to encounter a disagreement - so when you do, it is so unfamiliar that even the idea of compromise or agreeing to disagree becomes a foreign concept.
Heck, half the reason I started playing miniature games a year ago is because video games were basically ruined by this attitude. It got old being called a pedophile because I liked Japanese games or a misogynist because I thought Duke Nukem 3D was a pretty good game. I see some of that attitude in miniatures (why the Malifaux figures gotta be so sexy? And boob armor on the Sisters of Battle? I do declare! It gives me the vapors!) but generally speaking, people are still having those discussions with both sides present and debating, rather than just expecting misogyny to be a foregone conclusion and banning everyone who disagrees. And man, I appreciate the miniature gaming community so much for that.
I think that specific topic can very quickly devolve into a psychological discussion, but on the wargame front I definitely see the mentality that if you don't play the way everyone else wants, you either change your viewpoint, or you don't get games. Someone who built an army that didn't rely on points but is equally or more thematic than one built with the General's Handbook can be forced to kowtow to the "points only" crowd just because they get fed up with going down to the store every week with their fluffy and thematic and interesting army, only to find that nobody wants to play them because it's not using points, as if it can't be built well simply because it wasn't built with points, even if they could look at the list and see nothing min-maxed. Several weeks of wasted time and effort with nothing to show for it will, in my experience, quickly get someone to throw up their hands in frustration and "give in", all the while having a miserable time of it because they can't play in the way they prefer simply because they have no like-minded, or even open-minded in some cases, people willing to expand their viewpoints rather than expect everyone else to conform.
My experience with Warmachine, a very tournament-orientated game, is that while some people are definitely in the tournament-only mindset, most people just play at that level because that is what they expect from the game. If you give them another option, a lot of times, they'll happily try it - especially if it is their second or third game of the day.
That is far too often what happens. An exact quote from someone at my local GW during a casual talk of AOS: "I'd never play without points". No reasoning why, just absolute law that the game is unplayable without points, even though all it would take is a very simple discussion of what to bring and the general expectation to not be a douchebag and try to game the system. Yet it seems many players are incapable of that and are so afraid that playing without points means spamming the best units or taking all monsters or all heroes or something equally far-fetched.
It does end up resembling a religion. There's just this faith in points which isn't maybe earned so much as freely given, and the lack of faith in every other possible way to play the game makes people shaken and uncomfortable. It's a security blanket, I guess. Something to fall back on when their opponent turns out to be a WAAC That Guy - who is the boogieman of all gamers. He may be a jerk, looking for every opportunity to exploit and demean you, but at least he is operating within the boundaries of points. At least that.
I find that rigidly adhering to points tends to limit the narrative aspects of the game; I fondly recall in 5th edition Fantasy when I started (the edition that had Bretonnians and Lizardmen in the box) there were a couple of scenarios that were uneven points, intended to be part of campaign games, such as Last Stand where the defender had half as many points as the attacker. People today would seemingly balk at that sort of game, because oh my god it's uneven points, how on earth can it be balanced?
There are several scenarios that GW has put out that have been similar in AoS, and it is kind of sad to think that points-only players will never bother to play any of those scenarios. There's so much to the game without points (not just Grombrindal) that they miss so much of what the game has to offer. Their opinions of the game is colored by their own narrow tunnel vision.
WayneTheGame wrote: What I notice more, and this goes far beyond just wargaming, society as a whole seems to want more groupthink and "conform to the herd". If one person disagrees with something, and everyone else agrees, the one who disagrees is often forced or otherwise persuaded to change viewpoints to match the others. This can be something as relevant as a narrative gamer having to forgo narrative play and min-max and netlist in order to even get a game, or go deeper to someone at a job being forced to do things in an ineffective way because everyone else does it that way, and they only see someone who is voicing dissent, not someone with equally valid ideas.
I think that specific topic can very quickly devolve into a psychological discussion, but on the wargame front I definitely see the mentality that if you don't play the way everyone else wants, you either change your viewpoint, or you don't get games. Someone who built an army that didn't rely on points but is equally or more thematic than one built with the General's Handbook can be forced to kowtow to the "points only" crowd just because they get fed up with going down to the store every week with their fluffy and thematic and interesting army, only to find that nobody wants to play them because it's not using points, as if it can't be built well simply because it wasn't built with points, even if they could look at the list and see nothing min-maxed. Several weeks of wasted time and effort with nothing to show for it will, in my experience, quickly get someone to throw up their hands in frustration and "give in", all the while having a miserable time of it because they can't play in the way they prefer simply because they have no like-minded, or even open-minded in some cases, people willing to expand their viewpoints rather than expect everyone else to conform.
That is far too often what happens. An exact quote from someone at my local GW during a casual talk of AOS: "I'd never play without points". No reasoning why, just absolute law that the game is unplayable without points, even though all it would take is a very simple discussion of what to bring and the general expectation to not be a douchebag and try to game the system. Yet it seems many players are incapable of that and are so afraid that playing without points means spamming the best units or taking all monsters or all heroes or something equally far-fetched. I find that rigidly adhering to points tends to limit the narrative aspects of the game; I fondly recall in 5th edition Fantasy when I started (the edition that had Bretonnians and Lizardmen in the box) there were a couple of scenarios that were uneven points, intended to be part of campaign games, such as Last Stand where the defender had half as many points as the attacker. People today would seemingly balk at that sort of game, because oh my god it's uneven points, how on earth can it be balanced?
I feel like you maybe don't understand the competitive mindset. If I'm playing a competitive game with list building elements, I'm going to try to make the best list I can within the confines of the system. It's really hard to scale that back.
Age of Sigmar with points allows me to make the best list I possibly can within the confines of the Matched Play rules. As a disclaimer, I don't net list. I build a list, play some games and then improve/tweak it over time. My current list is Skaven Clans Pestilens. It's been through several iterations as I learn more about the army, how it plays and tailor it to my play style. I can reasonably expect to be able to play this same list over and over as I improve it, always striving to become better at the game.
Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
Narrative play can be very fun as a one off game here and there, but it completely destroys any enjoyment I derive from perfecting (in my mind) a specific army/list over time.
Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
Narrative play can be very fun as a one off game here and there, but it completely destroys any enjoyment I derive from perfecting (in my mind) a specific army/list over time.
What you have just described there is not narrative gaming
Kriswall wrote: Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
While I agree with this sentiment, the GHB hasn't eliminated that problem. If I show up with a competitive list and my opponent shows up with a merely average one, I need to scale things back on the fly. If I show up with an average list and my opponent brings an above-average list I need to swap in some more powerful options or be crushed. Going back to your example, we have the added problem that someone could put down a list that Clan Pestilens simply can't deal with, even if you had all the pestilens models in the world to choose from. Now the GHB is certainly a vast improvement over nothing, but its only reduced the problem rather than truly addressing it.
Which is fine, until communities treat things like the problem isn't there anymore.
Kriswall wrote: Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
While I agree with this sentiment, the GHB hasn't eliminated that problem. If I show up with a competitive list and my opponent shows up with a merely average one, I need to scale things back on the fly. If I show up with an average list and my opponent brings an above-average list I need to swap in some more powerful options or be crushed. Going back to your example, we have the added problem that someone could put down a list that Clan Pestilens simply can't deal with, even if you had all the pestilens models in the world to choose from. Now the GHB is certainly a vast improvement over nothing, but its only reduced the problem rather than truly addressing it.
Which is fine, until communities treat things like the problem isn't there anymore.
What, in your opinion, would a 1000 GHB point list look like that Clans Pestilens can't deal with? I'm just curious. It's easy to make statements like that, but I've yet to see a truly one sided battle using the GHB. I just want to make sure you're being serious and not hyperbolic. Keep in mind that if I find the GHB too limiting, I can just add in models from any of the Chaos factions. The GHB may have a kajillion sub-factions, but there are really only four armies... Chaos, Death, Destruction and Order.
Age of Sigmar WITHOUT points makes this process ridiculously difficult. I can't really build a list and improve/tweak it over time because there is no standard army size. If I have 1000 GHB points worth of models and my opponent shows up with more for an Open Play game, I'm going to have to add units on the fly. If he shows up with less, I have to intentionally hamstring my army by removing units that break synergies I've spent time learning to use. Every game feels like a random negotiation and any sense of continuity for my army evaporates.
Narrative play can be very fun as a one off game here and there, but it completely destroys any enjoyment I derive from perfecting (in my mind) a specific army/list over time.
What you have just described there is not narrative gaming
Define narrative gaming. Are you using talking about the GHB's Narrative Play option? I'm not. Narrative gaming doesn't require an ongoing campaign. It can be a single mission.
I'm talking about story based missions where the mission drives army selection and not some inherent balancing mechanism. Narrative gaming exists in lots of competitive, points based games. Most large Star Wars X-Wing expansions have included missions that purposefully unbalance the armies for the purpose of the mission narrative. Those can be fun as one offs, but rarely see play as the mission is usually frustrating for the disadvantaged side. For a lot of people, a narrative game can be a nice and fun diversion, but isn't how they want to game regularly. I imagine that's why Matched Play was released. GW had to have recognized that they simply missed the target with that large segment that wants mechanic based balance.
Narrative gaming doesn't always have to be imbalanced.
I treat narrative gaming as how forces would be composed of in the story, where the bulk of the force comes from their battleline and not be min/maxed.
auticus wrote: Narrative gaming doesn't always have to be imbalanced.
I treat narrative gaming as how forces would be composed of in the story, where the bulk of the force comes from their battleline and not be min/maxed.
So your take on narrative gaming doesn't allow for an elite force of the General's best units making a strike directly against the enemy's leadership? Because that also sounds narrative to me and contradicts your theory.
But certainly most battles weren't about special elite armies fighting every battle either. I'm open to some games being about elite forces, but every game being elite forces burns me out.
But certainly most battles weren't about special elite armies fighting every battle either. I'm open to some games being about elite forces, but every game being elite forces burns me out.
To each his own. That's why I like points based play. I can build an infantry heavy army and be fine against an elite heavy army. I played in a 1000 GHB points tournament last weekend and played as Clans Pestilens with my army containing LOTS of Plague Monks... very infantry heavy. I went up against both infantry heavy and elite heavy armies. All of the games felt balanced and two of the three came down to a single roll of the dice. Two were won based on objectives and the last went too long (Nurgle v Nurgle makes for a long game) and was won based on kill ratio... we each had one unit remaining, but his was worth a little more than mine. If we'd had another turn, I'd probably have won by tabling him.
One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
This was an early problem I had with the Relentless Assault battleplan in the Khorne Bloodbound battletome when it came out. How do you balance the forces in this scenario? Even the guy running the FLGS, who's a very, very big fan of AoS, agreed it was a perplexing omission to not include even a basic suggestion of how big the attacking force should be compared to the defender.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
Yes, but you don't need specific points for that either. You can easily use other measures and rely on the fact that you don't assume your opponent is a WAACTFG who will abuse loose guidelines. I mean, look at the battle report in the latest White Dwarf. They agreed on about 4-5 heroes and about 10 units each as a guideline; something like that I feel could work just as well as "points" without being unnecessarily restrictive, so long as both players aren't trying to game the system by saying oh 10 units, I'll take 10 cannons and 3 Nagash and 2 Archaeon, gg get rekt.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
Yes, but you don't need specific points for that either. You can easily use other measures and rely on the fact that you don't assume your opponent is a WAACTFG who will abuse loose guidelines. I mean, look at the battle report in the latest White Dwarf. They agreed on about 4-5 heroes and about 10 units each as a guideline; something like that I feel could work just as well as "points" without being unnecessarily restrictive, so long as both players aren't trying to game the system by saying oh 10 units, I'll take 10 cannons and 3 Nagash and 2 Archaeon, gg get rekt.
See... that's the thing. When you're relying on a local gaming store to provide the majority of your opponents, you CAN'T assume your opponent won't be a 'TFG' who looks to abuse loose guidelines. Speaking as a former store manager who managed a community of roughly 200 Fantasy and 40k players, you're really better off being as specific as possible. As an event planner, it's much better to assume you WILL have at least one 'TFG' and plan the event such that he can participate but not ruin everyone's fun.
In regards to a list Pestilens can't deal with, off the top of my head I could throw down two Mournguls, with 10x2 zombies and a cairn Wraith to meet minimum requirements. Make one of the Mournguls that general with red fury.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: One thing to consider with points and Narrative play, is that points allow you to write out a campaign without worrying what both players have in their collections. Instead, it allows you to write the scenarios with a view of "Forces should be this big" before running the campaignscenarios past your group.
Yes, but you don't need specific points for that either. You can easily use other measures and rely on the fact that you don't assume your opponent is a WAACTFG who will abuse loose guidelines. I mean, look at the battle report in the latest White Dwarf. They agreed on about 4-5 heroes and about 10 units each as a guideline; something like that I feel could work just as well as "points" without being unnecessarily restrictive, so long as both players aren't trying to game the system by saying oh 10 units, I'll take 10 cannons and 3 Nagash and 2 Archaeon, gg get rekt.
See... that's the thing. When you're relying on a local gaming store to provide the majority of your opponents, you CAN'T assume your opponent won't be a 'TFG' who looks to abuse loose guidelines. Speaking as a former store manager who managed a community of roughly 200 Fantasy and 40k players, you're really better off being as specific as possible. As an event planner, it's much better to assume you WILL have at least one 'TFG' and plan the event such that he can participate but not ruin everyone's fun.
I can totally understand this. What I don't understand is the reluctance to ASK before setting up a game. Is it really that hard to say something like "Let's each take like 3-4 heroes and 5 units, within reason" and from there go to "Well, can I field an extra unit because my army concept has X, but I'll take one less hero instead" and basically make the TFGs adapt? The issue seems to be wanting to adapt around the WAAC/TFG players instead of making them evolve or not get games to make a better atmosphere; seems like the opposite of what should happen. If people were not using points, then wouldn't you eventually know that, for example, Bob plays to crush other people's armies and as a result Bob won't get games until he stops being a WAACTFG? It's almost like everyone avoiding the bully and thereby letting him keep bullying them instead of standing up and making the bully change or be ostracized.
That's what I don't get. It seems that people are unwilling to talk why, because they aren't sure if their opponent is a TFG? If he is, then basically end the game as soon as he shows his true colors (or refuse to play him if he shows up with some bollocks list) and then tell the rest of the community about it. This is where the notion of a gaming community, as opposed to random people who go to a game store once a week or whatever hoping for a game, comes into play. You quickly find that the community will use what is essentially reverse peer pressure to push for enjoyable games, so the TFGs either comply (since they are usually the ones that risk ruining it for others) or won't be able to get games.
NinthMusketeer wrote: In regards to a list Pestilens can't deal with, off the top of my head I could throw down two Mournguls, with 10x2 zombies and a cairn Wraith to meet minimum requirements. Make one of the Mournguls that general with red fury.
They seriously do need to make the next edition heroes only for general.
It starts to become a lot of extra effort. I can see two sides here, one is that "I already bought, assembled, and (possibly) painted my miniatures then made a list, I really don't want to add anything else to that effort" while the other is "I already bought, assembled, and painted my miniatures, so a pre-game negotiation isn't much extra". I don't think either side is right or wrong, its just different for different people. I also don't think that having a game with reasonable enough balance to have pick-up-games without prior discussion is an unreasonable expectation either. Life is already tiring enough for some people and not wanting to go through chore activities to enjoy a hobby doesn't make such people lazy. Maybe it isn't a chore for you, or maybe it just doesn't seem like a lot of effort, but understand that for some people it is and their viewpoint is as valid as yours.
[edit] Just to note, this isn't directed at anyone in particular.
For those not happy with their current player base or even wanting to try out some new scenarios or ideas I recommend TGA (tga.community) for player finding and all sorts of AoS inspiration and tools.
It may not help, but what the hell, worth a few minutes of your time.
Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game, and having a game that functions well in competitive/pickup gaming doesn't in any way prevent you from having great narrative games. GW didn't help the casual/narrative players by removing point costs, they published garbage because they're lazy and incompetent and only made a token attempt to fix their mistake when they were confronted with a choice between fixing it and watching one of their two remaining product lines die. The only people who benefit from an absence of a balanced points-based system are the "casual at all costs" crowd who have an emotional problem with the idea of anything resembling a competitive game and embrace the absence of point costs as a symbol of how "casual" the game is.
Peregrine wrote: Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game, and having a game that functions well in competitive/pickup gaming doesn't in any way prevent you from having great narrative games. GW didn't help the casual/narrative players by removing point costs, they published garbage because they're lazy and incompetent and only made a token attempt to fix their mistake when they were confronted with a choice between fixing it and watching one of their two remaining product lines die. The only people who benefit from an absence of a balanced points-based system are the "casual at all costs" crowd who have an emotional problem with the idea of anything resembling a competitive game and embrace the absence of point costs as a symbol of how "casual" the game is.
I kind of assume it's the "Beer & Pretzels" argument, which I've always interpreted as wanting a tabletop wargame that can be played while completely plastered. The more well written/complex the rules are, the harder it is to do that, supposedly.
Mangod wrote: I kind of assume it's the "Beer & Pretzels" argument, which I've always interpreted as wanting a tabletop wargame that can be played while completely plastered. The more well written/complex the rules are, the harder it is to do that, supposedly.
But a point system doesn't add any real complexity, especially since you do all of the work of adding up points before the game begins. And honestly, if you're so drunk that you can't even comprehend the rules why are you playing a game in the first place?
Peregrine wrote: Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game, and having a game that functions well in competitive/pickup gaming doesn't in any way prevent you from having great narrative games. GW didn't help the casual/narrative players by removing point costs, they published garbage because they're lazy and incompetent and only made a token attempt to fix their mistake when they were confronted with a choice between fixing it and watching one of their two remaining product lines die. The only people who benefit from an absence of a balanced points-based system are the "casual at all costs" crowd who have an emotional problem with the idea of anything resembling a competitive game and embrace the absence of point costs as a symbol of how "casual" the game is.
I kind of assume it's the "Beer & Pretzels" argument, which I've always interpreted as wanting a tabletop wargame that can be played while completely plastered. The more well written/complex the rules are, the harder it is to do that, supposedly.
But games like x-wing prove you can have a simple game with depth and good balance.
Complex doesn't always mean well written and with GW it's usually a vague mess that's complex.
Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game,
Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.
Why do people keep acting like balanced point costs and casual/narrative play are contradictory ideas? The same balance and point systems that make a good competitive game also help make a good casual/narrative game,
Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.
How many of those games have an inbuilt balancing mechanic?
puree wrote: Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.
Because if you don't have points the only limit on how powerful your army can be is how many models you're willing to buy. One player can bring a "normal" army while the other can literally fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game. And because it is a competitive game anyone with the ability to buy that many models is going to do it every time and win effortlessly. There are only two ways of avoiding this problem:
1) Have a system that is functionally equivalent to points but uses a different word. For example, allow each player to bring 10 units and make each unit equal in power. Even though you don't see a printed point cost on each unit that example is just a point system where each unit costs 1 point. There's nothing wrong with this, but you shouldn't pretend that it is anything other than a point system.
or
2) Severely limit the available options for each player. For example, a historical game might have fixed army lists for each side in a real battle with few, if any, options for customizing those forces. It is possible to balance a competitive game like this, but it directly contradicts the "build your own army" idea that WHFB/AoS are aiming for.
And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment. AoS can only be played without points if both players work together to create a fair match, in a competitive game where both players are trying to win the only "strategy" is deciding how much money you're willing to spend on winning.
auticus wrote: Narrative gaming doesn't always have to be imbalanced.
I treat narrative gaming as how forces would be composed of in the story, where the bulk of the force comes from their battleline and not be min/maxed.
So your take on narrative gaming doesn't allow for an elite force of the General's best units making a strike directly against the enemy's leadership? Because that also sounds narrative to me and contradicts your theory.
No reason such scenario cannot be one where both sides have ~50% chance of winning player skill being equal. So no doesn't have to be imbalanced. It can be but doesn't have to.
And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.
Bollocks. 100% disputable.
Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.
puree wrote: Why do people keep acting like lack of points and competitive play are contradictory ideas? There are wargames games I play that are also played competitively and don't have points.
Because if you don't have points the only limit on how powerful your army can be is how many models you're willing to buy. One player can bring a "normal" army while the other can literally fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game. And because it is a competitive game anyone with the ability to buy that many models is going to do it every time and win effortlessly. There are only two ways of avoiding this problem:
1) Have a system that is functionally equivalent to points but uses a different word. For example, allow each player to bring 10 units and make each unit equal in power. Even though you don't see a printed point cost on each unit that example is just a point system where each unit costs 1 point. There's nothing wrong with this, but you shouldn't pretend that it is anything other than a point system.
or
2) Severely limit the available options for each player. For example, a historical game might have fixed army lists for each side in a real battle with few, if any, options for customizing those forces. It is possible to balance a competitive game like this, but it directly contradicts the "build your own army" idea that WHFB/AoS are aiming for.
And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment. AoS can only be played without points if both players work together to create a fair match, in a competitive game where both players are trying to win the only "strategy" is deciding how much money you're willing to spend on winning.
Why? Why is it only two extremes? Why can't those two people TALK about what a good sized army would be for the game, so you don't have one person bringing a "normal army" and one person who wants to "fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game"? This is what I do not understand about your (and others) viewpoint, it's always "Well without points nothing stops you from just taking the best units!". But in a game without points, why would you? Just because you can? Your argument seems to be that people will be tools if nothing stops them from doing so, e.g. without points there's nothing to stop someone from only taking the best units in the game, and taking dozens of them, so people will do that simply because they can.
The entire idea here is that a game doesn't need points to balance it because the players should be doing that themselves. There should never be a time when some douchebag decided to " fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game" because they would have already discussed with their opponent the relative size of the game they want, and if they continue to do that then they should not be able to get any games because nobody wants to play them. A game without points needs to have its playerbase police themselves, it's not pure anarchy like you seem to think.
And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.
Bollocks. 100% disputable.
Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.
He didn't say "wargames" can't be played in a competitive environment. He said AoS without points can't be played in a competitive environment. You brought a Stormcast Eternals army? Awesome. I'm filling my deployment zone with Nagash models. Each time you kill one, I'll summon skellingtons to fill in the gaps. Sure my army costs thousands of dollars, but the point is to win (competitive environment), right? Pay to win at its worst.
Most points-less games have some sort of other game mechanic to prevent this sort of thing. Age of Sigmar doesn't. It's a competitive game (by definition... it's a competition where one player wins and one loses) that requires neither player be particularly competitive if you want a fair fight.
And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.
Bollocks. 100% disputable.
Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.
But that's not what I said is indisputable. Wargames in general might be able to be played competitively without points (I dispute this claim, however) but AoS can not.
And of course, regardless of any general debate on point systems in wargaming, the indisputable fact is that AoS without points is not a game that can be played in anything resembling a competitive environment.
Bollocks. 100% disputable.
Wargames can and are played competitively without points, that you may not want to go down other routes does not mean it can't be done.
He didn't say "wargames" can't be played in a competitive environment. He said AoS without points can't be played in a competitive environment. You brought a Stormcast Eternals army? Awesome. I'm filling my deployment zone with Nagash models. Each time you kill one, I'll summon skellingtons to fill in the gaps. Sure my army costs thousands of dollars, but the point is to win (competitive environment), right? Pay to win at its worst.
Most points-less games have some sort of other game mechanic to prevent this sort of thing. Age of Sigmar doesn't. It's a competitive game (by definition... it's a competition where one player wins and one loses) that requires neither player be particularly competitive if you want a fair fight.
First, I agree with most of what you've said in this thread.
Points are a way to help guarantee commercial success of a game and to maximize convenience of pick-up games.
I prefer AoS original but I also know that without points the game has no chance of being continued.
Even some of the most adamant 'they blew up the Old World!' rage-quitters came back.
Points, you say? Well, maybe GW moving the story along wasn't SO bad. Guess I could give it a try.
The fluff was used as a reason to quit for many when really it was because people couldn't make 'efficient' lists.
The way you balance your example is very simple but many, if not most, players won't even consider it.
That way is to play two games (reset and swap sides) for every match OR roll off to see which army you get to play.
Maybe that netlist o' doom or 100 Nagashes isn't such a hot idea when there's a solid chance that it'll be standing opposite side of the table.
Objections usually are about not wanting somebody else to touch my models but, I think, it also largely comes down to people not wanting to taste their own medicine.
WayneTheGame wrote: Why? Why is it only two extremes? Why can't those two people TALK about what a good sized army would be for the game, so you don't have one person bringing a "normal army" and one person who wants to "fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game"? This is what I do not understand about your (and others) viewpoint, it's always "Well without points nothing stops you from just taking the best units!". But in a game without points, why would you? Just because you can? Your argument seems to be that people will be tools if nothing stops them from doing so, e.g. without points there's nothing to stop someone from only taking the best units in the game, and taking dozens of them, so people will do that simply because they can.
That's what "competitive" means: you play to win. If you can gain an advantage by bringing a stronger list you bring the stronger list and win more games. The only reason to ever hold back in a competitive no-points AoS game is because you realize that "competitive no-points AoS" is a joke and it isn't worth spending thousands of dollars on the models required to win. But you still bring every model you own as long as it can fit in your deployment zone.
The entire idea here is that a game doesn't need points to balance it because the players should be doing that themselves. There should never be a time when some douchebag decided to " fill every square inch of their deployment zone with the most powerful models in the game" because they would have already discussed with their opponent the relative size of the game they want, and if they continue to do that then they should not be able to get any games because nobody wants to play them. A game without points needs to have its playerbase police themselves, it's not pure anarchy like you seem to think.
A game that requires this is garbage, made by incompetent designers who should be embarrassed about how lazy they are. The fact that the community can attempt to salvage a terrible game by imposing their own unwritten rules about "how the game is meant to be played" and shun anyone who doesn't comply with them does not excuse making such a bad game in the first place. Nothing is gained by removing balance to the point that this kind of social pressure is necessary. It doesn't help casual/narrative players have a better game, it just makes the game worst for everyone, casual and narrative players included.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
privateer4hire wrote: Objections usually are about not wanting somebody else to touch my models but, I think, it also largely comes down to people not wanting to taste their own medicine.
No, it comes down to not wanting someone else to touch my models, period. Even if your list is better than mine, I don't care. You can look at my models, but you can't touch them. I spent way too much time and money on them to have "I get to use your army" be a condition of having a game.
And let's also be realistic about what having to play the swap game means: taking twice as long to play a game. GW miniatures games are already the kind of all-day thing where you commit several hours to playing a single game. If you're playing on a weekday after work you're only going to have time to play a single game. And you think it's a good idea to double that?
Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAACTFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.
I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here
Sqorgar wrote: Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAACTFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.
I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here
One side expects people to spend half an hour planning out their game, the other recognizes that nerds are not noted for their social skills, and wants something to balance that.
Then there is Peregrine. Peregrine is a glass-half-empty kinda guy.
auticus wrote: Cooperative games are about having a fun non-blowout type game between two people.
Which is much easier when you have the kind of balanced points-based system that makes competitive games possible. If you have a balanced game you can just say "let's play X points', put X points of fluff-appropriate models on the table, and have a fun game. With no-points AoS you have to spend more time negotiating what should be included than actually playing the game.
Sqorgar wrote: Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAACTFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.
I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here
Being a selfish jerk is an evolutionary trait we didn't survive as a species by being altruistic, given that knowledge it's pure stupidity if I just trust someone I've never met before to just do the right thing.
That's why you trust rules over some made up social contract people hope everyone upholds.
Sqorgar wrote: Seems like the two sides here are "don't be a dick" and "you can't stop people from being dicks". One side sees cooperation as not only possible, but also enjoyable. The other side expects no cooperation - heck, they expect every opponent to be a WAACTFG in every game - and want rules that don't depend on being cooperating with the uncooperative.
I have to say - I spent about a decade of my life with social anxiety so bad I could barely leave the house by myself, and I think I'm still more social and have greater faith in the kindness of other players than half the people here
The problem is that you can have a group of 10 gamers where 9 are friendly "don't be a dick" people and the last is a dick. The dick gamer will inevitably ruin the experience for the others. As a community manager (I used to run a game store with about 200 regulars), you have two options. The first is to focus on games where casual gamers and competitive gamers can play together, i.e. games with decent built-in balancing mechanisms. The second is to embrace being a casual community and literally tell the competitive players that they aren't welcome to participate. I've seen both options taken by different stores. I always went with the first option. In essence, as a community manager, you hope that everyone is from the first category, but you plan for some to be from the second. Doing otherwise undermines the future viability of the community as players will see the "Competitive Players Need Not Apply" sign and move on to another, more welcoming group.
I also feel like you're making a mistake and conflating "social" and "having greater faith in the kindness of other players" with being a casual gamer. My gaming community is incredibly social and incredibly kind. When it comes to playing an actual game, we tend to be competitive. It's possible to be the nicest guy in the world and still want to win by bringing your A game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
privateer4hire wrote: The way you balance your example is very simple but many, if not most, players won't even consider it.
That way is to play two games (reset and swap sides) for every match OR roll off to see which army you get to play.
Maybe that netlist o' doom or 100 Nagashes isn't such a hot idea when there's a solid chance that it'll be standing opposite side of the table.
Objections usually are about not wanting somebody else to touch my models but, I think, it also largely comes down to people not wanting to taste their own medicine.
There is ZERO chance that I'm letting you handle the models that I've spent hundreds of hours lovingly assembling and painting. Also, if I wanted to play YOUR army, I wouldn't have planned out, purchased, assembled and painted mine.
auticus wrote:Competitive games are all about doing whatever you can so long as its legal to win.
Isn't that the definition of WAACTFG? Are you suggesting that all competitive players are WAACTFGs?
Kriswall wrote:I also feel like you're making a mistake and conflating "social" and "having greater faith in the kindness of other players" with being a casual gamer. My gaming community is incredibly social and incredibly kind. When it comes to playing an actual game, we tend to be competitive. It's possible to be the nicest guy in the world and still want to win by bringing your A game.
Your entire argument in this thread was that you couldn't play without points because the guys you play with won't do it. Doesn't seem like a particularly kind person to only care about what he wants without the option for compromise. But I guess we'll never know, because you've indicated that you won't ask them - which leads me to believe that you are using them as a scapegoat for your own inability to compromise on the points issue.
There is ZERO chance that I'm letting you handle the models that I've spent hundreds of hours lovingly assembling and painting. Also, if I wanted to play YOUR army, I wouldn't have planned out, purchased, assembled and painted mine.
That is but one option. What it essentially does is take something which is imbalanced and makes balanced by making players play both side, making them design their army such that it can be both victorious and be defeated. So it works to create balance without points. However, it is completely understandable if you don't want ButterFingers McPizzaGrease to handle your models. Of course, you could just backseat general, where you tell your opponent how to move their models.
There are other options. For instance, you could bring three lists and your opponent picks which one you play (and you pick his). You could force a list to retire if it ever wins three games in a row, or after one game if it lost zero units. You could play more than one type of scenario with a single list, forcing you to be more general purpose rather than focusing on steamrolling your opponent through superior firepower. You could do an escalation league where losers get to add more models to his list than the winner does. You can give handicaps in the form of tokens that allow weaker lists to reroll dice rolls. Rather than counting wins and loses, you can measure the difference in victory (lost 30 wounds versus lost 20 wounds, so a 10 wound difference), and even knowing you are going against a superior army, you can still aim for bettering your golf score. Or if the difference is over a certain threshold, the winner of the game will have a certain percentage of lost models remain dead for the following game. Maybe there is a neutral mercenary unit that joins the loser's team for the next game. And so on.
Essentially, it means a little bit of bookkeeping, where you keep track of games over a long period of time, and if any list is too strong, it gets dialed back a bit for future games (or the weaker lists get buffed up). If every game is a single serving friend that you will never play again, obviously this approach won't work, and it does mean that you might get steamrolled for a few games before you can find a new, happy equilibrium. But if you have a fairly regular group, imbalances can be corrected or corrected for without the need for points.
auticus wrote:Competitive games are all about doing whatever you can so long as its legal to win.
Isn't that the definition of WAACTFG? Are you suggesting that all competitive players are WAACTFGs?
Kriswall wrote:I also feel like you're making a mistake and conflating "social" and "having greater faith in the kindness of other players" with being a casual gamer. My gaming community is incredibly social and incredibly kind. When it comes to playing an actual game, we tend to be competitive. It's possible to be the nicest guy in the world and still want to win by bringing your A game.
Your entire argument in this thread was that you couldn't play without points because the guys you play with won't do it. Doesn't seem like a particularly kind person to only care about what he wants without the option for compromise. But I guess we'll never know, because you've indicated that you won't ask them - which leads me to believe that you are using them as a scapegoat for your own inability to compromise on the points issue.
There is ZERO chance that I'm letting you handle the models that I've spent hundreds of hours lovingly assembling and painting. Also, if I wanted to play YOUR army, I wouldn't have planned out, purchased, assembled and painted mine.
That is but one option. What it essentially does is take something which is imbalanced and makes balanced by making players play both side, making them design their army such that it can be both victorious and be defeated. So it works to create balance without points. However, it is completely understandable if you don't want ButterFingers McPizzaGrease to handle your models. Of course, you could just backseat general, where you tell your opponent how to move their models.
There are other options. For instance, you could bring three lists and your opponent picks which one you play (and you pick his). You could force a list to retire if it ever wins three games in a row, or after one game if it lost zero units. You could play more than one type of scenario with a single list, forcing you to be more general purpose rather than focusing on steamrolling your opponent through superior firepower. You could do an escalation league where losers get to add more models to his list than the winner does. You can give handicaps in the form of tokens that allow weaker lists to reroll dice rolls. Rather than counting wins and loses, you can measure the difference in victory (lost 30 wounds versus lost 20 wounds, so a 10 wound difference), and even knowing you are going against a superior army, you can still aim for bettering your golf score. Or if the difference is over a certain threshold, the winner of the game will have a certain percentage of lost models remain dead for the following game. Maybe there is a neutral mercenary unit that joins the loser's team for the next game. And so on.
Essentially, it means a little bit of bookkeeping, where you keep track of games over a long period of time, and if any list is too strong, it gets dialed back a bit for future games (or the weaker lists get buffed up). If every game is a single serving friend that you will never play again, obviously this approach won't work, and it does mean that you might get steamrolled for a few games before you can find a new, happy equilibrium. But if you have a fairly regular group, imbalances can be corrected or corrected for without the need for points.
Single serving friend. Clever. How's that working out for you? Being clever?
I have asked for non points play, the community tried it and decided it wasn't long term viable. As a whole, we're only willing to sink so much effort into a game that doesn't have staying power and can't translate well to organized, competitive events. It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation.
As to your other point, I have absolutely zero interest in "dialing it back a bit". Let's say I do. I bring my B game instead of my A game and I lose. Did I lose because I purposefully hamstrung myself or did I lose because my opponent is a better player? We'll never know. This isn't what I want from a game. I'm not OK with doing things by half measures. I'm fine with losing if I tried my hardest. I'm not fine with losing if I didn't. I'm also not fine with winning if I know my opponent was "throwing" the game by purposefully handicapping himself. Win or lose, I'm having fun when we're both trying our hardest. The only time I'll intentionally handicap myself is when playing a new player or teaching someone a game. In those cases, they objective isn't to win, but to teach or build community.
No the key difference between competitive players and WAACTFG is that competitive players will do whatever they can WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE RULES and not feel bad about it.
WAAC players will do that and will also cheat if they can get away with it.
The problem is many people treat competitive players as WAAC players unfairly.
I used to be a pretty serious competitive tournament player for a very long time. I don't cheat but I would definitely max out my list and exploit bad rules because they were still the rules, and I did that because everyone else around me was also doing that and we were using warhammer as a test of skill. To play the game as a test of skill you need to not be handicapping yourself.
The problem with warhammer as a test of skill is that they have always for decades had things that were just OP and that is what you would take as much of. You lose the rest of the world and the game, which is what pulled me out of being a competitive gamer when we had a campaign group and I saw a whole other side to the game.
I know that back then I would never play anyone that would not bring a tournament power list because I would just destroy them and that was no fun for either of us. Again - I find the two playing styles mutually exclusive. I dont think you can ever have a competitive tournament powergamer ever have a fun time with a guy that doesn't want to power game and wants to field instead whats cool or interesting to the story and vice versa. In terms of community, the community leaders will always push their preferred playstyle into the community and that will usually be the default.
Those conflicting philosophies lead to being rubbed the wrong way and arguments. We see them on forums and social media pretty regularly and have since the internet crawled from AOL dial up.
Sqorgar wrote: For instance, you could bring three lists and your opponent picks which one you play (and you pick his).
So, either people bring three copies of the same list with tiny differences or you require people to spend three times as much money buying lists with no overlap. Remember how "pay to win" is the thing we're trying to avoid?
You could force a list to retire if it ever wins three games in a row, or after one game if it lost zero units.
IOW: "you know what the best solution to the 'pay to win' problem is? Make people buy whole new armies every few games!"
You could play more than one type of scenario with a single list, forcing you to be more general purpose rather than focusing on steamrolling your opponent through superior firepower.
The problem is that superior firepower on the scale of "I have 100 times your point value" usually wins games no matter what the objective is. The only way around it is to come up with ridiculous objectives like "lose more than one unit per turn" that have nothing to do with normal strategies for winning miniatures games and aren't fun for either player.
You can give handicaps in the form of tokens that allow weaker lists to reroll dice rolls.
But how do you know which list is weaker without a point system? I think that clearly my army with my entire deployment zone filled with the most powerful hero model in the game is a weak list and I should get lots of re-rolls.
Rather than counting wins and loses, you can measure the difference in victory (lost 30 wounds versus lost 20 wounds, so a 10 wound difference), and even knowing you are going against a superior army, you can still aim for bettering your golf score.
Again, superior firepower tends to result in superior wound counts. If you're outnumbered 10:1 you're going to lose more wounds than your opponent, and you're reduced to the "I did a little more damage than last game before I was wiped off the table on turn 2" consolation prize. And this also does bad things when horde armies are involved. If my "wounds" are a horde of expendable meatshield models and your "wounds" are powerful elite models I'm going to lose more wounds every game no matter what happens. And that means I'm going to lose every game I play just because I like a horde army.
Or if the difference is over a certain threshold, the winner of the game will have a certain percentage of lost models remain dead for the following game.
IOW, more "pay to win" rules where someone with enough money to replace the dead models can just throw in their reserves.
Maybe there is a neutral mercenary unit that joins the loser's team for the next game.
Remember how there are no point limits? If you have the models to bring that mercenary unit why aren't you including it in your list from the beginning? You'd have to have some third player provide extra models, and then you run straight into the "you're not touching my models" problem as well as making it impossible to play a game without that third person being present.
auticus wrote:I used to be a pretty serious competitive tournament player for a very long time. I don't cheat but I would definitely max out my list and exploit bad rules because they were still the rules, and I did that because everyone else around me was also doing that and we were using warhammer as a test of skill. To play the game as a test of skill you need to not be handicapping yourself.
There's your problem. You think Warhammer is a test of skill. I'm reading the 40k rulebook now, and one of the first things it does is tell you to forge a narrative. And situations where the rules are unclear? You just roll dice and the winner gets to decide. On page 14, under "The Spirit of the Game", it says 'Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey... Your responsibility isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game... it is in this spirit that the rules have been written." Why would you seek to be competitive about something that absolutely designed to be cooperative?
Again - I find the two playing styles mutually exclusive. I dont think you can ever have a competitive tournament powergamer ever have a fun time with a guy that doesn't want to power game and wants to field instead whats cool or interesting to the story and vice versa.
Obviously, there is no compromise to found here. But since 40k and AoS are not designed for power gamers - they are obviously designed around cooperative fun - are you suggesting that the power gamers should just leave and go play another game more in tune with their uncompromising sensibilities?
Peregrine wrote:So, either people bring three copies of the same list with tiny differences or you require people to spend three times as much money buying lists with no overlap. Remember how "pay to win" is the thing we're trying to avoid?
Well, you could play smaller games, such that a single 2000 pt army could make up multiple 1000 pt variations. At least until your collection grows large enough, like the thousands of models everybody else on Dakka seems to own.
IOW: "you know what the best solution to the 'pay to win' problem is? Make people buy whole new armies every few games!"
Yes. I am absolutely advocating that players replace their entire army every few games. The whole thing. No reusing units, proxying, or simply dropping a few models. Replace the whole damn army.
The problem is that superior firepower on the scale of "I have 100 times your point value" usually wins games no matter what the objective is. The only way around it is to come up with ridiculous objectives like "lose more than one unit per turn" that have nothing to do with normal strategies for winning miniatures games and aren't fun for either player.
I think that if your opponent puts down 100x more powerful models than you do, you'd ask him to maybe choose a smaller subset of that for this particular game. Maybe point out that in a game where you are playing the Ewoks, bringing out the Death Star won't result in a particularly enjoyable battle for either side.
But how do you know which list is weaker without a point system?
Man, you're right. There's absolutely no way to judge the relative power of two different lists without points.
I'm... I'm running out of sarcasm. Are you happy? Your comments are so unworthy of actual discussion that I've run through my available supply of sarcasm. I'm just going to have to wait and reply to the rest of your inane protests once I've gone to the sarcasm store and picked up some more. I'd go in the morning, but I'm too busy replacing my entire army because I'm just too darn awesome at being competitive.
TheCustomLime wrote:You know, casual players can be TFGs too and casual at all costs is a thing.
Sqorgar wrote: But since 40k and AoS are not designed for power gamers - they are obviously designed around cooperative fun
They are not. GW's statements about "forge the narrative" are nothing more than excuses for incompetence. The things that make 40k and AoS bad for competitive play also make them bad for casual/narrative/etc play.
Well, you could play smaller games, such that a single 2000 pt army could make up multiple 1000 pt variations. At least until your collection grows large enough, like the thousands of models everybody else on Dakka seems to own.
But you said there's no point system! You can't play a 1000 point game if you don't have a point system! In fact, the entire concept of a "small" game is meaningless. A game with no points consists of as many models as you feel like putting on the table, which means the person with the most money to buy models wins.
Yes. I am absolutely advocating that players replace their entire army every few games. The whole thing. No reusing units, proxying, or simply dropping a few models. Replace the whole damn army.
Ok, sure, let's allow re-using units and proxying. My "fill every square inch of my deployment zone with copies of the most powerful hero model" army wins its three games, and is retired. My new army is the same as the previous army, except one model has an axe instead of a sword. And since proxies are legal I don't even have to replace the model!
I think that if your opponent puts down 100x more powerful models than you do, you'd ask him to maybe choose a smaller subset of that for this particular game. Maybe point out that in a game where you are playing the Ewoks, bringing out the Death Star won't result in a particularly enjoyable battle for either side.
And here is your concession that a no-points system doesn't work. You can't just play according to the rules and have a balanced game, you have to add a layer of social pressure to keep things "fair" and "not cheesy".
Man, you're right. There's absolutely no way to judge the relative power of two different lists without points.
There is no way to quantify that relative power. Which is what you have to do if you want a rules system that can assign a bonus to the weaker player (IOW, what is necessary for this to be possible in competitive play) and not just a casual thing where a player voluntarily says "hey, I'm going to win this game, I'll give you some re-rolls to make it more interesting". If your no-points system can't cope with a player saying "my army is weaker than yours, give me the re-rolls" regardless of the actual relative strengths of the two sides then your proposed system does not work.
I'm... I'm running out of sarcasm. Are you happy? Your comments are so unworthy of actual discussion that I've run through my available supply of sarcasm. I'm just going to have to wait and reply to the rest of your inane protests once I've gone to the sarcasm store and picked up some more. I'd go in the morning, but I'm too busy replacing my entire army because I'm just too darn awesome at being competitive.
Rule #1 is a thing, you know.
TheCustomLime wrote:You know, casual players can be TFGs too and casual at all costs is a thing.
That's not a thing.
It absolutely is a thing, and it's a toxic mess that destroys communities. If you've been lucky enough to avoid "casual at all costs" TFGs that's great, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
TheCustomLime wrote:You know, casual players can be TFGs too and casual at all costs is a thing.
That's not a thing.
Yeah it is. Read David Sirlin's book "Playing to Win". Of course, Warhammer isn't really a game that falls under that general spectrum of games because it's way too varied; the closest thing would be the part where the book talks about how in competitive Street Fighter it's basically a general principle to not use Akuma when he's available because he's just so much better than everyone else.
Some excerpts that illustrate the point of having a hard ban or a soft ban, which is really the closest equivalents anything would be in a GW game although again, the gross imbalances and general unreliability of the rules prelude Warhammer from really being applicable to the thoughts in the book:
Many versions of Street Fighter have "secret characters" that are only accessible through a code. Sometimes these characters are good; sometimes they're not. Occasionally, the secret characters are the best in the game as in the game Marvel vs. Capcom 1. Big deal. That's the way that game is. Live with it. But Super Turbo was the first version of Street Fighter to ever have a secret character: the untouchably good Akuma. Most characters in that game cannot beat Akuma. I don't mean it's a tough match--I mean they cannot ever, ever, ever, ever win. Akuma is "broken" in that his air fireball move is something the game simply wasn't designed to handle. He is not merely the best character in the game, but is at least ten times better than other characters. This case is so extreme that all top players in America immediately realized that all tournaments would be Akuma vs. Akuma only, and so the character was banned with basically no debate and has been ever since. I believe this was the correct decision.
The above is a hard ban. The equivalent would be something like no Lords of War or no Flyers allowed, in 40k.
This is an example of a soft ban, which is much more easily expressed in Warhammer and many other games:
The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.
But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.
You can see how this can be enforced. The equivalent would simply be not taking a Wraithknight just because you can, if you can see your opponent's list can't really deal with it. Or not just taking the most powerful units because you know it will make for a poor game. That's IMHO the kind of approach Warhammer needs to do. Not outright bans, but a soft ban by basically agreeing not to take a particular thing because it's so good that it essentially makes swathes of your opponent's army unviable.
Peregrine wrote: It absolutely is a thing, and it's a toxic mess that destroys communities. If you've been lucky enough to avoid "casual at all costs" TFGs that's great, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
It really does exist.
I have only seen it in person with Table Top Role Playing Games and board game players though.
The TTRPG player wailed and moaned about everyone else's character being super optimized and broken and complained about how they were "roleplaying their characters wrong".
Most players had average or worse build optimization except the complainer and all were better roleplayers because they did not spend half the game complaining about how everyone else was wrong.
They did not even have a legal character build though it was not good at anything even then.
The board game player may have been a WAAC player in denial because they like to yell loudly about how the game was unfair or that their opponent cheated when they lost.
It usually turned out that they had been cheating because they never bothered to learn the rules.
I heard that one person like that got banned from the local store for physically flipping a table.
Bottle wrote: GW made a lot of mistakes with AoS' release, but it forced them to change their company culture and I think GW have become a much better company as a result.
And it worked out great for us too. The GHB is a great starting point and GW are already seeking to improve the balance within. GW asked all players from the Warlords event to email their lists to the Dev team could evaluate them, and it was also hinted that we'll get a yearly update.
This is great because no longer will armies be trapped with bad points until the army book/battletome is redone, instead each year we'll get better and better balance within the game.
Also works out well for GW because every year they get a massive cash injection from the entire player base purchasing points updates.
(if you ever get a chance, flick through some of the formations in the campaign books for things that would really upset the cart).
I want that giant one to become an actual formation, Five giants with king is just hilarious.
You mean points assigned to the Sons of Behemet? For RGW formations we've just been fudging a number (probably too expensive, really). I'm using the giants in an upcoming game and the opponent gets a RGW battalion...which is likely to be way more powerful. But...5 giants!!
edit: It sounds like some of you need to try some new opponents or maybe I'm just reading it as sounding much more dramatic than it is.
auticus wrote:I used to be a pretty serious competitive tournament player for a very long time. I don't cheat but I would definitely max out my list and exploit bad rules because they were still the rules, and I did that because everyone else around me was also doing that and we were using warhammer as a test of skill. To play the game as a test of skill you need to not be handicapping yourself.
There's your problem. You think Warhammer is a test of skill. I'm reading the 40k rulebook now, and one of the first things it does is tell you to forge a narrative. And situations where the rules are unclear? You just roll dice and the winner gets to decide. On page 14, under "The Spirit of the Game", it says 'Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey... Your responsibility isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game... it is in this spirit that the rules have been written." Why would you seek to be competitive about something that absolutely designed to be cooperative?
Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled. By veiled I mean it wasn't brutally stuck in your eyes every two pages. My guess is that at some point GW just gave up and decided to say it straight up in a bordered text box instead of suggesting it multiple time over by different means. Naturally people weren't happy about GW telling them that. I guess the only real way GW will be able to pass on its message about how the game has been meant to be played throughout the years would be changing the name on the cover to something in the line of : "Warhammer - a mostly story telling game in the 40th millennium/a fantasy world for those unburdened by excessive ego and the need to indirectly conclude that they have defeated the opponent by better quality gray matter thus making them superiour beings"
Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"
Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - all that "forge the narrative stuff" has nothing to do with making a good narrative game, and the things that make 40k/AoS bad for competitive play also make them bad for narrative play. What "forge the narrative" really means is "stop complaining about us publishing poor quality rules, you're a WAACTFG if you have standards and don't mindlessly give us all of your money".
It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.
The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.
What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.
WayneTheGame wrote: It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.
The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.
What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.
"4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" could result in me bringing 10 units of Skullreapers against your 10 units of Moonclan Grots. That's not gonna be much of a fight, is it? And then I'll be accused of being "that guy", even though I did exactly what I was told to do: bring 10 units. That's the issue that a lot of people have with the lack of points - it's so open to abuse, even unintentionally. And hashing out all the details to avoid that happening before you even get around to the gaming club/store, is an additional hazzle that a lot of people don't want to put up with.
I'm not saying that the "casual" approach is wrong, but a lot of people see it as adding an unnecessary workload onto a hobby that already requires a large amount of time, money and energy - is it so surprising that some people view it as the straw that broke the Camels back that they now have to do rules- and unit balancing for the game on top of everything else?
WayneTheGame wrote: It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.
The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.
What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.
"4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" could result in me bringing 10 units of Skullreapers against your 10 units of Moonclan Grots. That's not gonna be much of a fight, is it? And then I'll be accused of being "that guy", even though I did exactly what I was told to do: bring 10 units. That's the issue that a lot of people have with the lack of points - it's so open to abuse, even unintentionally. And hashing out all the details to avoid that happening before you even get around to the gaming club/store, is an additional hazzle that a lot of people don't want to put up with.
I'm not saying that the "casual" approach is wrong, but a lot of people see it as adding an unnecessary workload onto a hobby that already requires a large amount of time, money and energy - is it so surprising that some people view it as the straw that broke the Camels back that they now have to do rules- and unit balancing for the game on top of everything else?
I agree with that part, I just think that's the kind of thing Warhammer caters to. It's more than "just 10 units" it's more or less deciding what 10 units, so no "I have 10 skullreapers so I'm going to field them" it's more like an implied "10 units that make for an enjoyable game". I mean, do not misunderstand me, I definitely see the issue. I railed very hard against Warhammer for a number of years. I just found that always being cutthroat competitive got old too, so now I long for being able to hash things out and know that both our armies aren't going to be something overpowering that the other can't deal with but something that's relatively balanced to make a fun and visually exciting game. My only complaint, and this is mostly on the 40k side, is that the rules and army books are so damn expensive. AoS at least has the rules for free and all the warscroll sheets available for free, so you aren't at least being forced to pay hundreds for rules that you need to add your own stuff to like in 40k.
it's more like an implied "10 units that make for an enjoyable game"
The problem is, what exactly is an enjoyable game for him vs you? What if he wants a big out slugfest with multi-wound models and huge stats while you bring armies of hordes or just random stuff you'd think make for a better "match" but the problem is that you haven't implied anything well enough that would require more talk to begin with.
I see the merits of both, but I prefer having points because that allows for at least some semblance of balance in a standard game, narrative games tend to be one offs and pretty fun but I would not consider it a standard mode of gameplay.
WayneTheGame wrote: It appears we must agree to disagree. I firmly believe that you can still have a "competitive" minded game, mind you not necessarily WAAC or tournament appropriate game, and still either not have points or forego points with a little discussion of what is reasonable. The latest White Dwarf, for example, has their battle report with Stormcasts vs. Bloodbound where they don't use points just "4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" because neither of them are trying to be TFGs and game a pointsless system like some of you think always happens.
The last of the old White Dwarfs (before the weekly format) had a similar thing with Tyranids vs. Tau. The Tyranid player brought all his big monsters out to play, and had something like 5 HQs in over 3000 points, and the Tau had nothing but RIptides and Crisis Suits because they wanted a really visually impressive "monsters vs. robots" type of battle.
What, in actuality, is wrong with that approach to gaming? It's not suited at all to tournaments or cutthroat style gaming, but how prevalent is that style of gaming that it should matter when there are other great games that ARE suited to that style of play? There are much better "serious" competitive games than trying to shoehorn Warhammer into that mindset when it's an uphill battle.
"4-5 heroes and around 10 units each" could result in me bringing 10 units of Skullreapers against your 10 units of Moonclan Grots. That's not gonna be much of a fight, is it? And then I'll be accused of being "that guy", even though I did exactly what I was told to do: bring 10 units. That's the issue that a lot of people have with the lack of points - it's so open to abuse, even unintentionally. And hashing out all the details to avoid that happening before you even get around to the gaming club/store, is an additional hazzle that a lot of people don't want to put up with.
I'm not saying that the "casual" approach is wrong, but a lot of people see it as adding an unnecessary workload onto a hobby that already requires a large amount of time, money and energy - is it so surprising that some people view it as the straw that broke the Camels back that they now have to do rules- and unit balancing for the game on top of everything else?
I agree with that part, I just think that's the kind of thing Warhammer caters to. It's more than "just 10 units" it's more or less deciding what 10 units, so no "I have 10 skullreapers so I'm going to field them" it's more like an implied "10 units that make for an enjoyable game". I mean, do not misunderstand me, I definitely see the issue. I railed very hard against Warhammer for a number of years. I just found that always being cutthroat competitive got old too, so now I long for being able to hash things out and know that both our armies aren't going to be something overpowering that the other can't deal with but something that's relatively balanced to make a fun and visually exciting game. My only complaint, and this is mostly on the 40k side, is that the rules and army books are so damn expensive. AoS at least has the rules for free and all the warscroll sheets available for free, so you aren't at least being forced to pay hundreds for rules that you need to add your own stuff to like in 40k.
Well, let's try for some more varied lists then. 3 Skullreapers (Daemonblades), 4 Blood Warriors (2 with Goreaxes, 2 with gorefists), 2 Korgoraths and a unit of Skullcrushers (w/ Bloodglaives), led by a Mighty Lord of Khorne and supported by an Exalted Deathbringer (w/ Ruinous Axe & Skullgouger), a Slaughterpriest (w/ Bloodbathed Axe), a Bloodstoker and Bloodsecrator - these represent the elite of Khorgos Khul's army, his personal bodyguard.
Opposing me is your army of 4 Goblins (w/ Jabbin Spears), 2 Goblin Wolfriders (Pokin' Spears), 3 Goblin Wolf Chariots and a Rock Lobber, led by Grom the Paunch, and supported by a pair of Goblin Warbosses (1 w/ Git-cutta and Git Shield, 1 w/ Git-Slicer, both on foot), and a pair of -Shamans (both on foot). This, thematically, representing the core of Waaagh! Grom.
Now, in terms of quality, the Khornate army is superior, isn't it? The Khornate warriors are simply better, and the goblins need to outnumber me to have a chance. And to top it off, the Sudden Death rules actually give me an advantage for being outnumbered, despite the fact that my weakest elements can tangle with my opponents elites and come out on top.
This is what those who support points, or alotment charts, or standard unit sizes want to avoid - a scenario in which my army will massively outclass yours, simply because my units are better than yours. In order for the above to be a close fight, the Sudden Death rules would have to be ignored, and I'd probably have to leave out a 1/4 - 1/3 of my army. Because what's "enjoyable" and what's "fair", "reasonable", or any other such term is subjective, far beyond what something being over/underpriced is. Are my Skullreapers too cheap/expensive for what they bring? Maybe, but at least that's easier to debate than whether or not my army makes me a WAACTFG, just because it doesn't fall within an ever more subjective definition of "casual fairness".
My apologies if any of this comes across as confrontational: I'm just trying to illustrate why points, for a lot of people, is a preferable measure over what a local meta might consider "makes for an enjoyable game".
Now, in terms of quality, the Khornate army is superior, isn't it? The Khornate warriors are simply better, and the goblins need to outnumber me to have a chance. And to top it off, the Sudden Death rules actually give me an advantage for being outnumbered, despite the fact that my weakest elements can tangle with my opponents elites and come out on top.
Many scenarios don't use the Sudden Death rules, and more than a couple scenarios do things like defending against infinite reinforcements, or holding half your army back for two turns.
Or you could simply say, "Man, I'm gonna murder you with my army and that's not going to be fun for either of us, so I'll drop the Khorgoraths and two units of Blood Warriors - and what the heck, if you lose more than half your army in the first two turns, I'll let you bring some of them back as reinforcements on turn three".
I mean, you could end up with a similar situation with points. It is entirely possible to end up with 2,000 pt armies that are unfairly matched. The only difference is that with points, you can claim the worse army is the result of being bad at the game and it is your own fault for sucking at list building, so you deserve the steamrolling you are about to receive. Which is essentially what some of the people in this thread are arguing, and that doesn't sit well with me. They are the victims here. They didn't make the points unbalanced, but are unduly punished for not exploiting the supposedly fair point system to gain every possible advantage they can.
When I played Warmachine, I was given advice that I should build an army out of my warcaster's tier list - which involved getting something like five or six units of Doom Reavers. That's a lot of time and money, and a lot of tedium, setting up multiple versions of the exact same models. It wouldn't be fun for me to play and, if I stuck around for Mk3, would've been screwed when they removed tier lists and unit spam became less effective. I would've had less than 6 months with a competitive list before needing to build a new one (that probably involved jack spam). I'm glad I didn't hitch my horse to that army building system, because it changed before the paint would've been dry (literally).
And that has happened in every game, and every time there is a change in points, some people swear it is the end of the world and that the company is ruining the game and don't deserve their money anymore - they'll buy their figures from eBay now. Or whatever. And AoS's points will probably change too - they've already indicated that the GHB may be updated yearly. What then? Gonna just sit there and whine about how you spent all this money buying multiple copies of this overpowered kit only for them to actually balance it? We're going to see that, in droves, if they change how you build the armies - and I have every reason to believe they will.
Heck, I saw something like that happen with Infinity. They recently made an optional rule to this year's ITS rules that limits you to one group of 10 orders. The current way Infinity works is that most players get a few heavy hitters, then fills their ranks with cheap cheerleaders to give those units a lot of orders. So you may end up with five or six core models, sharing 20-30 orders. Reducing your army to just 10 orders means making every unit important, and allows you to use TAGs and heavy infantry (things which were basically ignored in favor of cheerleader spam). And the change was optional. Not every tournament was going to do it. But you'd think Corvus Belli had just raped someone's grandmother with the response that optional rule got from the playerbase. You change the army building rules and the people who base their entire game around those rules lose everything when they change.
The way I see it, rather than building everything you do in the game around the points, the points should be something that allows you to do everything you want to do in the game. Buy the models you like, in the quantity you like, THEN use the point system to figure out how to turn it into an army. One 2000 pt army should be roughly equivalent to another 2000 pt army, so if you can build 2000 pts, you have a usable army. If they change the points, you haven't lost anything because you value the models on their own merits, not on their relative power to an arbitrary and unbalanced, changing point system. Points can NOT be the most important part of the game. They can not be the only way you choose what to buy and play. You will get screwed, and the worst part is, you'll blame everybody but yourself for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: The problem is, what exactly is an enjoyable game for him vs you?
This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?
The biggest thing though, is that you typically do not have to worry about that if you avoid spam and build actual balanced lists. Like in Warmachine, I never went in for Mad Dogs of War with all the Doom Reavers. I built fairly well rounded lists, so MkIII never hit me as bad because I didn't have my "spam" list invalidated by an edition change. About the only thing that changed for me is I'd need to buy a new unit of Pikemen to make Black Dragons since they went from just being an attachment to being their own unit. Far cry from "I bought 9 units of Doom Reavers and now I can only field 5 of them".
The people who suffer from that are the ones tho look to max out on the good units and that's it. You build a well balanced army with a solid mix of everything, and not only is the game often more enjoyable because there's no skewing something, but you also are pretty resilient to anything short of massive changes to the entire game in which case everything is basically invalidated anyways (I mean massive changes like WHFB -> AOS, a completely new game). I would make a bet that people who built balanced WHFB armies before AOS usually ran into little or no problems when a new edition came out, it was only the min-maxers and "Mathhammer" folks that hashed out well this unit is 5.297359723% more effective than this other unit, so you want to min-max this one and not that one that ran into the problem.
This is a big reason why I am always in favour of building a balanced mix with armies, along with just the fact that painting the same thing multiple times is boring as hell. But more importantly it tends to be a more balanced and enjoyable game overall for everyone because nobody is just stocking up on the "good" units, you might have one or two but the rest of your army is built in a balanced way. My Flesh-eater Courts for example, I go for a good mix of Ghouls and Crypt Horrors, and I like my Crypt Flayers too even though Horrors are mathematically better. Granted, FEC really does not have a lot of variety in what I can pick, but I'm not spamming Horrors just because they are better; I have a big unit because I like them and they work well, but I would definitely consider my army balanced and fluffy.
To put it another way: Just because you CAN do something (take only the "best" units in this case) doesn't mean you SHOULD.
CoreCommander wrote: Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.
I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?
Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"
But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?
CoreCommander wrote: Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.
I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?
Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"
But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?
2nd had points. Even Rogue Trader had points, but Rogue Trader mandated a GM to come up with a scenario and victory conditions, although I suppose in the absence of a GM the two players could do it themselves, but it was very much NOT a "show up and play" type of game. 2nd was more straightforward but rather clunky with a lot of things (you could easily stack a ton of wargear on a character). Honestly, 2nd edition was pretty cool. 3rd completely redid the game and brought the Force Org Chart into play.
I can't speak to Fantasy, I have heard that 3rd edition Fantasy was pretty much similar to Rogue Trader (or maybe Rogue Trader was similar to it, I think WHFB came first). It did have points though, like i recall skimming through some ancient issues of White Dwarf and you had a way to determine what level (I think it used WFRP levels, not really sure) your heroes were, but it was like Level 10/20/30 or something like that, and eventually just went to different profiles.
I don't think GW has ever stated exactly WHY early Fantasy and 40k required a GM as opposed to just being something two players could hash out on their own. It might be in a book somewhere or an old White Dwarf, however. I think that mentality is still strong with them, just now it's more or less both players acting in a GM-esque role to come up with a scenario and forces rather than shanghaiing a third party into doing it for them.
CoreCommander wrote: Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.
I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?
Points were always present in one form or another (atleast with 40k - I haven't been following fantasy for that long) , but were complimented with many additional suggestions and examples which were supposed to be received as the main message but were instead pushed aside by a couple of dry missions (by virtue of nothing else but being printed before the other material and labeled as "default) which were given in case you had no time to prepare for anything else. Other than that I honestly have no idea of the baloney in the middle of the sandwich that you say I'm thinking is the One True Way.
Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"
But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?
I was talking about how previous editions were interpreted to be some kind of advanced chess by the players. My whole post was grazing on the fact that previous editions of both 40k and fantasy didn't quite manage to pass on to the players the advice on how to play the game in different ways. Since the whole tone has been misinterpreted I'm stopping here.
CoreCommander wrote: Let me tell you a little secret about the story of the 40k rulebooks - the "forge the narrative" text box advice is comparatively new, dating from the sixth edition that came out in 2012. Prior to that the spirit of the game, that it should be based on scenario, narrative principles with a lot of miniature personalisation an self content poured in by the players was somehow veiled.
I was under the impression that the earliest versions of 40k were quite narrative in structure, not even adding points until the 3rd(?) edition? So it was one way, changed to another way, then changed back, and you think the baloney in the middle of that sandwich is the One True Way of things?
Listen now to the cries of "Oh, is that so smart guy? Why then did GW suggest tournaments and organised play and talk about tactics and outmaneuvering the enemy in these very same rulebooks if the game was not meant to simulate the clash of two great minds? Why did it include points, showed us standard sized armies an 5-6 default scenarios to play?"
But GW didn't include points or organized play with AoS. They are a separate, optional purchase, and not one that is supported or mentioned in the majority of AoS releases thus far. That's like saying, if 40k wasn't meant to be played at 200 pts with individual figure units, why did they make Kill Team?
2nd had points. Even Rogue Trader had points, but Rogue Trader mandated a GM to come up with a scenario and victory conditions, although I suppose in the absence of a GM the two players could do it themselves, but it was very much NOT a "show up and play" type of game. 2nd was more straightforward but rather clunky with a lot of things (you could easily stack a ton of wargear on a character). Honestly, 2nd edition was pretty cool. 3rd completely redid the game and brought the Force Org Chart into play.
I can't speak to Fantasy, I have heard that 3rd edition Fantasy was pretty much similar to Rogue Trader (or maybe Rogue Trader was similar to it, I think WHFB came first).
Just had a look at the Rogue Trader rules, and yes, it does mention using points. Page 58: "Many gamers find it difficult if they don't have a third person to act as their GM, (...) Without a GM how can players ensure that their sides are fair? The obvious answer is to use a points system. (...) When two opponents meet it is possible for each side to consist of an evenly balanced value of troops."
This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?
Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!
This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?
Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!
I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.
Well, in our group of four people, we each have our own likes and dislikes. I'm probably the most 'competitive', this bring my gsming upbringing for the ten years prior to meeting these guys, m has an unhealthy obsession with tanks, p has an unhealthy obsession with homebrew, and both these fellows don't care too much for intricate and highly detailed rules, whereas I do enjoy them, and then there is are who is very 'experimental' with his tactics, or else he charges across like an Orc, and loves a high body count game (typically lots of it being his own Russians!). We all have different likes and dislikes. And we all meet up on a Friday evening, hash out one of various games we play (flames of war, various historicals. Recently lotr as a pseudo-historical, sometimes infinity), play 2 on 2 and have a great time. I can't actually remember a 'bad' game in three years with them.
We talk, we decide what we want to do, we accommodate each other. Worst case scenario is 'I'm all flames of war'ed out' but ok, we'll play your scenario this week because it does sound fun. However, next week, how about we do some historicals. I've got a really cool idea for a scenario I'd like to run'. Followed by 'yeah, ok, we'll do that'.
And It's not the end of the world if the gsme the other guy wants to play doesn't line up to the millimetre alongside your own wishes. If the divergence is too great, play someone else, but this isn't a 'fine line'. There is a massive gradient, and frankly, soft social skills and a 'social shock absorber' with things like Compromise,cooperation, a bit of emotional maturity and a bit of accommodation towards each other goes a long way towards resolving or minimising and potential issues.
This is certainly an insurmountable problem that could never be solved. If only there were some way for the two of you to communicate your desires for the upcoming game before you play it. Semaphore flags? Aldis lamp? Smoke signals?
Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!
I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.
Well, in our group of four people, we each have our own likes and dislikes. I'm probably the most 'competitive', this bring my gsming upbringing for the ten years prior to meeting these guys, m has an unhealthy obsession with tanks, p has an unhealthy obsession with homebrew, and both these fellows don't care too much for intricate and highly detailed rules, whereas I do enjoy them, and then there is are who is very 'experimental' with his tactics, or else he charges across like an Orc, and loves a high body count game (typically lots of it being his own Russians!). We all have different likes and dislikes. And we all meet up on a Friday evening, hash out one of various games we play (flames of war, various historicals. Recently lotr as a pseudo-historical, sometimes infinity), play 2 on 2 and have a great time. I can't actually remember a 'bad' game in three years with them.
We talk, we decide what we want to do, we accommodate each other. Worst case scenario is 'I'm all flames of war'ed out' but ok, we'll play your scenario this week because it does sound fun. However, next week, how about we do some historicals. I've got a really cool idea for a scenario I'd like to run'. Followed by 'yeah, ok, we'll do that'.
And It's not the end of the world if the gsme the other guy wants to play doesn't line up to the millimetre alongside your own wishes. If the divergence is too great, play someone else, but this isn't a 'fine line'. There is a massive gradient, and frankly, soft social skills and a 'social shock absorber' with things like Compromise,cooperation, a bit of emotional maturity and a bit of accommodation towards each other goes a long way towards resolving or minimising and potential issues.
These things work awesomely well when you're playing with a very limited number of people on a regular basis. They do not work as well when you're playing with a wide variety of people on an inconsistent basis. The way your group of 4 regular players interacts isn't necessarily useful in a discussion about how my much larger group of people who don't always know each other well interacts. You're comparing apples and oranges and assuming a familiarity that isn't always there. Sure, I can ask Bob T. Gamer if he is willing to play XYZ way next week, but then I'm out next week and he's got a family thing after that. We might not play again for months. That's how a lot of large FLGS communities work. You play with who you can as often as you can within the framework of a number of community "default" settings.
These things work awesomely well when you're playing with a very limited number of people on a regular basis. They do not work as well when you're playing with a wide variety of people on an inconsistent basis. The way your group of 4 regular players interacts isn't necessarily useful in a discussion about how my much larger group of people who don't always know each other well interacts. You're comparing apples and oranges and assuming a familiarity that isn't always there. Sure, I can ask Bob T. Gamer if he is willing to play XYZ way next week, but then I'm out next week and he's got a family thing after that. We might not play again for months. That's how a lot of large FLGS communities work. You play with who you can as often as you can within the framework of a number of community "default" settings.
No. we make it work is actually very useful in this discussion - that's the whole point. We don't do anything special.
Which goes back to what I was saying earlier about putting effort into your community. Those three guys I play with were once strangers. We got past that, a long time ago. If the people in your community are strangers, don't know each other well, then surely it stands to reason they should get to know each other? I'm not assuming familiarity,I'm suggesting familiarity with your community should be a goal in and of itself. I moved countries. I joined new gaming clubs here when I moved over. To me, this is just something that should be done anyway. Getting to know your peers isn't a burden. Not doing it is ultimately self destructive and self defeating.
It's got a lot less to do with apples and oranges and a lot more to do with looking beyond the game to the community. Just because your community is larger doesn't change the dynamics - the problems arise in large part because people see strangers, and just stop. Zero effort, zero reward. nobody tries, or makes the effort to connect, and no one puts the work in to building something 'bigger' than just a game.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!
I really get the impression here that some of the people in this thread would rather cut off their own pinky finger than engage in any sort of conversation with another living human being on the remote chance that there will be some disagreement.
Just decide with your opponent what units to use.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and uses too powerful units?
Ask him politely not to do that.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and refuses to do that?
Surely, a short discussion and a bit of compromise could lead to a game you both enjoy.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and won't compromise?
How do you know? Did you try asking him?
Of course not! He might be an donkey-cave!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.
Since Mk3 came out, which I opted not to upgrade to, I've taken a live and let live approach to the game. Since I literally can no longer play the game (and am considering selling off my collection), what Warmachine players do no longer affects me - though I'll fight anyone who says Warmachine's point system is a superior example of game balance.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!
I really get the impression here that some of the people in this thread would rather cut off their own pinky finger than engage in any sort of conversation with another living human being on the remote chance that there will be some disagreement.
Just decide with your opponent what units to use.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and uses too powerful units?
Ask him politely not to do that.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and refuses to do that?
Surely, a short discussion and a bit of compromise could lead to a game you both enjoy.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and won't compromise?
How do you know? Did you try asking him?
Of course not! He might be an donkey-cave!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: I'm not sqorgar's biggest fan (mainly because of his historically snide,belittling and often incorrect views towards warmachine hobbyists, and I hope this has changed, because though I hate to admit it, we do share a lot of ground here) , but he does have a point here.
Since Mk3 came out, which I opted not to upgrade to, I've taken a live and let live approach to the game. Since I literally can no longer play the game (and am considering selling off my collection), what Warmachine players do no longer affects me - though I'll fight anyone who says Warmachine's point system is a superior example of game balance.
Or, maybe we've tried doing it your way, and it's just too much work (on top of everything else this hobby already requires) having to pre-check what I can and cannot bring with me because I have to contact everyone else who's gonna be playing that day and make sure my army isn't OP compared to theirs? Not everyone has a tight-knit community, and not everyone has the time to pre-plan their every game.
Heck, Kriswall has stated several times that he's tried to get a casual scene going, but it hasn't worked because no one else was interested. What, should he just impose himself on people and force them to do things differently to how they want to? Just go and find a different group to play with? For quite a few people, neither of those are an option.
Frankly, being this condescendingly dismissive of an issue that other people may be having, is just gonna call into question whether or not you even have a group you routinely game with, since you come across as genuinely unpleasant to associate with.
Since Mk3 came out, which I opted not to upgrade to, I've taken a live and let live approach to the game. Since I literally can no longer play the game (and am considering selling off my collection), what Warmachine players do no longer affects me - though I'll fight anyone who says Warmachine's point system is a superior example of game balance.
It's certainly not superior, but don't be dismissive - point based pick up games do have genuine value. It's not the only way to play, nor is the the 'right way' or the 'one true way'. But it does have a very valuable place. The mistake people make is insisting it's the only way to play, and don't look beyond it.
With respect, I like, and have come around to agreeing a lot with you on the narrative gaming - for what it's worth, I genuinely feel the same way as you do about narrative gaming as being a 'positive experience'. My point was more how you have a go at how terrible WMH hobbyists are - I'll happily fight you on that one! Other than that, my preference, if the opportunity ever occurs, is beers with you, rather than pistols at dawn.
Or, maybe we've tried doing it your way, and it's just too much work (on top of everything else this hobby already requires) having to pre-check what I can and cannot bring with me because I have to contact everyone else who's gonna be playing that day and make sure my army isn't OP compared to theirs?
When the alternative is potentially having a rubbish/unfulfilling game, and ultimately burning out of the hobby I personally feel that having a chat and coming to an agreement is worth the effort. Or at least worth thinking about. Talking to people and being accommodating isn't that big of a deal.
Frankly, being this condescendingly dismissive of an issue that other people may be having, is just gonna call into question whether or not you even have a Group you routinely game with, since you come across as genuinely unpleasant to associate with.
He's offering solutions. That's not being dismissive. Nor condascending, unless you feel pointing out the probable ease and straightforwardness of talking to people is a problem.
Personally I'm in agreement with him here. It works, and is a fine way of making games work.
Frankly, being this condescendingly dismissive of an issue that other people may be having, is just gonna call into question whether or not you even have a Group you routinely game with, since you come across as genuinely unpleasant to associate with.
He's offering solutions. That's not being dismissive. Nor condascending, unless you feel pointing out the probable ease and straightforwardness of talking to people is a problem.
Personally I'm in agreement with him here. It works, and is a fine way of making games work.
Deadnight wrote: It's certainly not superior, but don't be dismissive - point based pick up games do have genuine value.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Cute though the snark certainly isn't warrented, but that ignores the issue, what one may find enjoyable the other may not, and if neither should come to a proper agreement? I mean look at this thread for example!
I really get the impression here that some of the people in this thread would rather cut off their own pinky finger than engage in any sort of conversation with another living human being on the remote chance that there will be some disagreement.
Just decide with your opponent what units to use.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and uses too powerful units?
Ask him politely not to do that.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and refuses to do that?
Surely, a short discussion and a bit of compromise could lead to a game you both enjoy.
But what if he is an donkey-cave and won't compromise?
How do you know? Did you try asking him?
Of course not! He might be an donkey-cave!
I'd call the above dismissive in tone, since it implies that people aren't even making the attempt to play anything but WAACTFG games.
Why do people keep acting like "but you can talk to people, be an amateur game designer, and create your own rules for balancing AoS" somehow excuses printing garbage in the first place? Good games don't require all of this ridiculous negotiation and house ruling, you just put armies on the table and play.
Because we want to annoy points-only players.
Since we don't have anyone who will play narrative, we have to have something to do with all our spare time.
Peregrine wrote: Why do people keep acting like "but you can talk to people, be an amateur game designer, and create your own rules for balancing AoS" somehow excuses printing garbage in the first place? Good games don't require all of this ridiculous negotiation and house ruling, you just put armies on the table and play.
Then go play a game that does.
we have clearly established that Warhammer is not that type of game you repeating the fact that it's a garbage game does not change the fact that people who play it needs some way to determine what is Fair since the game itself can't do it but you conveniently keep ignoring that to push your agenda that GW are incompetent and Warhammer is a gak game.
We get that already we're trying to talk about approach is to not have it that way without necessarily shoehorning in points because a little conversation goes a long way but apparently not with someone like you who keep pushing the fact that well a game without points is worthless because I'll just take the most powerful units in the game because Nothing Stops me.
What stops people from just taking the most powerful units is when no one wants to play them or when they're first gets invalidated in a later addition and they go on to a forum to whine about how the game ruined their thousand-dollar army that they bought incorrectly because they can't think of anything other than I'm a competitive jerk who wants to win no matter the cost
WayneTheGame wrote: We get that already we're trying to talk about approach is to not have it that way without necessarily shoehorning in points because a little conversation goes a long way but apparently not with someone like you who keep pushing the fact that well a game without points is worthless because I'll just take the most powerful units in the game because Nothing Stops me.
No, you're not just trying to talk about how to fix a bad game, you're defending the game. You (and the other AoS defenders) are saying that points aren't necessary, social pressure to avoid taking powerful lists is just as good as a balanced game, etc. If you want to leave it at "AoS is garbage and needs a point system for balancing, now how do we fix the game" that's fine and I'm not going to criticize people for trying to come up with house rules to make AoS work. But if you insist on defending AoS I'm going to keep telling you how you're wrong.
What stops people from just taking the most powerful units is when no one wants to play them or when they're first gets invalidated in a later addition and they go on to a forum to whine about how the game ruined their thousand-dollar army that they bought incorrectly because they can't think of anything other than I'm a competitive jerk who wants to win no matter the cost
And you honestly don't see a problem with acting like everyone who takes a powerful list is some kind of TFG?
We get that already we're trying to talk about approach is to not have it that way without necessarily shoehorning in points because a little conversation goes a long way but apparently not with someone like you who keep pushing the fact that well a game without points is worthless because I'll just take the most powerful units in the game because Nothing Stops me.
I don't think the case is that extreme, but even without intending to create an overpowered army, one can build what they think is a relatively fluffy, fun, and interesting army and be a total one-sided hardcounter against an opponent's army because the two players involved have different ideas of what 'fun and fluffy" is or the forces just aren't what really would fight each other in the game universe, and that will result in lots of unfun games even with both players trying to build fun armies. Points systems and army construction rules don't eliminate that problem (especially when they're as bad as GW's) but they do offer ready made solutions that dramatically mitigate them.
Without those, you have to revert to the social pressures which has drawbacks as well. Having to ask someone to change a lovingly crafted thematic army or ask for special bonuses for your army because "you think it won't be fun otherwise" is a good way to get labelled an unfun whining TFG if they're not a close gaming pal with whom you have such an understanding and similar mindset. With a points system and army construction rules you can at least work to try and build a force that knows it won't face more than X number of Y type units and won't be facing a 4000pt equivalent force with 1500pt equivalent force of your own units without explicitely setting up such a game.
Or, maybe we've tried doing it your way, and it's just too much work (on top of everything else this hobby already requires) having to pre-check what I can and cannot bring with me because I have to contact everyone else who's gonna be playing that day and make sure my army isn't OP compared to theirs? Not everyone has a tight-knit community, and not everyone has the time to pre-plan their every game.
It's not rocket science. If you have a game against a total stranger that you had a good time with (using points, if you wish), just say, "Hey buddy, that was a fun game. I'd definitely be down to play again some day. Hey, here's a gmail address (or facebook page or twitter account or whatever) that I can be contacted at if you ever want to set up a game in the future." Heck, start a facebook group so that they can contact not only you, but each other, and set up a weekly game.
My Warmachine group had a loose 5 hour window on Saturdays that people would play during, with a Facebook group that they would use to send messages like, "I'm interested in trying out a new faction on Saturday. Anybody interested in playing a Battle Box game with me?". Before I'd go, I'd check the group and see what players had committed to coming. Sometimes, someone would post something like, "I can't make it this Saturday due to other obligations, but if anyone is interested, I'm open Wednesday night for a game or two starting after 6". Most of the people in the group had the problem of not having enough games to play, so any opportunity to get a game in usually was jumped at. And just like that, through simple social media communication, we were able to decide what to bring, when to show up, and plan non-standard games.
There's a lot of really easy, obvious ways to set up a group like that. One, you could post in Dakka's own local gaming forum to see if you can find like minded individuals near you. There are several other LFG forums and groups that I know of, so if you don't have success in one, try another one. Two, you could create a small flyer advertising a weekly game session and ask your gaming store if they would be willing to post it near the tables, or mention it to customers who come in interested in playing. Three, if people come in while you are playing and take an interest in the game, engage them in a civil conversation about the game. Perhaps even invite them to play with a loaned group of starter models (grab a cheap starter box for just that kind of situation if you can't stand to let filthy hands touch your immaculate works of art - it'll be worth the money in the long run, if you end up with a good gaming group because of it). Four, some gaming stores have painting nights or specific days set aside for specific games. Drop by and chat with people, even if you don't play those particular games. You might discover that the games are pretty fun, or that they play other games too.
These are all valid solutions that absolutely can and will work, if you are willing to have a modicum of trust in your fellow gamer and are willing to put in the minimum amount of effort and compromise a little.
Frankly, being this condescendingly dismissive of an issue that other people may be having, is just gonna call into question whether or not you even have a group you routinely game with, since you come across as genuinely unpleasant to associate with.
Ah, man. You hurt my feelings. It's okay. I know you didn't really mean it. We'll get through this.
Sqorgar wrote: It's not rocket science. If you have a game against a total stranger that you had a good time with (using points, if you wish), just say, "Hey buddy, that was a fun game. I'd definitely be down to play again some day. Hey, here's a gmail address (or facebook page or twitter account or whatever) that I can be contacted at if you ever want to set up a game in the future." Heck, start a facebook group so that they can contact not only you, but each other, and set up a weekly game.
My Warmachine group had a loose 5 hour window on Saturdays that people would play during, with a Facebook group that they would use to send messages like, "I'm interested in trying out a new faction on Saturday. Anybody interested in playing a Battle Box game with me?". Before I'd go, I'd check the group and see what players had committed to coming. Sometimes, someone would post something like, "I can't make it this Saturday due to other obligations, but if anyone is interested, I'm open Wednesday night for a game or two starting after 6". Most of the people in the group had the problem of not having enough games to play, so any opportunity to get a game in usually was jumped at. And just like that, through simple social media communication, we were able to decide what to bring, when to show up, and plan non-standard games.
There's a lot of really easy, obvious ways to set up a group like that. One, you could post in Dakka's own local gaming forum to see if you can find like minded individuals near you. There are several other LFG forums and groups that I know of, so if you don't have success in one, try another one. Two, you could create a small flyer advertising a weekly game session and ask your gaming store if they would be willing to post it near the tables, or mention it to customers who come in interested in playing. Three, if people come in while you are playing and take an interest in the game, engage them in a civil conversation about the game. Perhaps even invite them to play with a loaned group of starter models (grab a cheap starter box for just that kind of situation if you can't stand to let filthy hands touch your immaculate works of art - it'll be worth the money in the long run, if you end up with a good gaming group because of it). Four, some gaming stores have painting nights or specific days set aside for specific games. Drop by and chat with people, even if you don't play those particular games. You might discover that the games are pretty fun, or that they play other games too.
These are all valid solutions that absolutely can and will work, if you are willing to have a modicum of trust in your fellow gamer and are willing to put in the minimum amount of effort and compromise a little.
Or you could just play a different game where the only organization required is having the store designate one night for that game. Obviously it's possible to invest extra work in organizing people, but why should we have to do that? Why should I have any interest in playing a game where I have to do all of that setup work when I can instead just show up at the regularly scheduled time and play a game against whoever happens to be there?
Peregrine wrote: Or you could just play a different game where the only organization required is having the store designate one night for that game. Obviously it's possible to invest extra work in organizing people, but why should we have to do that? Why should I have any interest in playing a game where I have to do all of that setup work when I can instead just show up at the regularly scheduled time and play a game against whoever happens to be there?
Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.
Sqorgar wrote: Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.
Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.
Rule 1: Be Polite
This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.
Sqorgar wrote: Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.
Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.
Also, Rule #1 is a thing. Please follow it.
Your own attitude is pretty condescending for somebody hiding behind the Forum rules. There is something in between anything goes and points that is what we are trying to discuss here.
From my own past posts I have slammed GW as much as anyone else here however I feel that there is something in between taking two points just because people don't want to actually talk or socialize and would rather show up at a game shop on a random night and hope that someone else had the same idea rather than actually try and organize something like a true Community would do.
This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?
All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.
Sqorgar wrote: Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.
Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.
Also, Rule #1 is a thing. Please follow it.
And here I thought Peregrine was just defending points, but is instead taking pot shots at AoS as a whole.. Not surprising, but it has not been established at all that AoS is a bad game... Not exactly great without points, but as a whole is decent enough.
hobojebus wrote: GW didn't listen to the community they listened to their accountants and responded by doing the minimum amount of work.
Ghb isn't balanced it's better than no points but AoS isn't fixed it's still a poor game compared to other systems out there.
GW invited key tournament organisers to work with them on the GHB, as well as hired a key tournament figure into the Warhammer TV team, and opened up communication channels on Social Media.
The GHB points system is good enough to allow lots of varied builds at tournament level, and works great for a PUG environment too. Sure there can be a big disparity between the good lists and bad lists, but there's lots of good lists rather than a stagnant meta. GW have already shown they are keen to improve the balance moving forward too.
Sqorgar wrote: Honestly, if you think the game is crap and the community isn't worth belonging to, I have to ask why the hell you bother with it and not just take up a different hobby more in tune with your temperament, like yelling obscenities at cats or stalking sorority girls.
Because AoS provides a useful example of how not to make a game. People reading this discussion may go on to make their own rules someday, and it benefits them to see bad game design pointed out. And if your best argument in defense of AoS is "WHY DO YOU CARE!?!?!?!?!" then I think it has been established that AoS is a bad game.
Also, Rule #1 is a thing. Please follow it.
And here I thought Peregrine was just defending points, but is instead taking pot shots at AoS as a whole.. Not surprising, but it has not been established at all that AoS is a bad game... Not exactly great without points, but as a whole is decent enough.
Yeah. He basically uses any Warhammer discussion to say how GW designers are incompetent morons who should be fired.
Anyways, I don't have a real issue with the GHB points, other than a base disconnect that since it's inflexible, you have to have some leeway and cannot 100% adhere to points as written, despite the fact people seem to treat any notion of points as being carved in stone and must never deviate from. My main "issue" if it can even be considered that is the idea that points are necessary and that points somehow balance what was unbalanced before, which tends to boil down to "people will be complete jerks to others without something stopping them". I have zero problem with using points, I just wish people weren't so narrow-minded and inflexible that they refuse to actually talk about something first and instead need to fit it into the existing mindset, but again that's "pickup game culture" in the US. No real community just a bunch of "customers" who go to a specific store and all happen to play the same game. So what you have is instead of a community coming together because there are 10 people who all regularly see each other (although maybe not play against each other) at a game shop, and thus deciding hey maybe we should form a gaming club and expand out because all of us play the game, it stays as what is functionally like most people's relationships with their co-workers are. Again I mostly speak to experience but I see too much of what is basically a "turf" around a particular store, with rivalries forming between stores and animosity growing at people who tend to frequent this store instead of that store, when what I should be seeing is a community and a club forming that goes to all of the stores in the area, without being tied down to any particular one, or even needing a game store at all to form around.
All in all I find it very primal from a psychological point of view, and I imagine that this must be similar to how human civilization first formed, albeit in an extremely simplified version of it. And again, this mindset in regards to games seems to be a decidedly US (perhaps North American, I do not know about Canada) thing, as you are much more likely to find a gaming club that doesn't care about meeting at any one shop (and as a result are not beholden to what a particular shop sells, which as someone who wants to dabble in many different wargames is a huge plus) in the UK and Europe than you are in the US where the opposite is often true, and woe be it to anyone who suggests a different game store; I've actually seen people become hostile to the notion of going to/shopping at another game store, basically calling the person suggesting it a traitor and a terrible human being who is trying to "steal" business from the current game store.
Bottle wrote: This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?
That's part of my problem. We aren't going to see those systems anymore now that we have points. We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist. And if it does exist, it sucks. And because it sucks, GW is slapping around its playerbase. The entirety of playing Age of Sigmar is now points and one (or maybe two) different scenarios. It took a broad and wonderful game and boiled it down to its most boring competitive aspects - and anyone who doesn't like it is a dirty casual who likes unbalanced games because they aren't good enough to compete with the elite competitive players. Oh, and now nobody has to actually try and communicate anymore because points allow you to automate social interaction to the point where you can avoid it completely. Your opponent may as well be a computer.
All the variety - gone. All the community - gone. All that's left is a deep mistrust of the honesty and ability of our fellow players. Yay?
All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.
Points are... okay. I mean, they aren't perfect, but for what they are trying to do, they are fine. I would have no problem playing an AoS game with points occasionally. I just find them limited in many ways, and find the attitude surrounding them to be oppressive and destructive. But if people would just use more than one scenario, they wouldn't be able to overly optimize their lists, and points would more accurately reflect actual balance.
I'd call the above dismissive in tone, since it implies that people aren't even making the attempt to play anything but WAACTFG games.
I wouldn't. With respect, it gets frustrating to repeatedly see this stuff, when as far as I'm concerned, and as far as my experiences go, it's pretty obvious and straight forward to sort out. People insisting on playing a game mode that isn't fit for purpose, and hand waving away their own sense of responsibility and are being wilfully blind to the simple idea that yes, there are things you can do about it - it's not necessarily Waactfg, but its an unhealthy dogma to adhere do unquestioningly - elsewhere I compared it to blind faith in an angry God, that cannot be questioned, reasoned with, and no alternative views are permitted.
To be fair, more than once I have personally felt that people aren't even making the attempt. and too often, I see people dismiss out of hand even the idea of using social skills and 'social shock absorbers' like the idea of talking to people, being accommodating and so on in order to bridge any gaps or solve any issues, as if that somehow lessens the experience - I disagree. Heck, I had it earlier on where because I described how we made it work amongst our group I was told 'it wasn't necessary useful' to the discussion. People would rather complain than embrace, or consider a potential solution that requires thinking a bit outside of the box people have conditioned themselves to define as 'the one true way, from which we must never deviate'. Too often, people would rather just complain, blame gw, not do anything and continue to play a clunky game in a way that isn't fit for purpose. That's on them, as far as I'm concerned. I think those social skills should be applied anyway, because I believe in investing time with the people in my community. So for me, using social skills as a bridge just seems kind of obvious.
The simple fact of the matter is gw games (with exceptions -epic is great, and lotr is quite brilliant set of rules and is quite under appreciated and n my view) are generally clunky and unwieldy. Twenty or thirty year old game mechanisms that haven't seen any real 'evolution' in form. Gw won't change. Gw won't turn around and make the fixes people demand. Ok, fair enough. (IMO They should, at the very least make a more elegant set of rules, even if they never address the balance). That's the reality on the ground. That's what needs dealt with, and outside of wish listing, talking about the things gw should do but won't don't really have any real time practical or pragmatic benefit. Until they do, (if they ever do), you have the choices of playing clunky games in the manner people insist on, which is frequently unfit for purpose, which has all the value of banging your head against the wall (I would not recommend), walk away and invest/buy into a new game (which i recommend - there are no end of awesome games out there, like WMH, infinity etc) which has the downside of the 'investment cost' - new models which need to be bought, paid for, painted etc, new rules to learn, to lore to get into, actual game time to get to grips with said new rules etc, and while undeniably fun, this will cost you a significant amount of time/money/effort. The third option is to change how you approach your games (again, the argument that gw should change its games to suit the players can just as easily be turned on its head when you think about it: it's just as true to suggest gamers should change how they approach their games to suit the games they play. In other words, if the mountain won't come to you, you need to go to the mountain). I would recommend this approach, and unlike option 2 (which I heartily recommend), it doesn't really come with an 'investment cost' - I mean, you have your models, rules, you know the lore etc. All it costs you is a chat, a discussion, a bit of emotional maturity, maybe some accommodation for the other guy. No 'hard' costs. In terms of swallowing ones pride, it's not really thst high on the scale. Sure it's a change, but if you ask me, it's worth it, and it does open up a lot more options in the game than the 'resort to power build' default setting that has been enshrined in the 40k pug culture.
Bottle wrote: This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?
That's part of my problem. We aren't going to see those systems anymore now that we have points. We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist. And if it does exist, it sucks. And because it sucks, GW is slapping around its playerbase. The entirety of playing Age of Sigmar is now points and one (or maybe two) different scenarios. It took a broad and wonderful game and boiled it down to its most boring competitive aspects - and anyone who doesn't like it is a dirty casual who likes unbalanced games because they aren't good enough to compete with the elite competitive players. Oh, and now nobody has to actually try and communicate anymore because points allow you to automate social interaction to the point where you can avoid it completely. Your opponent may as well be a computer.
All the variety - gone. All the community - gone. All that's left is a deep mistrust of the honesty and ability of our fellow players. Yay?
All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.
Points are... okay. I mean, they aren't perfect, but for what they are trying to do, they are fine. I would have no problem playing an AoS game with points occasionally. I just find them limited in many ways, and find the attitude surrounding them to be oppressive and destructive. But if people would just use more than one scenario, they wouldn't be able to overly optimize their lists, and points would more accurately reflect actual balance.
This is an issue I have too. If a battalion doesn't have points in the GHB, sorry buddy can't play it, we don't know if it's unbalanced or not but it's not "official" so can't do it. Nobody will play any of the scenarios in books because they aren't "balanced", it'll be Pitched Battle scenarios all day every day. And that's the biggest problem. You basically throw away a huge chunk of the game that in many cases might as well not exist now because the "Matched Play" crowd will refuse to touch it if it doesn't fall under their banner. Basically the game just went from having a multitude of scenarios, with more being added in every campaign book and Battletome, to 6 (i.e. the ones listed in Matched Play). Gone is my ability to whip up a quick narrative where my Ghouls are going to spring out on an unsuspecting army using that one scenario in the FEC book, it's just one of the 6 matched play scenarios and that's it, and everything else may as well be nonexistent because it's an uphill battle to get someone to play it if it's not part of Matched Play. All the multitude of other comp-like systems, some likely better than the GHB's version, are now obsolete.
That's bad for everybody, and it's only a result of the "must have points" crowd refusing to even think outside the box. How many battalions are now invalidated because they don't have points associated? Any of the "boxed armies" like the Pestilens one or the Flesh Eater one has a battalion with it that's now not worth the paper it's printed on because nobody is going to let you play it because "it doesn't have points!". Summoning, broken as it might be with a powergaming munchkin type, is gutted when you have to spend points on something that may or may not even show up; Death got hit pretty damn hard by that, hell my Flesh Eater Courts, I don't have a Command Ability anymore because all of the Ghoul King's ones are "summon a new unit" but can't do that unless I set aside points to do it, because hey Matched Play. Could it be abused? Sure, but the answer wasn't to just make it almost not exist.
That's the problem. It's not "points are bad" it's that points, once introduced, quickly become the "default" standard and anything that doesn't conform becomes the exception and not the rule, when Matched Play should be the exception and not the rule. It's great to have some structure for leagues or tournament play, nobody is denying that, but it doesn't have to become "the" way to play and the problem is that, by and large, it HAS become the de facto way to play games, at the cost of cutting out huge swathes of the game for another bland approach that has no soul to it.
Maybe you guys were in communities with rich narrative campaigns running that have now devolved into nothing but Matched Play, but that's certainly not my experience.
My experience:
The tournament scene is the same - before people where using clash, then SCGT, now the GHB. It's all the same really.
PUG scene has vastly improved. Before people weren't using any scenario and were instead playing kill-games with no balance. Now there's a point structure and 6 scenarios to play with.
I used to have to push to even get a game of the ritual before. But now I always get an engaging scenario to play (and once I tire of the standard 6, I'll just start putting points on the narrative scenarios).
In my opinion narrative gaming isn't fun in a PUG environment. Narrative gaming is something I want to put lots of work into, creating characters and maps and stories to play games for. That's not going to happen in any satisfying manner in 5 minutes before a game, especially when people really just want to get on with it and play.
A narrative campaign for me is the pinnacle of gaming. But it's something you set up with close friends and put a lot of planning into and so it's not what I go to PUG nights expecting.
Of course Matched Play was going to become the de facto way to play because the structure is already there for players to get into a game in 5 mins. But in my experience it didn't replace narrative play, instead it replaced the unstructured mess that AoS PUGs used to be.
That's the problem. It's not "points are bad" it's that points, once introduced, quickly become the "default" standard and anything that doesn't conform becomes the exception and not the rule, when Matched Play should be the exception and not the rule. It's great to have some structure for leagues or tournament play, nobody is denying that, but it doesn't have to become "the" way to play and the problem is that, by and large, it HAS become the de facto way to play games, at the cost of cutting out huge swathes of the game for another bland approach that has no soul to it.
So, in this case, what happened to the approach of "just talk with people to get a different kind of game"? I ask that not to be sarcastic, but points don't remove that option. I think rather it highlights the issues with that approach and why GW's games really aren't all that great at supporting any particular kind of play the way they are written. Having to rely on social negotiation to get the kind of games you want has all sorts of pitfalls.
Likewise, for units not covered by the GHB, that would appear to be an issue on GW's end of not properly supporting their product line.
Vaktathi wrote: [
So, in this case, what happened to the approach of "just talk with people to get a different kind of game"? I ask that not to be sarcastic, but points don't remove that option. I
It kind of does though - that's the point. The second you have points based games with 'official scenarios', gamers will not step outside of the box. This becomes the default, the orthodoxy, the unquestioned dogma, the proper way to play, and anything else is heresy.
there are no ends of anecdotes on dakka of people who can't get narrative games because point based games imposed a forced orthodoxy on the community, regardless of how fit-for-purpose that orthodoxy is.
Vaktathi wrote: [
I think rather it highlights the issues with that approach and why GW's games really aren't all that great at supporting any particular kind of play the way they are written.
Games are just resolution mechanisms, regardless of how clunky or amazing they are. Gw rules are clunky and unwieldy, but there is nothing that says you must approach the game this way, and this way only. Gamers and their attitudes that they take to their games are just as responsible for supporting, or not supporting any particular style of play.
Having to rely on social negotiation to get the kind of games you want has all sorts of pitfalls.
Of course! I'd be the first to say it's not a magic pill. It's not guaranteed to work first time, brilliantly, or every time (and that can be said about every thing in our hobby!) But with the right attitude from all participants, it goes a long way towards adding a lot of value and variety to your games, and gives 'ownership' back to the players themselves.
And for what it's worth, while social negotiation has all sorts of pitfalls, as you correctly point out, it's short sighted to only pick out social negotiation as an issue - blind pick up games also have all sorts of pitfalls, as do every other game mode in table top gaming. It's not necessarily the 'social negotiation' thst is the problem - Unfortunately, the medium we choose is quite limited and can only be pushed so far. Whatever way you choose will in all likelihood have a whole bunch of hurdles you will need to jump, and hazards you will need to negotiate.
Bottle wrote: This thread was like a blast from the past. Is it summer 2015 again? Did I dream the awesome 12 months where the community took Age of Sigmar and created loads of awesome fanmade systems, that then led to GW listening to the community and creating an official points system based on those fan-comps!?
That's part of my problem. We aren't going to see those systems anymore now that we have points. We aren't going to see people playing all those neat scenarios, or trying out new battalions - if it doesn't have points, it doesn't exist. And if it does exist, it sucks. And because it sucks, GW is slapping around its playerbase. The entirety of playing Age of Sigmar is now points and one (or maybe two) different scenarios. It took a broad and wonderful game and boiled it down to its most boring competitive aspects - and anyone who doesn't like it is a dirty casual who likes unbalanced games because they aren't good enough to compete with the elite competitive players. Oh, and now nobody has to actually try and communicate anymore because points allow you to automate social interaction to the point where you can avoid it completely. Your opponent may as well be a computer.
All the variety - gone. All the community - gone. All that's left is a deep mistrust of the honesty and ability of our fellow players. Yay?
All I want to add is: Playing AoS with points from the GHB is really fun. So much fun. And GW are now taking an awesome approach with everything from community relations to an ongoing commitment to make AoS a fun tournament game. Warlords looked like it was a rip roaring success and I can't wait to see what comes next. In the mean time I am going to be having fun playing pointed games of AoS whenever I get the chance.
Points are... okay. I mean, they aren't perfect, but for what they are trying to do, they are fine. I would have no problem playing an AoS game with points occasionally. I just find them limited in many ways, and find the attitude surrounding them to be oppressive and destructive. But if people would just use more than one scenario, they wouldn't be able to overly optimize their lists, and points would more accurately reflect actual balance.
I can only speak for my experience playing, watching and interacting with players who do the same, but while points are one option and if I were to go to an event with 50-100 people I expect points would just be easier (though it was more successful imo with player made comp) but I've played and still do play AoS in what I would call competitive (so, to win a prize or placing, but let's not resurrect that) and it does just fine. What's to stop someone from doing [insert absurd example]? Well, having the models and finding a player to continue to play you once that nonsense is revealed.
We're making it a point to play all 3 types from GHB, having done an open play event again yesterday and also next weekend. The whole issue of saying a game is bad or good is just opinion and I won't convince anyone on a forum, nor will they change my enjoyment (though some do spend an odd amount of time on AoS boards when they clearly hate the game and it causes the opposite of enjoyment ).
@Bottle you're right, it does reek of last summer but if you look anywhere else but here, it's just fine. To those who want to play a game or change something about it, just try. Try really hard if you want to play it, or travel to an event that's close by. No one is telling you that you should play a game or invest in a game you don't like. Rather, I think you absolutely should not. Just move on to something you like and enjoy your hobby. It makes it so much more enjoyable for everyone.
@Bottle you're right, it does reek of last summer but if you look anywhere else but here, it's just fine. To those who want to play a game or change something about it, just try. Try really hard if you want to play it, or travel to an event that's close by. No one is telling you that you should play a game or invest in a game you don't like. Rather, I think you absolutely should not. Just move on to something you like and enjoy your hobby. It makes it so much more enjoyable for everyone.
Gotta agree with that! With events like Realms at War in the UK and Holy Hammer in the US there are also big narrative play events being run in the communities. Even if you don't live close by or can't make it, both show it can be done. So if you want to play narrative play all it takes is a bit of work but players are willing.
I would like to go to a narrative event in the future (I really wanted to go to RAW but the trip is too expensive sadly). In the meantime I am having a great time with the GHB.
WayneTheGame wrote: I have zero problem with using points, I just wish people weren't so narrow-minded and inflexible that they refuse to actually talk about something first and instead need to fit it into the existing mindset, but again that's "pickup game culture" in the US. No real community just a bunch of "customers" who go to a specific store and all happen to play the same game. So what you have is instead of a community coming together because there are 10 people who all regularly see each other (although maybe not play against each other) at a game shop, and thus deciding hey maybe we should form a gaming club and expand out because all of us play the game, it stays as what is functionally like most people's relationships with their co-workers are. Again I mostly speak to experience but I see too much of what is basically a "turf" around a particular store, with rivalries forming between stores and animosity growing at people who tend to frequent this store instead of that store, when what I should be seeing is a community and a club forming that goes to all of the stores in the area, without being tied down to any particular one, or even needing a game store at all to form around.
This is generalizing way too much. For example, the X-Wing community where I play exists almost entirely at stores and yet people are more than just anonymous opponents. We talk outside of game nights, we go out for social time after the store closes, etc. The only difference between this and your idea of a great game club is that we don't have to pay rent for space outside of a store. Oh, and because X-Wing has a working point system, we don't need to do any pre-game negotiation. We just show up, put models on the table, and play games. And we can chat about other stuff while setting up instead of negotiating over how many ships we should be allowed to bring.
WayneTheGame wrote: How many battalions are now invalidated because they don't have points associated? Any of the "boxed armies" like the Pestilens one or the Flesh Eater one has a battalion with it that's now not worth the paper it's printed on because nobody is going to let you play it because "it doesn't have points!". Summoning, broken as it might be with a powergaming munchkin type, is gutted when you have to spend points on something that may or may not even show up; Death got hit pretty damn hard by that, hell my Flesh Eater Courts, I don't have a Command Ability anymore because all of the Ghoul King's ones are "summon a new unit" but can't do that unless I set aside points to do it, because hey Matched Play. Could it be abused? Sure, but the answer wasn't to just make it almost not exist.
The problem here is not the existence of points, it's that GW made a mediocre attempt at adding a point system. The solution is a better point system (whether from GW or a third-party system), not removing points.
It's not "points are bad" it's that points, once introduced, quickly become the "default" standard and anything that doesn't conform becomes the exception and not the rule, when Matched Play should be the exception and not the rule.
That's because points are vastly superior to any alternative, even in the most casual narrative game. Points should be the default.
The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.
I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things.
No, the game loses nothing. Anything that can be done with a no-points system can be done just fine with points.
As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated.
This is a problem with having an incomplete point system, not point systems in general. The solution is to add points to the missing units, not to play without points. Arguing otherwise is like pointing out that the painters missed a spot in your new house, so you should burn the whole thing down and go live in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.
I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.
On the other hand, my experience of D&D in that era most of the "I can't use this" complaints were from people who found some broken combo and were mad that they couldn't exploit it. I don't think I ever saw a character concept that couldn't be represented by the WOTC material, especially once the various supplements were updated. So no, I don't have much sympathy for the people who couldn't use overpowered unofficial stuff.
Also, note that D&D's biggest competition came from a third-party version that people embraced because it was good.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.
I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.
This is not sarcastic: @WtG I'm truly sorry you're running into these gaming groups. When we add formations from RGW or legacy or anything not in current GHB and are running Matched Play (my least fav of the three) we just agree on a price, usually we cost it too high, but oh well. If you can get a game of open or narrative play it's an excellent opportunity to try this stuff out. Hope your gaming experiences gets better.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a great number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.
I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.
This is not sarcastic: @WtG I'm truly sorry you're running into these gaming groups. When we add formations from RGW or legacy or anything not in current GHB and are running Matched Play (my least fav of the three) we just agree on a price, usually we cost it too high, but oh well. If you can get a game of open or narrative play it's an excellent opportunity to try this stuff out. Hope your gaming experiences gets better.
It's just how games are in Tampa. AOS is fairly unpopular here, at least one store actively pushes against it because they have a bunch of KoW players, it's mostly 40k (tends to be 100% pickup game/semi-competitive play) and then like Warmachine and X-Wing. The idea of playing without points is an anathema to people.
WayneTheGame wrote: The problem is not points, it's that points become the "ONLY" way to play, so the game loses out on a ton of other things. As already stated, there are battalions and scenarios that will never see the light of day because they don't have points associated. Whether or not GW did a mediocre attempt at adding a point system, the fact remains that it's out and has become "the" way to play, with no deviation because people no longer want to use some alternative point system they found online or whatnot, it's GHB or bust because it came from GW, hence it's "official". I saw the same stuff in D&D years ago; there were a ton of third-party books that could have added a gr eat number of things, but it wasn't from WOTC so nobody wanted to touch it, citing the same kind of "But how do we know it's balanced!" kind of thing, when it's not like half the crap WOTC was putting out for 3.5 was balanced either, or good, but again it carries the seal of approval so it has to be what gets used.
I don't even hate the points in the GHB. I do find that it curtails my Flesh Eater Courts due to the summoning (it basically means my Ghoul King does not get a Command Ability at all) but other than that I find it adequate EXCEPT for the fact that people don't want to think of anything to add to it. People are too caught up in the idea that points magically balance things that they're unwilling to deviate from that.
This is not sarcastic: @WtG I'm truly sorry you're running into these gaming groups. When we add formations from RGW or legacy or anything not in current GHB and are running Matched Play (my least fav of the three) we just agree on a price, usually we cost it too high, but oh well. If you can get a game of open or narrative play it's an excellent opportunity to try this stuff out. Hope your gaming experiences gets better.
It's just how games are in Tampa. AOS is fairly unpopular here, at least one store actively pushes against it because they have a bunch of KoW players, it's mostly 40k (tends to be 100% pickup game/semi-competitive play) and then like Warmachine and X-Wing. The idea of playing without points is an anathema to people.
Well, I used to do a worldwide LARP with many folks from Tampa and clearly they were all cheesy so I can see how that would bleed over j/k/ But that is a bummer.
2 things 1: Points are necessary for even open play in most cases. sure you can throw out the summoning restrictions, the rules of 3, battle roles and what have you and still have a good time if you and your opponent agree to it, but without points to give you a vague idea of how strong things are you're left doing 200 games of playtesting to figure out exactly how strong things are relative to each other and then 1 person will blame 'that broken unit' for losing everytime. Points are helpful for ballparking power levels and saving time.
2: Shut up about balance. Seriously shut up. Yes it's unbalanced and has lists and units that are clearly head and shoulders better than others but, because of how sigmar is designed, in general no list is truly unbeatable and everything can kill everything else. That's as good as balance gets in most games. 40k fails because you have units you need 2000 wounds on to kill a model. Sigmar is on the same level as Warmahordes (although they have better FACTION balance) and X-wing, you bring a trash x-point list to a tourney and you're gonna get your butt fed to you. Bring a tough x-point list and you have a shot if you play well. The game is not perfectly balanced and SHOULD NOT be perfectly balanced (although they can certainly get closer) Aos is fine, fun and brand new, hope for improvements sure but for god's sake if you're not having fun than you can definitely play something else until the GHB comes out next year.
2 reasons:
1: It seemed like a better idea in paper.
2: To change the player base (i.e. get the very competitive people to rage quit), because GW wanted to make a casual game.
hobojebus wrote: To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.
Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.
To each their own but while I get being angry that GW blew up WHFB, AOS is actually a pretty good game from my VERY limited (handful of games) experience. It feels way better than 40k, for example (to the point where I might actually put 40k on hold in favor of AOS), but it is definitely different than WHFB. I'm fully on an AOS kick right now, like the game itself seems fresh (few outliers), has a lot of customization (for the rare times that gets used thanks to TGH), and is overall less of a huge money sink. But I agree that AOS should have been something else than what it was, if only to avoid invalidating everything from WHFB. Like, it seems it could have been done as a post-End Times WHFB that allowed for both individual models like AOS and full ranks like WHFB (I guess like LOTR worked then?)
AoS with out points was to me a really cool idea.
My friend explained to to me. you just take you units/collection.
With out points you don't need a list. You agree to how you want to play, like the number of units you want something like that and as uits are set up by your opponent you simply go through your collection setting up a counter unit. Easy as that.
I think that's an interesting way to play, especially if you already have a collection. I'm not overly sure how that would balance out good or bad against the newer armies. I would expect the AoS armies to be better over all than the older WFB armies.
I know don't like points as they establish the value vs cost thing.. But it is what it is.
hobojebus wrote: To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.
Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.
Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.
Wayniac wrote: And it didn't work because those undesirables instead just decried the game and essentially forced points being added
Yes, it's the TFGWAAC haters fault that GW added points, and not that AoS wasn't selling as well as GW had hoped, and they made the decision to try and win back some of the old WFB crowd by giving them what they wanted.
The AoS "experiment" didn't work, because it was trying to appeal to an audience that simply wasn't big enough to support it.
hobojebus wrote: To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.
Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.
Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.
Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...
It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.
As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.
auticus wrote: Gaming culture is too competitive to ever allow something like the AOS experiment to work.
Sad but true, however I do like how the fact AOS' rules are very lightweight and straightforward also means it's very easy to add things on the fly or change things up for scenarios, without nearly as much a hassle as it would be to do the same in 40k.
auticus wrote: Gaming culture is too competitive to ever allow something like the AOS experiment to work.
Sad but true, however I do like how the fact AOS' rules are very lightweight and straightforward also means it's very easy to add things on the fly or change things up for scenarios, without nearly as much a hassle as it would be to do the same in 40k.
The problem stems mainly from the fact when several rules do nearly the same. This should be streamlined. And neither of the Warhammer games is doing this particularly well.
hobojebus wrote: To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.
Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.
Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.
Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...
It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.
As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.
Once I find the link on Faeit212 I'll hand it to you but as far as I remember it made 35 percent of GW's income in contrast to fantasy's 5% (and that was 2015's data versus 2016).
And if you don't get an update in years, you can get another army. It's not like bretonians were the only army in the game, weren't they? Personally I find it mindboggling that people will pidgeonhole themselves in one very strict set of tactics and one can amass many armies across the years (feth I'm not rich but I've been able to build a couple of decent armies across the years). Nevertheless your opinion seems to be set in stone and a 1 year setting will be always inferior to one of 30 years and a fuckton of nostlagia. You're totally not being biased in the very least,
hobojebus wrote: To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.
Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.
Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.
Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...
It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.
As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.
Once I find the link on Faeit212 I'll hand it to you but as far as I remember it made 35 percent of GW's income in contrast to fantasy's 5% (and that was 2015's data versus 2016).
And if you don't get an update in years, you can get another army. It's not like bretonians were the only army in the game, weren't they? Personally I find it mindboggling that people will pidgeonhole themselves in one very strict set of tactics and one can amass many armies across the years (feth I'm not rich but I've been able to build a couple of decent armies across the years). Nevertheless your opinion seems to be set in stone and a 1 year setting will be always inferior to one of 30 years and a fuckton of nostlagia. You're totally not being biased in the very least,
But what if I want to play Dark Eldar, and not one of a dozen different flavors of Space Marines? "Just pick a new army" isn't exactly an option for some people, whether economically, or just due to a lack of interest. But silly me, there I go again, expecting GW to support their own product.
I've though a lot about the number of armies I've collected over the 20 years I've been playing 40K and don't plan to go that rout with AoS. Two armies tops and thy have to be different.
hobojebus wrote: To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.
Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.
Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.
Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...
It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.
As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.
Once I find the link on Faeit212 I'll hand it to you but as far as I remember it made 35 percent of GW's income in contrast to fantasy's 5% (and that was 2015's data versus 2016).
And if you don't get an update in years, you can get another army. It's not like bretonians were the only army in the game, weren't they? Personally I find it mindboggling that people will pidgeonhole themselves in one very strict set of tactics and one can amass many armies across the years (feth I'm not rich but I've been able to build a couple of decent armies across the years). Nevertheless your opinion seems to be set in stone and a 1 year setting will be always inferior to one of 30 years and a fuckton of nostlagia. You're totally not being biased in the very least,
35% without proper context is a meaningless number how do you know it's not outselling wfb because 40k sales took a massive dive?
As for "just buy another army" that's just an asinine response people want to play the army they love not the army that's most up to date, I don't want to buy X just because GW's neglected Y.
I own multiple armies 4 fantasy 6 40k built over 20 years each because I liked the background so yeah I was kinda invested in the old world and took it personal when they blew it up and squated one of my armies.
So biased I may be but I'm not so mindlessly brand loyal I'm telling some one to just buy another army, that is some major cognitive dissonance on display.
A) There's no way warhammer 40k is selling less than a seventh of what it selled back in mid 2015, simple as that and specially considering the numbers I have from the spanish section.
B) It's actually a very good idea: I love chaos space marines (my slaaneshi renegades are still on the paintwork) but it's important for a player to think outside the box and be forced upon new preconceptions so as to reevaluate his strategies and do something else than: "HUH, do I charge my cavalry block here or there (just to make a very gross oversimplification). If the setting is so bland that nothing but ONE of the many many factions that came out in 30 years then chances are that you don't like the setting so much (not the case with you, I know) but rather the aesthetic and crunch of an army.
C) Don't think the others didn't give a damn about the Old World. Was it the best decision? Probably (mostly) not but it also opened for an interesting opportunity which is a setting that is basically the age of myths (the beginning coming after the fabled ragnarok).
D) On the cognitive dissonance don't lump me on the same cathergory as you, someone who's trashing AOS constantly in multiple threads for quite a few days and still hasn't left while being a major hipocrite (ie: having affirmed that they didn't make a good product for years and yet staying on the setting/game while accusing others of being "mindlessly brand loyal")
@Mangod, Ah, sorry to hear you're having a bad day. Hope things go better for you.
Semi-on topic, can I just say I applaud the people on this thread for staying on topic this long? In my limited Dakka experience these things tend to veer off pretty quickly.
On topic, I pretty much shrug at the points conundrum.
Both sides of competitive and casual players asked for them for balance reasons and for better quick set-up play.
It's unfortunate they're slowly taking over the Open Play style which granted so much creativity from the fanbase but such is the cost of necessary evils.
They're very useful, very popular and good for the overall development of AoS which is growing into a fun and popular game. Hopefully GW, or maybe even the fanbase, can do something to adapt the Open Play & narrative options to go along with points rather against them.
Just my observations, keep rolling the dice and having fun you guys.
Baron Klatz wrote: @Mangod, Ah, sorry to hear you're having a bad day. Hope things go better for you.
Semi-on topic, can I just say I applaud the people on this thread for staying on topic this long? In my limited Dakka experience these things tend to veer off pretty quickly.
On topic, I pretty much shrug at the points conundrum.
Both sides of competitive and casual players asked for them for balance reasons and for better quick set-up play.
It's unfortunate they're slowly taking over the Open Play style which granted so much creativity from the fanbase but such is the cost of necessary evils.
They're very useful, very popular and good for the overall development of AoS which is growing into a fun and popular game. Hopefully GW, or maybe even the fanbase, can do something to adapt the Open Play & narrative options to go along with points rather against them.
Just my observations, keep rolling the dice and having fun you guys.
Amen. I mean, open play wasn't perfect (it sure wasn't but I and my friends had good times as we used it as the basis for narrative scenarios and got good ideas with the rules they provided) but it was serviceable (I mean... the scenario of the ten nagashes was something ridiculous, who the hell buys ten of those). Nevertheless matched play will be good for tourneys or when I and my friends and the LGS. It gives more variety and will be a good framework to which work upon.
I was always hoping for photographic proof of that ever fearsome Nagash/Greater Daemon horde that constantly appeared in every competition and regular game.
Cameras must have always ran out of power by then, apparently.
Baron Klatz wrote: I was always hoping for photographic proof of that ever fearsome Nagash/Greater Daemon horde that constantly appeared in every competition and regular game.
Cameras must have always ran out of power by then, apparently.
LOL I do think a lot of the arguments against open play were straight up FUD and "Think of the children!" type of fear-mongering that rarely, if ever, happened in actual play, like something I once read about abusing the Sudden Death conditions by taking like 10 cannons or something, saying your Sudden Death condition is killing the enemy leader, and then proceeding to do that like the first turn with 10 cannon shots and claiming victory; I highly doubt anyone actually ever did that, it was just a "but what if" scenario used to vilify Open Play, little more than political mudraking. Like I get that some of it could be abused, but A) Why would someone abuse the rules just because they could, and B) If someone did, then just end the game because they're being a d-bag, and don't play them anymore, and spread the word that they're a d-bag who plays like that.
Like, I don't get why the community's answer to "don't be a tool" was "We need points to fix this" instead of handling it the old fashioned way. I'm not sad to see points added now, but I feel that the community could have (and did, see other not-points systems) easily solved it if they didn't have the desire to break everything down to ease of use for pickup games. I actually had a discussion about that today with someone while talking to a curious returning player; he was saying how summoning was "broken" because like you could infinite summon Pink Horrors (or was it Blue Horrors, I forget), and I'm sitting there thinking like, well the obvious answer there is to cap the number or tell your opponent to not be a jerk (along with the fact few people are going to buy that many Horrors just to abuse summoning), and then he was talking about how some comp systems wanted to balance things with Wounds, but then you could take like Archaeon or something with high wounds that can't easily be hurt, and it's still unbalanced, but again that gets solved by you know assuming both parties actually want to have an enjoyable game, not a one-sided snoozefest.
I think that a lot of the main issues with Open Play stem from people not wanting to do those things, or something.. I'm not quite sure, to me it seems like an easy solution. You both want an enjoyable game, not something that's going to end in 10 minutes or be a huge drawn out affair where one player has no chance of winning but you drag it out anyways; no person who expects to actually get games would try something like that, because nobody would take that kind of nonsense in a game. So why did it have to be codified?
auticus wrote: It stems from people that play competitively. If playing competitively you will actively seek to break the game if the game lets you.
If high level tournaments let you take as many nagashes and greater demons as you could, you'd have seen it.
It was mostly hearsay because there were no high level tournaments.
Yeah, I mean I hate to say it but the competitive players in general seem to just ruin everything they touch; trying to "break the game" should be secondary to you know winning because you are the better player, not because you have the most OP combos. I guess I just don't understand that mindset; even when I play a game competitively (e.g. Warmachine) I never try to break the game or use broken combos, I mean I will use strong things but it's always within reason because I'd rather win due to using better tactics, not because technically the rules allow me to do X and X is almost game-winning by itself.
Baron Klatz wrote: I was always hoping for photographic proof of that ever fearsome Nagash/Greater Daemon horde that constantly appeared in every competition and regular game.
Cameras must have always ran out of power by then, apparently.
LOL I do think a lot of the arguments against open play were straight up FUD and "Think of the children!" type of fear-mongering that rarely, if ever, happened in actual play, like something I once read about abusing the Sudden Death conditions by taking like 10 cannons or something, saying your Sudden Death condition is killing the enemy leader, and then proceeding to do that like the first turn with 10 cannon shots and claiming victory; I highly doubt anyone actually ever did that, it was just a "but what if" scenario used to vilify Open Play, little more than political mudraking. Like I get that some of it could be abused, but A) Why would someone abuse the rules just because they could, and B) If someone did, then just end the game because they're being a d-bag, and don't play them anymore, and spread the word that they're a d-bag who plays like that.
Like, I don't get why the community's answer to "don't be a tool" was "We need points to fix this" instead of handling it the old fashioned way. I'm not sad to see points added now, but I feel that the community could have (and did, see other not-points systems) easily solved it if they didn't have the desire to break everything down to ease of use for pickup games. I actually had a discussion about that today with someone while talking to a curious returning player; he was saying how summoning was "broken" because like you could infinite summon Pink Horrors (or was it Blue Horrors, I forget), and I'm sitting there thinking like, well the obvious answer there is to cap the number or tell your opponent to not be a jerk (along with the fact few people are going to buy that many Horrors just to abuse summoning), and then he was talking about how some comp systems wanted to balance things with Wounds, but then you could take like Archaeon or something with high wounds that can't easily be hurt, and it's still unbalanced, but again that gets solved by you know assuming both parties actually want to have an enjoyable game, not a one-sided snoozefest.
I think that a lot of the main issues with Open Play stem from people not wanting to do those things, or something.. I'm not quite sure, to me it seems like an easy solution. You both want an enjoyable game, not something that's going to end in 10 minutes or be a huge drawn out affair where one player has no chance of winning but you drag it out anyways; no person who expects to actually get games would try something like that, because nobody would take that kind of nonsense in a game. So why did it have to be codified?
Yup. You know what my reply was to anyone asking, "but what's to stop me from bringing X?" was well, 1) actually having all those models you just named, 2) the barriers which quickly arise as you even deploy about how not fun this going to be, and 3) common human decency. And those things never, ever happened. LOL, though I do love "think of the children!"
hobojebus wrote: GW didn't listen to the community they listened to their accountants and responded by doing the minimum amount of work.
Ghb isn't balanced it's better than no points but AoS isn't fixed it's still a poor game compared to other systems out there.
GW invited key tournament organisers to work with them on the GHB, as well as hired a key tournament figure into the Warhammer TV team, and opened up communication channels on Social Media.
And even better the guys who helped create the points understand that they didn't get it all 100% correct the first go around and are looking forward to things being tweaked in a near future re-release of GHB.
Seriously listen to Heelenhammer podcast if you are at all interested in AoS. I don't even pay for their insider stuff (but considering it) but it is really good. The Ninth Realm from Frontline has also been spectacular.
warhead01 wrote: My friend explained to to me. you just take you units/collection.
Yes, that's how it works. What it means is that the player with the most money to spend on buying a collection wins every game. This "pay to win" model might be good for GW's profits, but it sucks for the players.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: LOL I do think a lot of the arguments against open play were straight up FUD and "Think of the children!" type of fear-mongering that rarely, if ever, happened in actual play
Only because most people looked at what is possible without points, said the obvious "this is garbage" things, and played better games instead of AoS. Why buy a bunch of cannons or whatever to automatically win on turn 1 when you can spend that money on a better game and have more fun?
A) Why would someone abuse the rules just because they could
Because winning is fun.
B) If someone did, then just end the game because they're being a d-bag, and don't play them anymore, and spread the word that they're a d-bag who plays like that.
Shunning people from the community for not playing the game the way you want them to play it is not a substitute for making a good game. Good games do not require people to complain about "d-bag"s and try to persuade everyone to stop playing against them. If that's what AoS has to resort to then no-points AoS is garbage.
You both want an enjoyable game, not something that's going to end in 10 minutes or be a huge drawn out affair where one player has no chance of winning but you drag it out anyways; no person who expects to actually get games would try something like that, because nobody would take that kind of nonsense in a game. So why did it have to be codified?
It had to be codified because a point system tells you how to have a game like that. People don't want to spend their valuable time playing amateur game designer just to get the game to function. If GW hadn't published points for AoS the inevitable result would be that AoS failed and even the most stubborn players moved on to other games (including third-party point systems for AoS) where they can have enjoyable and balanced games without all of the extra work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Yeah, I mean I hate to say it but the competitive players in general seem to just ruin everything they touch; trying to "break the game" should be secondary to you know winning because you are the better player, not because you have the most OP combos.
Identifying the most powerful combos and figuring out how to use them most effectively is part of being a good player. The game begins at list construction, trying to say that it only counts once models are on the table and dice are rolling is like saying you shouldn't attack on the first three turns, because winning is supposed to be about who is the best player on turn 4+ and you shouldn't give yourself an unfair advantage at the start of turn 4.
I guess I just don't understand that mindset; even when I play a game competitively (e.g. Warmachine) I never try to break the game or use broken combos, I mean I will use strong things but it's always within reason because I'd rather win due to using better tactics, not because technically the rules allow me to do X and X is almost game-winning by itself.
Using X when X wins is winning because of better tactics. What you're actually describing is deliberately using bad tactics and expecting to win anyway (usually by playing against a weaker opponent that you can beat even without using the best tactics).
Sorry but I disagree with you. If someone makes a list that is totally not fun to play against (which can be done with or without points) and isn't ashamed about it then yeah shun the feth out of him, he deserves it because at the end of the day this is a game and the players SHOULD have fun. If you care so little about your opponent then get out. Seriously, the issue is: people are too lazy to want to further interact with people. And honestly that's shameful no matter how much you want to excuse it by saying "oh, they are socially akward".
Lord Kragan wrote: Sorry but I disagree with you. If someone makes a list that is totally not fun to play against (which can be done with or without points) and isn't ashamed about it then yeah shun the feth out of him, he deserves it because at the end of the day this is a game and the players SHOULD have fun. If you care so little about your opponent then get out. Seriously, the issue is: people are too lazy to want to further interact with people. And honestly that's shameful no matter how much you want to excuse it by saying "oh, they are socially akward".
Yeah. I mean, I want to win too but not at the cost of having fun and, perhaps more so, making sure my opponent has fun too. Usually the no nonsense WAAC mentality that Peregrine seems to espouse results in one player having fun, and the other often wondering why they wasted an entire day just to get steamrolled by some jerk who doesn't care about anything but themselves. This is still a social game, BOTH players should have fun, and if that means the WAAC type needs to not bring X because X is super good, then so be it. For a tournament, then sure bring your A game because the expected setup is that everyone else will too (and in that case the person who doesn't needs to have the right expectations going in). But casual games are the place to ensure both people are having a good time, not one getting blown out because there's no restraint and then, worse trying to justify it by saying that "winning is fun".
Shunning someone who makes for unfun games is the only way the community can deal with that sort of person, otherwise what often happens is that they run everyone else off, and everyone loses. I've heard several horror stories about how the WAAC types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making tournament-level lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few WAAC types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves. That's not limited to Warhammer, I've heard horror stories of Warmachine players who are too caught up in the old "page 5" and playing top tier lists all the time doing the same thing, and they are just as wrong (although I feel that Warmachine is a better outlet for that kind of lists, but still you don't bring a tournament list to a friendly game unless you're both practicing or something). If someone constantly brings OP lists that steamrolls their opponent, resulting in said opponent not having any enjoyment, then they absolutely need to be shunned because that sort of toxic behavior is what kills entire communities, and it's typically hard enough to get a real serious community going anyways because people tend to be too focused on themselves and not wanting to actually socialize with others.
Lord Kragan wrote: A) There's no way warhammer 40k is selling less than a seventh of what it selled back in mid 2015, simple as that and specially considering the numbers I have from the spanish section.
B) It's actually a very good idea: I love chaos space marines (my slaaneshi renegades are still on the paintwork) but it's important for a player to think outside the box and be forced upon new preconceptions so as to reevaluate his strategies and do something else than: "HUH, do I charge my cavalry block here or there (just to make a very gross oversimplification). If the setting is so bland that nothing but ONE of the many many factions that came out in 30 years then chances are that you don't like the setting so much (not the case with you, I know) but rather the aesthetic and crunch of an army.
C) Don't think the others didn't give a damn about the Old World. Was it the best decision? Probably (mostly) not but it also opened for an interesting opportunity which is a setting that is basically the age of myths (the beginning coming after the fabled ragnarok).
D) On the cognitive dissonance don't lump me on the same cathergory as you, someone who's trashing AOS constantly in multiple threads for quite a few days and still hasn't left while being a major hipocrite (ie: having affirmed that they didn't make a good product for years and yet staying on the setting/game while accusing others of being "mindlessly brand loyal")
A) but again you've got no numbers to confirm that, but I can point at icv2 and show you AoS isn't in the top 5 when wfb was.
B) no spending more money because the company just squated your old one is throwing away good money after bad.
C) I'm gonna point to total war warhammer and the smash success it is and say no trashing the old setting was not a good idea, AoS with its space dragons and endless realms is the laughing stock of every gaming board.
D) no I'd be a hypocrite if I were still playing and spending money on GW stuff while bashing them, I haven't spent a penny on GW products in over two years, I haven't played AoS since it destroyed my gaming group, I play the boxed games under duress because friends have spent money against my advice and want to feel like they didn't waste their money, I'm perfectly in sync with everything I have said, I'm here to stop this place from becoming an echo chamber, I'm here to let others know it's fine to not like the current situation and go elsewhere outside GW's walled garden because GW isn't the hobby it's just a small part of a bigger world.
GW's in my book of grudges and I'm not going to stop until they change course drastically or go bankrupt.
Lord Kragan wrote: A) There's no way warhammer 40k is selling less than a seventh of what it selled back in mid 2015, simple as that and specially considering the numbers I have from the spanish section. B) It's actually a very good idea: I love chaos space marines (my slaaneshi renegades are still on the paintwork) but it's important for a player to think outside the box and be forced upon new preconceptions so as to reevaluate his strategies and do something else than: "HUH, do I charge my cavalry block here or there (just to make a very gross oversimplification). If the setting is so bland that nothing but ONE of the many many factions that came out in 30 years then chances are that you don't like the setting so much (not the case with you, I know) but rather the aesthetic and crunch of an army. C) Don't think the others didn't give a damn about the Old World. Was it the best decision? Probably (mostly) not but it also opened for an interesting opportunity which is a setting that is basically the age of myths (the beginning coming after the fabled ragnarok). D) On the cognitive dissonance don't lump me on the same cathergory as you, someone who's trashing AOS constantly in multiple threads for quite a few days and still hasn't left while being a major hipocrite (ie: having affirmed that they didn't make a good product for years and yet staying on the setting/game while accusing others of being "mindlessly brand loyal")
A) but again you've got no numbers to confirm that, but I can point at icv2 and show you AoS isn't in the top 5 when wfb was.
B) no spending more money because the company just squated your old one is throwing away good money after bad.
C) I'm gonna point to total war warhammer and the smash success it is and say no trashing the old setting was not a good idea, AoS with its space dragons and endless realms is the laughing stock of every gaming board.
D) no I'd be a hypocrite if I were still playing and spending money on GW stuff while bashing them, I haven't spent a penny on GW products in over two years, I haven't played AoS since it destroyed my gaming group, I play the boxed games under duress because friends have spent money against my advice and want to feel like they didn't waste their money, I'm perfectly in sync with everything I have said, I'm here to stop this place from becoming an echo chamber, I'm here to let others know it's fine to not like the current situation and go elsewhere outside GW's walled garden because GW isn't the hobby it's just a small part of a bigger world.
GW's in my book of grudges and I'm not going to stop until they change course drastically or go bankrupt.
It's funny, I originally thought the AOS fluff was stupid too with the infinite realms and stuff. But it's really not that bad, it makes for a neat high fantasy type of thing. Now I absolutely agree I feel it would have been better to not blow up the old world and continue on past end times, like have Chaos on the brink of winning but stopped (hell can even have Sigmar return with the stormcasts worked in), so you have sort of a not quite post-apocalyptic setting. However, I feel the AOS fluff really is pretty good in many cases. It's actually fairly well thought out, and having the multitudes of realms make for interesting conversion and terrain building possibilities that didn't really exist in old WHFB, since it was decidedly "Not-Medieval Europe" in tone. I'm sad to see things like Bretonnia squatted because I loved that army specifically because it was clearly "French King Arthur", I remember an old Stillmania article from a few white dwarfs over 15 years ago, probably the best three-part series I've ever read and second only to the original Four Gamers, where he builds a bretonnian army and talks specifically about the fact since it's clearly based on Arthurian fantasy, it serves a great way to show people who may not be familiar with Warhammer what it's about, since they'll easily recognize the models as being medieval-looking knights. In fact I once used some Bretonnian knights for a history project in high school on heraldry! however I also understand the reasonings (even if I disagree with wanting to trademark everything).
I definitely agree though that it's good to go outside the "walled garden" though. I play Warhammer for very specific reasons (namely, cool models and casual/narrative type of gaming). I play Warmachine for competitive gaming. If I had people interested I would play historicals because I like ancient history (and not so ancient history). If I had people interested I would likely play Frostgrave for a warband-focused skirmish game, or Dropzone Commander for large-scale sci-fi conflics or a myriad of other games. That doesn't necessarily mean that Warhammer is a bad game (I mean, it IS a bad game, but people can still like it and want to play it is what I mean), but I do find that a lot of Warhammer players tend to not know/care/want to know about anything else; it's very cult like (no wonder they compare themselves to Apple, it's that same sort of mindset amongst the fans)
hobojebus and Peregrine, you're clearly playing the wrong game. No offence, not liking AoS is fine, really. I know it sucks that Warhammer is no longer what you want from a game. GW, is, however, under no obligation to consider what you want when they decide on the direction they want to go in.
GW wanted to target a market/type of gamer that you are not an example of, sorry I feel for you, AoS is not quite my style either.
Which is why I prefer Kings of War (Warmahordes would probably be down my alley too). Warhammer is no longer the only fantasy wargame, play the one that suits you and please leave the people who do enjoy AoS alone.
On the topic of whether AoS is a good game or not: that depends on how you measure the quality of a game.
I would argue that the we measure that on what the game was intended to be (or presented as).
In that case AoS is a good game, it's rules light and down plays list building and optimizing, which is great for a casual game that AoS is intended to be. It is a terrible game for someone who want to test their mind against another though.
Not having points is not such a bad idea for a game that is meant to be played casually and definitely declared AoS to be such a game. Having some kind of approximate measure of an army's power does make it easier to set a game up though.
One simple question, why are you still here then? It's been a year already, fantasy isn't going back and you've clearly stated you don't clearly like AoS, that is a bad game. What do you think you're accomplishing here, saving us from a game we actually like because we didn't go and think about how breaking the game since we actually want to ENJOY it instead of breaking it?
You yourself said it: no good game would allow. I wouldn't allow for 10 nagashes, mainly telling the dude in question that he had been a moron and wasted a thousand dollars and didn't want to play against such a boring army. Those things could only be feasible in the naysayer's minds or in cases where people mutually agreed to try and break it together between eacht other, which is fine if that way they have fun between each other.
But no, you and your entitlement need to go and sneer at people commenting how bad is the thing they are enjoying and how they are mightly clubbering the Big Bad Company's knees, since the crisis or other external factor's couldn't have "influenced". By the way, did you know that in this year their finances have IMPROVED? (moderately but it's still an improvement, specially considering that 40k IS declining) B-b-but you and your mighty cohorts of rightfully angered customers are not buying anymore!? How can it be!? Could it be that there was a transition and thus the initial stages weren't as good as the end times of the old setting? Could it be that they have been replacing the mob of salty fans who were impossible to satisfy (I want them to advance the plotlin- to oh no they killed X character, I want them to go back... what the hell are you doing reversing the story!? Backpedaling cowards!) by another one?
Come on let's not devolve this into an argument. We are all having a semi-decent discussion here (although some folks are a bit "passionate" about their viewpoints).
I get Hobojebus' viewpoint, even if I don't agree (because "breaking" AOS on the first day IMHO speaks volumes to the player, not necessarily the game itself, especially when the game straight up says it's more of a social game and you should talk to your opponent).
I'm sorry but I just imagine like this stereotypical nerd (you know the kind, morbidly obese, Gandalf type beard, glasses, smelly) cackling with glee over finding this "killer combo" and relishing how he's going to "pwn all those noobs" at the game shop with it. A bit far-fetched perhaps but the idea that someone is going to immediately focus on ways to break the game or abuse the rules, as I said before, speaks more to the type of player and less so to the game.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah. I mean, I want to win too but not at the cost of having fun and, perhaps more so, making sure my opponent has fun too. Usually the no nonsense WAAC mentality that Peregrine seems to espouse results in one player having fun, and the other often wondering why they wasted an entire day just to get steamrolled by some jerk who doesn't care about anything but themselves. This is still a social game, BOTH players should have fun, and if that means the WAAC type needs to not bring X because X is super good, then so be it. For a tournament, then sure bring your A game because the expected setup is that everyone else will too (and in that case the person who doesn't needs to have the right expectations going in). But casual games are the place to ensure both people are having a good time, not one getting blown out because there's no restraint and then, worse trying to justify it by saying that "winning is fun".
Why does the "WAAC" player have an obligation to deliberately use bad strategies while their opponent seems to have no obligation to get better at the game and bring stronger lists/strategies?
Shunning someone who makes for unfun games is the only way the community can deal with that sort of person, otherwise what often happens is that they run everyone else off, and everyone loses.
No, the way to deal with it is to play good games that are balanced enough to handle a person bringing strong lists. For example, when I play X-Wing it works just fine if people bring competitive lists. AoS with points is at least a step in the right direction.
I've heard several horror stories about how the WAAC types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making tournament-level lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few WAAC types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.
I've heard several horror stories about how the "casual" types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making weak "casual" lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few "casual" types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.
DarkBlack wrote: hobojebus and Peregrine, you're clearly playing the wrong game. No offence, not liking AoS is fine, really. I know it sucks that Warhammer is no longer what you want from a game. GW, is, however, under no obligation to consider what you want when they decide on the direction they want to go in.
GW wanted to target a market/type of gamer that you are not an example of, sorry I feel for you, AoS is not quite my style either.
Of course GW is under no obligation to make a good product. They're free to publish garbage aimed at a "market" that doesn't exist, and make design decisions that hurt "casual" players. And I don't play AoS, especially no-points AoS. But this is a discussion of "why no-points AoS is bad", not "how much money does everyone spend on AoS".
Not having points is not such a bad idea for a game that is meant to be played casually and definitely declared AoS to be such a game.
No, it's a terrible idea for a game that is meant to be played casually. A casual game should be playable "out of the box" with no time spent on negotiation how to balance it, and that means points.
Wayniac wrote: Yeah. I mean, I want to win too but not at the cost of having fun and, perhaps more so, making sure my opponent has fun too. Usually the no nonsense WAAC mentality that Peregrine seems to espouse results in one player having fun, and the other often wondering why they wasted an entire day just to get steamrolled by some jerk who doesn't care about anything but themselves. This is still a social game, BOTH players should have fun, and if that means the WAAC type needs to not bring X because X is super good, then so be it. For a tournament, then sure bring your A game because the expected setup is that everyone else will too (and in that case the person who doesn't needs to have the right expectations going in). But casual games are the place to ensure both people are having a good time, not one getting blown out because there's no restraint and then, worse trying to justify it by saying that "winning is fun".
Why does the "WAAC" player have an obligation to deliberately use bad strategies while their opponent seems to have no obligation to get better at the game and bring stronger lists/strategies?
Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".
The WAAC player is someone who does not care for a game to be a fair or balanced affair. They want to crush the other player, period.
A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.
Shunning someone who makes for unfun games is the only way the community can deal with that sort of person, otherwise what often happens is that they run everyone else off, and everyone loses.
No, the way to deal with it is to play good games that are balanced enough to handle a person bringing strong lists. For example, when I play X-Wing it works just fine if people bring competitive lists. AoS with points is at least a step in the right direction.
It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.
I've heard several horror stories about how the WAAC types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making tournament-level lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few WAAC types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.
I've heard several horror stories about how the "casual" types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making weak "casual" lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few "casual" types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves.
I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?
Because realistically, in many of those stories? I suspect you'll find out that it was the WAAC player being gradually ostracized for being a jerk.
Win At All Costs. That's WAAC stands for: it means that entertainment be damned, oppoenent input be damned, etc. only the win and the VPs are what matters. This is the problem of the superfriends lists, I suppose we must bring an ironstar if they bring a barkstar, apparently. And don't come with x-wing when I've seen lists utterly trash others in a one sided slaughter.
And curiously enough we can play good games because guess what: we actually communicate and give input to each other regarding how more engaging we can make the match.
Point in case: I and my opponent argued the lists, wondering what we'd like to bring and how we'd counter each other. Then we played and gave tips and inputs to each other. We had a good balanced game that was fun (and epic, that loss of mine was a good comeback on his part). But if someone comes says: I've brought this, I'm going to win, let's play. And his input never goes beyond how to remove my models without ANY interaction with me you can guess that game won't be good and it can happen with ANY game.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".
I'm not saying this. But that's the way other people are using WAAC: to describe someone who brings a powerful list and tries to win, not someone who rules lawyers/cheats/etc and actually does whatever it takes to win.
A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.
Sure, and then the good competitive player can say "you're obviously not trying to win, I'll play someone else". A competitive game does not, however, include "I'm going to deliberately make bad decisions so that you can have a better chance of winning".
It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.
No, it was adding a first way to play. AoS without points is a dead game. AoS with points has at least a chance of working.
I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?
This thread stands as a pretty good example, where people are gleefully celebrating the idea banning anyone who takes a list that is "too powerful".
XWing has this same issue yes. If you are playing xwing competitively and are not running one of the max combo lists, you are going to have a very difficult time.
Warmahordes has the same feature.
Which splits down into those that think if you are good at the game then you should be chasing the meta and using top tier lists or else you are not good, and the other camp which wants to have a good game without having to resort to fielding one of the uber lists.
GHB points help add structure to AOS. That was good. As far as balance, they are pretty shoddy. IMO. YMMV.
WAAC is a player that will do anything to win. They are usually power gamers too, but not all power gamers are WAAC. Powergamers will gleefully break the game if its in the rules to do so, but WAAC players will go a step beyond and also cheat where they can get away with it.
To some that is the same basic difference but technically its not. A power gamer is just breaking the game within the confines of the rules. A waac player is breaking the game and cheating when they can get away with it as well.
auticus wrote: XWing has this same issue yes. If you are playing xwing competitively and are not running one of the max combo lists, you are going to have a very difficult time.
Warmahordes has the same feature.
Which splits down into those that think if you are good at the game then you should be chasing the meta and using top tier lists or else you are not good, and the other camp which wants to have a good game without having to resort to fielding one of the uber lists.
GHB points help add structure to AOS. That was good. As far as balance, they are pretty shoddy. IMO. YMMV.
WAAC is a player that will do anything to win. They are usually power gamers too, but not all power gamers are WAAC. Powergamers will gleefully break the game if its in the rules to do so, but WAAC players will go a step beyond and also cheat where they can get away with it.
To some that is the same basic difference but technically its not. A power gamer is just breaking the game within the confines of the rules. A waac player is breaking the game and cheating when they can get away with it as well.
I'm actually reminded of WotC and how they categorize the people who play MtG:
"A Timmy/Tammy is characterized by their tendency to use big creatures and cast big spells. Large, exciting plays motivate them. Timmies are most associated with playing for fun, and all kinds of huge creatures, fantastic spells, and mythical enchantments. They are the most social archetype, enjoying the interaction that Magic provides. A stereotypical Timmy/Tammy is usually a younger player with a simple (yet fun for them) deck. They do not care whether they win or lose, but want to have fun playing really big effects.
Some subgroups of Timmies are:
Power Gamers love playing big creatures and big spells as they smash their way to victory. They equate power with fun.
Social Gamers thrive on the social aspect of the game. Their only interest is interacting with their friends. Thus, they tend towards multiplayer variants.
Diversity Gamers experience all the different deck types and formats. They always try something different because they enjoy constant exploration.
Adrenalin Gamers enjoy the variance in the game, playing cards and decks that don't have a predictable outcome. They love cards that work differently each time you play them like coin flip cards.
Timmies see Johnnies as too focused on certain combos and Spikes too bent on winning.
A Johnny/Jenny is characterized by their tendency to build complex and creative decks. Johnny/Jenny is most commonly known as a 'combo player', and they sometimes choose for elaborate but ineffective win conditions. They like to find interesting combinations of cards that can win the game or give them an advantage. Johnny may be a player who seeks niche cards, or cards widely reputed as bad, and tries to "break" them, exploiting them in ways to give abnormal power and win the game. Johnnies are happiest when their decks work and they win their way; for them, one in many leaves them happy, if that win is on their own terms.
Some subgroups of Johnnies are:
Combo Players are fascinated by the interaction of the cards. They find combinations that no one else has. They want to build decks that will impress all who see them.
Offbeat Designers are driven by ideas. They are proving their ability to find answers for any challenge. What if the deck only had lands? What if the deck never played permanents?
Deck Artists use deck building as a form of self-expressive art. They build decks that do things like embody the elf culture, for example.
Uber Johnny thrives on doing the undoable. He proves that what conventional wisdom says can't be done, can be done. To him, no card is too bad to find a use for like One with Nothing.
Johnnies see Timmies as simplistic and Spikes as uptight and unoriginal.
A Spike (of any gender) is characterized by their competitive nature and they play primarily to prove how good they are. Spike will find the best deck in the format, even if it requires copying another innovator's work (see netdecking). Spike's cards are effective, designed to secure a fast and effective victory over opponents. If Spike plays several games and loses only one, but feels they should have won it, they may be malcontent.
Some subgroups of Spikes are:
Innovators pride themselves on their ability to judge new cards. Their goal is to find the next broken thing. Their dream is to spawn the next dominant deck.
Tuners try to dominate by fine-tuning the known decks. Known as min/maxers in the role-playing side of gaming.
Analysts plan on winning not by having the best deck in a vacuum, but by having the deck best suited for any particular environment. They are very focused on the sideboard.
Nuts & Bolts focuses their energies in perfecting their own gameplay. They try to understand their own internal flaws and work to improve them. They tend to spend more of their time on Limited formats.
Spikes see Timmies as rookies and Johnnies as eccentric and annoying."
The problem with AoS is that it was seemingly designed to appeal to "Timmy" alone.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".
I'm not saying this. But that's the way other people are using WAAC: to describe someone who brings a powerful list and tries to win, not someone who rules lawyers/cheats/etc and actually does whatever it takes to win.
A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.
Sure, and then the good competitive player can say "you're obviously not trying to win, I'll play someone else". A competitive game does not, however, include "I'm going to deliberately make bad decisions so that you can have a better chance of winning".
It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.
No, it was adding a first way to play. AoS without points is a dead game. AoS with points has at least a chance of working.
I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?
This thread stands as a pretty good example, where people are gleefully celebrating the idea banning anyone who takes a list that is "too powerful".
Peregrine, you seem to be a master at distorting other people's words: when did he EVER say the competitive player out to make bad decissions? If by bad decissions means: I'm going to build a cool looking army that is strong but not over the top unbeatable or ridiculously BORING to play against, then check your perspective.
Also AoS has been well alive and quite strong I must say for this last year. But hey you're a guru of finances so you must know what you talk about.
Celebrating that a jerk is gone is hardly something to be held against someone. It goes beyond the list's power, something you don't seem to grasp.
And honestly this thread ought to be locked since we are simply going in a circular discussion.
Kanluwen wrote: Oh please. "WAAC" is not the same as competitive and you know this. Stop pretending that someone being "competitive" automatically equates to "WAAC".
I'm not saying this. But that's the way other people are using WAAC: to describe someone who brings a powerful list and tries to win, not someone who rules lawyers/cheats/etc and actually does whatever it takes to win.
That is adding caveats to something which is not necessarily the case. WAAC players are those who try to win at all costs. Period.
Cheating is something that is strictly restricted to cheaters. It has nothing to do with WAAC mentality. Cheaters are cheaters.
A good competitive player is someone who can understand what is or is not going to be a fun game for both players.
Sure, and then the good competitive player can say "you're obviously not trying to win, I'll play someone else". A competitive game does not, however, include "I'm going to deliberately make bad decisions so that you can have a better chance of winning".
Again, this is you adding caveats to something that is not necessarily the case.
I played Wood Elves in 8th. I could throw damn near everything I had at some of the higher tier armies, but if I didn't do everything absolutely perfect or I did not have one specific unit or upgrade?
It was game over. It had nothing to do with how competitive I or my opponent were or our lists. It had everything to do with the way their armies functioned.
It really wasn't. It was a way of effectively adding a second way to play; one which will push out the other versions in certain localities.
No, it was adding a first way to play. AoS without points is a dead game. AoS with points has at least a chance of working.
That's opinion, and it's an opinion not shared by everyone. AoS without points was a game that worked great when you had people who interacted socially on a regular basis and could talk to each other.
I'm sure you have...I haven't. Care to share some of them?
This thread stands as a pretty good example, where people are gleefully celebrating the idea banning anyone who takes a list that is "too powerful".
Lord Kragan wrote: Peregrine, you seem to be a master at distorting other people's words: when did he EVER say the competitive player out to make bad decissions? If by bad decissions means: I'm going to build a cool looking army that is strong but not over the top unbeatable or ridiculously BORING to play against, then check your perspective.
That's exactly what "bad decisions" means. If you're deliberately making bad choices in list building then you aren't playing competitively. Making a cool looking army that doesn't try too hard to win is fine, but it isn't competitive.
Also AoS has been well alive and quite strong I must say for this last year. But hey you're a guru of finances so you must know what you talk about.
That directly contradicts all of the information I've seen, that AoS was a failure on release and adding points was a recognition of this fact. We don't have GW's internal numbers, but the ones from third-party stores suggest pretty strongly that AoS was not selling well.
Celebrating that a jerk is gone is hardly something to be held against someone. It goes beyond the list's power, something you don't seem to grasp.
And yet all of the complaints about the "jerk" have to do with list power.
I'm pretty sure his "stories" were just done to turn around my sentence, since it was word for word the same but replaced WAAC with casual.
Anyways, as I said my issue is people who care ONLY about winning. You can win, you can be good at the game WITHOUT caring so much about winning that you deny your opponent fun. That is the definition of WAAC, beardy, cheesy, filthy, whatever the current term du jour is for "that type" of player who puts their own fun above their opponent's fun and having a good game.
I've played plenty of games in the past (and in Warmachine lately, which IS a competitive focused game) that were enjoyable, and both myself and my opponent had fun. In Warmachine, we always play to win, but we don't play to where one of us has fun and the other just wasted their time in an unwinnable or unenjoyable game.
The issue here is that people like Peregrine seem to equate the two together: One cannot have fun unless one wins, and therefore to win one must pull any and all stops allowed by the rules (key word there, I doubt Peregrine or anyone advocates CHEATING), maybe because it's "the rules" so they feel like they can do it even if it's borderline questionable (e.g. using a vague rule interpretation because your point is valid), but he seems to be the type of player who sees the game as a mental exercise that he can only enjoy if he wins the game; my problem is he seems to be advocating that it's okay for HIM to have fun if his opponent doesn't, by essentially playing the David Sirlin "scrub" card i.e. someone who doesn't want to pull anything short of cheating to win the game. The problem is that 40k is basically a game made for scrubs, by scrubs, and applying a Sirlin-esque mindset isn't how the game is intended to work. I've read his book, and it's a great book but it's nothing that applies to 40k. Now Warmachine or X-Wing perhaps.
Peregrine is basically arguing the equivalent of stating that Akuma in street fighter is way more powerful than everyone else in the game, so I'm going to use him all the time because he gives me the best chance of winning (the irony being that Sirlin talks about a hard ban on Akuma because he's so much more powerful that every competitive Street Fighter event would be Akuma vs. Akuma), and anyone who doesn't use Akuma is making a bad decision and not playing competitively.
That's not a bad decision, that's not minmaxing but semanthics, you clearly ain't going to change your opinion. Specially when brining the most over the top list shouldn't be done in a casual game which is our focus.
Not in Europe, the one i've seen have been greatly positive: there was a bit of letdown at the beginning (I'll admit it) and it has grown. You know, the USA ain't the center of the world, do you know it, don't you?
But, you don't understand it, nor will you ever be able to grasp it. Just look Deldar list previous to their codex getting the gutter: they would be balls to the wall mighty, razing tournaments... IF they pulled their plan pefectly. Against that list which required a mesmerizing skill and dance people wouldn't mind itl. Because it requires interaction and skill, deeds and doing.
Bringing an I-WIN button certainly doesn't look interesting to me and I'd like people to not bring it always.
Lord Kragan wrote: That's not a bad decision, that's not minmaxing but semanthics, you clearly ain't going to change your opinion. Specially when brining the most over the top list shouldn't be done in a casual game which is our focus.
Not in Europe, the one i've seen have been greatly positive: there was a bit of letdown at the beginning (I'll admit it) and it has grown. You know, the USA ain't the center of the world, do you know it, don't you?
But, you don't understand it, nor will you ever be able to grasp it. Just look Deldar list previous to their codex getting the gutter: they would be balls to the wall mighty, razing tournaments... IF they pulled their plan pefectly. Against that list which required a mesmerizing skill and dance people wouldn't mind itl. Because it requires interaction and skill, deeds and doing. Bringing an I-WIN button certainly doesn't look interesting to me and I'd like people to not bring it always.
Europe seems to think outside the box a lot in many games, I know in Warmachine for example the Europeans (and Australians) do things that nobody does in the US because they don't see it as working, yet it does.
But yes, you are absolutely right. The issue is that the counter argument is always how "casual" games are filled with people who don't want to "win", or that it's stopping people from playing what they want, basically turning around the argument of "fun" by talking about a hypothetical person whose fun comes from winning and whose "list they want to play" is some filth min-maxed list.
Just because I'm curious, someone mentioned Sirlin and the "Scrub-mentality" - what's your take on AoS vis-a-vis this:
"Consider two groups of players who play a non-degenerate game: a group of good players and a group of scrubs. The scrubs will play "for fun" and not explore the extremities of the game. They won't find the most effective tactics and abuse them mercilessly. The good players will. The good players will find incredibly overpowering tactics and patterns. As they play the game more, they'll be forced to find counters to those tactics. The majority of tactics that at first appear unbeatable end up having counters, though they are often difficult to discover. The counter tactic prevents the first player from doing the tactic, but the first player can then use a counter to the counter. The second player is now afraid to use the counter and they're again vulnerable to the original overpowering tactic. (See the Yomi Layer chapter of my book on Playing to Win or this more visual summary on yomi layers.)
Notice that the good players are reaching higher and higher levels of play. They found the "cheap stuff" and abused it. They know how to stop the cheap stuff. They know how to stop the other player from stopping it so they can keep doing it. And as is quite common in competitive games, many new tactics will later be discovered that make the original cheap tactic look wholesome and fair. Often in fighting games, one character will have something so good it's unfair. Fine, let him have that. As time goes on, it will be discovered that other characters have even more powerful and unfair tactics. Each player will attempt to steer the game in the direction of their own advantages, much how grandmaster chess players attempt to steer opponents into situations in which their opponents are weak.
The group of scrubs won't know the first thing about all the depth I've been talking about. Their argument is basically that ignorantly mashing buttons with little regard to actual strategy is more "fun." Or to be more charitable, their argument could be that the game becomes less fun if they use tactic X, or character X, or whatever. That might be true temporarily until they figure out how to beat whatever it is, but ultimately the experts are having a more nuanced exchange, more opportunity for expression, for clever plays, for smart strategies, and so on.
The scrubs' games might be more "wet and wild" than games between the experts, which are usually more controlled and refined. But any close examination will reveal that the experts are having a great deal of fun on a higher level than the scrub can imagine. Throwing together some circus act of a win isn't nearly as satisfying as reading your opponent's mind to such a degree that you can counter their every move, even their every counter.
And if the two groups meet, of course the experts will absolutely destroy the scrubs with any number of tactics they've either never seen, or never been truly forced to counter. This is because the scrubs have not been playing the same game. The experts were playing the actual game while the scrubs were playing their own homemade variant with restricting, unwritten rules. The actual game really should be more fun if it's not degenerate."
Garbage, honestly. It basically conflates the idea of pushing the game to its limits (finding new strategies) with never actually bothering to other aspects of the game that would come out of more laidback approaches (such as the narrative battles). It also seems to conflate good player with people with only the interest of winning, which is a WAAC. For that person there will be a 50% (or whatever percentatge you want to attribute) of the time that he won't have fun, AT ALL. Also there's more to this game thant the cheap stuff and you guys know it. If you abuse the cheap stuff you won't see the other stuff which may not fill the bill or counter it but it can be fun to play and all. At the end of the day what he's saying is simply: exploit "cheesy" combos damn it! In a game where exist thematic armies this shouldn't be the norm.
Also I love how isolationist is the article with the whole "abandon emotional baggage" bullpucky (I'm reading the article in sirlin.net). Honestly, I and my friend who plays freeguild will try and explore the games rules, thinking of tactics and counterstrategies. And we have fun because we take it laidback we tell us, ah nevermind, and don't bother TOO much. It is, after all, a game, and it doesn't need a bloody path to enlightement.
As I said, I don't think Sirlin can be applied to any Warhammer game. The game is much more meant to be a fun social thing than purely competitive. I do not think with Warhammer in particular that the "experts" are having more fun than the scrubs, because Warhammer is a game that specifically caters to scrubs and pushes scrub gameplay (remember: In this context scrub isn't derogatory)
I've read that particular passage (although I think you changed it, since I don't recall talk of a "degenerate game" in the version I'm familiar with), in fact I used it as an argument against my Warmachine group for NOT playing in a competitive manner but wanting to try weird "special snowflake" type lists or flat out say they would refuse to play against certain casters/models. So don't talk to me about Sirlin and "Scrub" mentality, because I'm familiar with it under the right circumstances, and like I said I used it (and still do once in a while) as a reason why Warmachine SHOULD be played competitively.
Warhammer, AOS in particular, is not the right circumstance for Sirlin, because A) how imbalanced the game is with or without points, and B) because the game is intended to be much more engaging than just "let's play a game and see who's better". Sirlin applies to a lot of games; competitive video gaming, Magic, I'd even say Warmachine and X-Wing (can't speak to like Infinity but maybe that too). But not Warhammer, and I only mentioned it because some folks here to seem to want to apply similar concepts to a game that doesn't support it. I wouldn't apply Sirlin's concepts to historical gaming either. Warhammer is actually closer to the part of Sirlin's book where he talks about hard and soft bans, again using Akuma (Street Fighter) as the example, Akuma is hard banned because he's so much more powerful than everyone else that there's zero reason NOT to use him if he was allowed (similar to Warhammer with many armies). The other example, Old Sagat, is soft banned not because he's breaking the game, but because he makes a few other choices invalid for play, so by agreeing not to use him (and, although it's not explicitly mentioned I'm guessing there's sort of an air of "cheating" if someone were to use him even though it's technically allowed, like it would taint victory and make the person out to be a jerk) the playing field is wider. I can find that quote again, but it's basically an example why Warhammer SHOULD enforce hard or soft bans even in competitive gaming simply because not doing so means that certain army choices can't be played with any reasonable expectation.
hobojebus wrote: AoS 1.0 flopped hard which is why 2.0 with points was rushed out so it's fair to say AoS was only for the die hard GW can do no wrong crowd who were far fewer than the wfb crowd.
The AoS community on reddit is now larger than the WHFB community ever was (and still growing), and much, much larger than the KoW community::
That directly contradicts all of the information I've seen, that AoS was a failure on release and adding points was a recognition of this fact. We don't have GW's internal numbers, but the ones from third-party stores suggest pretty strongly that AoS was not selling well.
I suspect your "information" is hearsay and rumors, likely as biased as many of the comments in this thread. Feel free to quote a credible source here with data please.
GW have flat out said AoS is selling better in their financial report than fantasy had in the past few years. That's the official word on the matter.
FYI here's the Sirlin part talking about hard/soft bans. This is how I think warhammer needs to be approached, rather than with "scrub" vs. "expert" mentality due to its gross imbalances.
Spoiler:
Japan, however, does not officially ban Akuma from tournaments! They have what is called a "soft ban." This is a tacit understanding amongst all top players that Akuma is too good to be played, and that he destroys an otherwise beautiful game, so they unofficially agree not to play him. There are always a very small number of people who do play him in tournaments, but never the top players. Usually a few poor players try their hand at the god-character and lose, which is utterly humiliating and crowd-pleasing. This is an interesting alternate take on the "hard ban" we have in America.
That's all well and good, but Japan has also shown signs of a soft-ban on another character in Super Turbo. I bring up this example because it lives on the threshold. It is just on the edge of what is reasonable to ban because it is "too good." Anything less than this would not be reasonable, so perhaps others can use it as a benchmark to decide what is reasonable in their games.
The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.
But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.
If someone had made these claims in the game's infancy, no sort of ban would be warranted. Further testing through tournaments would be warranted. But we now have ten years of testing. We don't have all Old Sagat vs. Old Sagat matches in tournaments, but we do know which characters can't beat him and as a result are very rarely played in America. We likewise can see that this same category of characters flourishes in Japan, where Old Sagats are rare and only played by the occasional violator of the soft ban. It seems that the added variety of viable characters might outweigh the lack of Old Sagat. Is this ban warranted then? To be honest, I am not totally convinced that it is, but it is just barely in the ballpark of reasonableness since there is a decade of data on which to base the claim.
The bolded part is where I think the comparison to warhammer comes into play. If you replace Old Sagat with various game-breaking things in 40k or AOS, you get the same result: Armies that are otherwise invalidated suddenly become viable options when you remove outliers tht "beats half the characters in the game" in Warhammer parlance.
Wayniac wrote: As I said, I don't think Sirlin can be applied to any Warhammer game. The game is much more meant to be a fun social thing than purely competitive. I do not think with Warhammer in particular that the "experts" are having more fun than the scrubs, because Warhammer is a game that specifically caters to scrubs and pushes scrub gameplay (remember: In this context scrub isn't derogatory)
I've read that particular passage (although I think you changed it, since I don't recall talk of a "degenerate game" in the version I'm familiar with), in fact I used it as an argument against my Warmachine group for NOT playing in a competitive manner but wanting to try weird "special snowflake" type lists or flat out say they would refuse to play against certain casters/models. So don't talk to me about Sirlin and "Scrub" mentality, because I'm familiar with it under the right circumstances, and like I said I used it (and still do once in a while) as a reason why Warmachine SHOULD be played competitively.
Warhammer, AOS in particular, is not the right circumstance for Sirlin, because A) how imbalanced the game is with or without points, and B) because the game is intended to be much more engaging than just "let's play a game and see who's better". Sirlin applies to a lot of games; competitive video gaming, Magic, I'd even say Warmachine and X-Wing (can't speak to like Infinity but maybe that too). But not Warhammer, and I only mentioned it because some folks here to seem to want to apply similar concepts to a game that doesn't support it. I wouldn't apply Sirlin's concepts to historical gaming either.
I copied and pasted the passage, so if it's changed, it was done by the original author.
Also, I don't think your point A) is a very good defense (although if it wasn't intended as one, I apologize in advance) - an imbalanced game is not a good one. Yes, asymetrical games are aplenty these days, but even then they try to find some equilibrium between different characters/factions/whatever.
I still maintain, however, that the lack of points/structured army building excludes more people than there are narrative players. Like the MtG comparison I posted above: Timmy is just interested in having a good time, but Jimmy can't find an outlet for his/her creativity when s/he's not given a frame to do so within, and Spike doesn't have a way to play because the narrative gaming that GW was selling excludes them.
motski wrote: GW have flat out said AoS is selling better in their financial report than fantasy had in the past few years. That's the official word on the matter.
But that doesn't prove anything. AoS might be selling better than WHFB, but WHFB was a dead game that had dropped off the lists of top selling games. What matters is how AoS compares to 40k/X-Wing/Warmachine/etc, and the third-party store reports (anecdotal as they may be) are that AoS wasn't selling well compared to other games. And the fact that GW released points for AoS after being so proud of their no-points "casual" game suggests that this is accurate. GW looked at sales of AoS, looked at the complaints of "this is garbage without points", and rushed out a point system to salvage the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: FYI here's the Sirlin part talking about hard/soft bans. This is how I think warhammer needs to be approached, rather than with "scrub" vs. "expert" mentality due to its gross imbalances.
Spoiler:
Japan, however, does not officially ban Akuma from tournaments! They have what is called a "soft ban." This is a tacit understanding amongst all top players that Akuma is too good to be played, and that he destroys an otherwise beautiful game, so they unofficially agree not to play him. There are always a very small number of people who do play him in tournaments, but never the top players. Usually a few poor players try their hand at the god-character and lose, which is utterly humiliating and crowd-pleasing. This is an interesting alternate take on the "hard ban" we have in America.
That's all well and good, but Japan has also shown signs of a soft-ban on another character in Super Turbo. I bring up this example because it lives on the threshold. It is just on the edge of what is reasonable to ban because it is "too good." Anything less than this would not be reasonable, so perhaps others can use it as a benchmark to decide what is reasonable in their games.
The character in question is the mysteriously named "Old Sagat." Old Sagat is not a secret character like Akuma (or at least he's not as secret!). Old Sagat does not have any moves like Akuma's air fireball that the game was not designed to handle. Old Sagat is arguably the best character in the game (Akuma, of course, doesn't count), but even that is debated by top players! I think almost any expert player would rank him in the top three of all characters, but there isn't even universal agreement that he is the best! Why, then, would any reasonable person even consider banning him? Surely, it must be a group of scrubs who simply don't know how to beat him, and reflexively cry out for a ban.
But this is not the case. There seems to be a tacit agreement amongst top players in Japan--a soft ban--on playing Old Sagat. The reason is that many believe the game to have much more variety without Old Sagat. Even if he is only second best in the game by some measure, he flat out beats half the characters in the game with little effort. Half the cast can barely even fight him, let alone beat him. Other top characters in the game, good as they are, win by much more interaction and more "gameplay." Almost every character has a chance against the other best characters in the game. The result of allowing Old Sagat in tournaments is that several other characters, such as Chun Li and Ken, become basically unviable.
If someone had made these claims in the game's infancy, no sort of ban would be warranted. Further testing through tournaments would be warranted. But we now have ten years of testing. We don't have all Old Sagat vs. Old Sagat matches in tournaments, but we do know which characters can't beat him and as a result are very rarely played in America. We likewise can see that this same category of characters flourishes in Japan, where Old Sagats are rare and only played by the occasional violator of the soft ban. It seems that the added variety of viable characters might outweigh the lack of Old Sagat. Is this ban warranted then? To be honest, I am not totally convinced that it is, but it is just barely in the ballpark of reasonableness since there is a decade of data on which to base the claim.
The bolded part is where I think the comparison to warhammer comes into play. If you replace Old Sagat with various game-breaking things in 40k or AOS, you get the same result: Armies that are otherwise invalidated suddenly become viable options when you remove outliers tht "beats half the characters in the game" in Warhammer parlance.
And you know what a better solution is? A balanced point system, with hard bans on problem units/upgrades/whatever if necessary to preserve the diversity of the game. Soft bans are just an excuse for being too lazy to fix the rules.
My point is that Warhammer is not going to be balanced like that, where Sirlin's opinion can be applied to it. But in all honesty I don't think we are going to get through to each other, especially not with someone like Peregrine who keeps reiterating the fact that Warhammer is a crap game designed by crappy people, which has never been refuted.
If I want a solid, competitive game, it sure as hell won't be warhammer. that doesn't mean I think warhammer should have things that turn it into that game.
Wayniac wrote: The problem is that 40k is basically a game made for scrubs, by scrubs, and applying a Sirlin-esque mindset isn't how the game is intended to work.
No, the problem is that AoS and 40k are garbage games made by lazy and incompetent game designers. Point systems, well designed balance, etc, all benefit "casual" players and the lack of those things hurts "casual" players. Nothing is gained for "casual" players by removing points, ignoring balance, publishing ambiguous rules that need negotiation over what interpretation you're going to use, etc. The only reason we have those problems in 40k and AoS is that GW either refuses to, or is incapable of, doing a better job.
Peregrine is basically arguing the equivalent of stating that Akuma in street fighter is way more powerful than everyone else in the game, so I'm going to use him all the time because he gives me the best chance of winning (the irony being that Sirlin talks about a hard ban on Akuma because he's so much more powerful that every competitive Street Fighter event would be Akuma vs. Akuma), and anyone who doesn't use Akuma is making a bad decision and not playing competitively.
Exactly. If you don't play Akuma (assuming he's as good as stated, I don't play the game at all) every time, outside of figuring out some other character that has a better chance of winning against an Akuma-heavy metagame, then you aren't playing competitively. The difference between AoS and Street Fighter is that the SF tournaments changed the rules of the game in a very clear way: Akuma is banned, period. There's no question of "is this 'too cheesy' to be fun", Akuma just no longer exists in the game. And you pick the best strategy in the new Akuma-free game and do whatever you can to win. This is like how tournaments for AoS used third-party rules to change the game and attempt to fix the balance problem. What you're talking about with AoS, on the other hand, is a system where people refuse to change the game and instead rely on social pressure and shunning people from the community if they play a list that is "too powerful" in some vague way that is never specified exactly.
Wayniac wrote: The problem is that 40k is basically a game made for scrubs, by scrubs, and applying a Sirlin-esque mindset isn't how the game is intended to work.
No, the problem is that AoS and 40k are garbage games made by lazy and incompetent game designers. Point systems, well designed balance, etc, all benefit "casual" players and the lack of those things hurts "casual" players. Nothing is gained for "casual" players by removing points, ignoring balance, publishing ambiguous rules that need negotiation over what interpretation you're going to use, etc. The only reason we have those problems in 40k and AoS is that GW either refuses to, or is incapable of, doing a better job.
Peregrine is basically arguing the equivalent of stating that Akuma in street fighter is way more powerful than everyone else in the game, so I'm going to use him all the time because he gives me the best chance of winning (the irony being that Sirlin talks about a hard ban on Akuma because he's so much more powerful that every competitive Street Fighter event would be Akuma vs. Akuma), and anyone who doesn't use Akuma is making a bad decision and not playing competitively.
Exactly. If you don't play Akuma (assuming he's as good as stated, I don't play the game at all) every time, outside of figuring out some other character that has a better chance of winning against an Akuma-heavy metagame, then you aren't playing competitively. The difference between AoS and Street Fighter is that the SF tournaments changed the rules of the game in a very clear way: Akuma is banned, period. There's no question of "is this 'too cheesy' to be fun", Akuma just no longer exists in the game. And you pick the best strategy in the new Akuma-free game and do whatever you can to win. This is like how tournaments for AoS used third-party rules to change the game and attempt to fix the balance problem. What you're talking about with AoS, on the other hand, is a system where people refuse to change the game and instead rely on social pressure and shunning people from the community if they play a list that is "too powerful" in some vague way that is never specified exactly.
Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.
That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.
Japan, however, does not officially ban Akuma from tournaments! They have what is called a "soft ban." This is a tacit understanding amongst all top players that Akuma is too good to be played, and that he destroys an otherwise beautiful game, so they unofficially agree not to play him. There are always a very small number of people who do play him in tournaments, but never the top players. Usually a few poor players try their hand at the god-character and lose, which is utterly humiliating and crowd-pleasing. This is an interesting alternate take on the "hard ban" we have in America.
So basically, the "scrub" players are the ones who use the "OP combos" and as a result suck because they're expecting to win just because they're playing an OP character. I don't think that happens in Warhammer tournaments, at least not to the point where the good players aren't doing it, and the poor players are and still getting beat. In fact, I tend to see the opposite, a poor player with an OP list can steamroll a good player with what you would call a "scrub" list. I'm not saying that's not a problem with the game (because it IS) but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"
The disconnect here is that you keep saying how Warhammer is a bad game with bad balance, but everyone knows this. Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it. Yes, the game is bad and the rules are bad. But that doesn't mean it's not fun if you play with like-minded people. That's my thing. I would not play warhammer if I want a balanced, competitive focused game (and I don't). I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.
Wayniac wrote: Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.
That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.
And the hard ban is the clearly superior option. The end result is the same, except there's no chance of someone saying "screw it, I'm taking Akuma" and getting an easy win while everyone else is upset about breaking the unwritten rule. Why do you think that it's the other way around, and soft bans/social pressure/etc instead of fixing the rules explicitly are a good thing?
but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"
No, AoS/40k are intended to be marketing material for plastic toys, much like the "games" on the backs of cereal boxes. GW doesn't care if you play them, they just want to give kids the idea of a miniatures game as a reason to beg their parents for space marine starter sets. Having to talk about what is "fair" adds nothing to the game, it's purely a failure of game design.
Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it.
This is not true at all. A bad point system doesn't fix the problem, but a good point system does. The solution is to make a good point system, not to dismiss the importance of points and praise the idea of shunning people from the community if they don't play a "fun" list.
I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.
The rules do no such thing. Nothing about having no points, poor balance, etc, enables any kind of positive discussion or tweaking of the game. Nor do these things help at all with the narrative or casual aspect of the game.
Wayniac wrote: Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.
That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.
And the hard ban is the clearly superior option. The end result is the same, except there's no chance of someone saying "screw it, I'm taking Akuma" and getting an easy win while everyone else is upset about breaking the unwritten rule. Why do you think that it's the other way around, and soft bans/social pressure/etc instead of fixing the rules explicitly are a good thing?
but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"
No, AoS/40k are intended to be marketing material for plastic toys, much like the "games" on the backs of cereal boxes. GW doesn't care if you play them, they just want to give kids the idea of a miniatures game as a reason to beg their parents for space marine starter sets. Having to talk about what is "fair" adds nothing to the game, it's purely a failure of game design.
Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it.
This is not true at all. A bad point system doesn't fix the problem, but a good point system does. The solution is to make a good point system, not to dismiss the importance of points and praise the idea of shunning people from the community if they don't play a "fun" list.
I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.
The rules do no such thing. Nothing about having no points, poor balance, etc, enables any kind of positive discussion or tweaking of the game. Nor do these things help at all with the narrative or casual aspect of the game.
The soft ban IS the superior option because it considers that the players aren't dunderheads and thus are more than capable for feeling simpathy (ie: they are mature enough to see they are being pricks). The other ban only feeds "resentment" (ie, if it ever gets lifted everyone will try to use at the drop of the hat). Soft bans are born of agreement, communication, not imposition: people won't break them because they want it that way.
Nevertheless, it's like speaking to a wall.
Wayniac wrote: Well no, the point is the US banned Akuma. Japan did not, but they have an implicit "gentleman's agreement' (sound familiar?) to not use him because it would make things boring as hell as a result, so they just decide not to do it. Now I have no idea what would happen if someone did use him, because nothing stops them, but I'm pretty sure it would be something similar to being shunned for going against the unofficial code.
That's what I'm talking about. That's the equivalent of agreeing to not use X or Y or Z in games, because it's unbalanced; nothing stops you EXCEPT, presumably, peer pressure.
And the hard ban is the clearly superior option. The end result is the same, except there's no chance of someone saying "screw it, I'm taking Akuma" and getting an easy win while everyone else is upset about breaking the unwritten rule. Why do you think that it's the other way around, and soft bans/social pressure/etc instead of fixing the rules explicitly are a good thing?
but what keeps getting lost I think is the idea that Warhammer is intended to more of a game where you talk about what is "fair" and not, and NOT just point to the rules and say "but I can!"
No, AoS/40k are intended to be marketing material for plastic toys, much like the "games" on the backs of cereal boxes. GW doesn't care if you play them, they just want to give kids the idea of a miniatures game as a reason to beg their parents for space marine starter sets. Having to talk about what is "fair" adds nothing to the game, it's purely a failure of game design.
Points alone do not fix that. Only a "soft ban" on the OP things and/or a general agreement to play for fun without bringing OP lists can fix it.
This is not true at all. A bad point system doesn't fix the problem, but a good point system does. The solution is to make a good point system, not to dismiss the importance of points and praise the idea of shunning people from the community if they don't play a "fun" list.
I want to play Warhammer because I like the flexibility and casual/narrative aspects it allows BECAUSE you're expected to be discussing things with your opponent so you can tweak the game to be fun for both of you.
The rules do no such thing. Nothing about having no points, poor balance, etc, enables any kind of positive discussion or tweaking of the game. Nor do these things help at all with the narrative or casual aspect of the game.
The soft ban IS the superior option because it considers that the players aren't dunderheads and thus are more than capable for feeling simpathy (ie: they are mature enough to see they are being pricks). The other ban only feeds "resentment" (ie, if it ever gets lifted everyone will try to use at the drop of the hat). Soft bans are born of agreement, communication, not imposition: people won't break them because they want it that way.
Nevertheless, it's like speaking to a wall.
I can assume his counter argument is that the social pressure is wrong because it's basically saying you CAN do this, but you're a prick if you do. The hard ban removes the chance that someone will do it anyways and then play all butthurt because they're treated like a jerk for doing what is allowed but frowned upon. I agree though that a soft ban is better because it's not always there, which is part of the communication part of having a social game, maybe that cutthroat stuff is fine once in a while, maybe it's not. It's not black and white, that's the issue here. It shouldn't be black and white, either this is allowed or it isn't.
Lord Kragan wrote: The soft ban IS the superior option because it considers that the players aren't dunderheads and thus are more than capable for feeling simpathy (ie: they are mature enough to see they are being pricks).
Except everyone has a different definition of "being pricks". One player thinks that X is the worst WAACTFG army ever, the other thinks that X is fine (as an example, every 40k argument over Eldar balance). All you've succeeded in doing with the soft ban is replacing clear communication with arguments and smug superiority about the "right" way to play the game.
The other ban only feeds "resentment" (ie, if it ever gets lifted everyone will try to use at the drop of the hat).
This exact same thing happens with soft bans. In fact, it happens more because people see the "banned" thing, get ideas about using it, and have to be pressured into voluntarily putting away the option they're interested in. With a hard ban there's no resentment because nobody ever gets the idea that it's possible to do the banned thing. The option just doesn't exist in the first place.
Soft bans are born of agreement, communication, not imposition: people won't break them because they want it that way.
Why do you think that a hard ban magically appears out of nowhere? Hard bans happen because people communicated and agreed that a thing is a problem, and made a rule to fix the problem. The only difference between the two is that with a hard ban they say explicitly "X is too powerful and no longer exists in this game", while the soft ban involves people being too afraid to make explicit rules and leaving it at "X is too powerful, but I guess you can use it if you really want to, I'll just whine and act resentful the whole time if you don't give me what I want". Don't be that guy, if you think that X needs to be banned then be honest enough to say so openly and make an explicit rule that X is banned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: I agree though that a soft ban is better because it's not always there, which is part of the communication part of having a social game, maybe that cutthroat stuff is fine once in a while, maybe it's not. It's not black and white, that's the issue here. It shouldn't be black and white, either this is allowed or it isn't.
If something is so powerful that we're talking about banning it and calling people WAACTFGs for using it then why should it be allowed? Fix its point cost so that its power level is in line with the rest of the game and ensure that things are fair.
(What, you don't have a point system in your game? Fix that problem too.)
.. It's like everyone here has taken a side and if you don't agree your a WAAC competitive player or some scrub who doesn't want to learn. Honestly I'm not even sure some people even play AoS in this thread but have come to complain anyways.
How about something middle of the road? I mean really, I just enjoy having points because it enables some form of slight balance, I didn't enjoy AoS without points because without testing everything oneself it was hard to tell whether something truly would break anothers army.
I mean really narrative play can be played with or without points, that's always agreed upon but games where you actually want to play to win do need some sort of balance system and that tends to be points.
It's not like narrative games can't be played when points are introduced, go on have your last stand Stormcast battle vs armies at the gates, but don't decry people because they are competitive.
Dakka, portent, warseer, you name it... this discussion has been rolling since the 90s. I used to be on the pro-tourney side. If you were getting stomped by my powerlisting then you just needed to "learn to play"
It could be that GW realized (incorrectly) that points might be trouble than they are worth and could save a lot of effort by leaving out something that they're bad at anyway.
The no points games of AoS I played were more balanced than most of my 40k games, points in 40k don't add balance, they just validate imbalance.
Scenario #1
Casual games can be fun... but not all the time. Sometimes I want to bring my A game and go up against another similar player on a level playing field to see who is the better player. In these cases, the "gaming victory condition" is that I win. I don't really care if my opponent wants to flip the table afterwards. We're both playing to win.
Scenario #2
Competitive games can be fun... but not all the time. Sometimes I want to just throw something new or themed (but competitively weak) out on the battlefield and throw some dice with a like minded opponent. In these cases, the "gaming victory condition" is that every enjoys themselves. It's important that both players have fun and whether you win or lose is less important.
Age of Sigmar without points supports Scenario #2, but doesn't support Scenarion #1. Age of Sigmar with points supports both, with the caveat that the points probably need tweaking in some instances.
If you don't like AoS without points, just don't use points. If you find that your community isn't willing to play without points, then maybe AoS without points isn't a viable option for your community as a whole. You'll still probably be able to talk someone into a game here and there in the same way that you could talk someone into any obscure game very few people play.
auticus wrote: For my experience, I've seen vastly more one sided games using the GHB points than I did with no points or using Azyr.
The caveat being games where someone decided to bring the summoners that summon who can summon lists. Those always were very one sided.
I think part of the issue is that points sort of justify the choice; e.g. bringing a lot of Stormfiends (I think those are the OP Skryre unit) and saying "Well, I have the points for it". Without points, I feel you need to justify choices a lot more than just saying well it's 200 points for this unit, and we're playing a 1000 point game so tough, I'm fielding it. Which is weird because you would not think no points would do that (you would think it would be a lot more "Because I can" as justification) but I feel without points, you would be under more pressure to actually have a valid reason for fielding something, since you're basically being called out to defend your reasoning and most people don't want to look like a prick to their opponent by resorting to "Because nothing says I can't" as a valid argument.
It's a weird psychological thing to be sure. No points kind of makes me feel both people will try to be fair, so neither looks like TFG to the other, but having points provides its own justification so people will use it more on the assumption that the points alone mean it's balanced and ok, nothing else needed.
Go back to what competitive gaming is. Its taking a ruleset and actively doing your best to bust it in an effort to win before the game even starts. Listbuilding as a "skill".
Once they put structure back into the game, people set out to bust it to win in the listbuilding phase.
Points justify that yes. Without points there is no point in trying to bust the game because there are no limitations or structure to bust in the first place.
Kriswall wrote: ...If you don't like AoS without points, just don't use points. If you find that your community isn't willing to play without points, then maybe AoS without points isn't a viable option for your community as a whole. You'll still probably be able to talk someone into a game here and there in the same way that you could talk someone into any obscure game very few people play.
You make excellent, realistic points.
Non-points players (myself included) pretty much need to realize we won't be getting many games in most groups.
AoS non-points relies on people taking time and most gamers either don't have that time or aren't willing to use it for that type of play if the do have time available.
Go back to what competitive gaming is. Its taking a ruleset and actively doing your best to bust it in an effort to win before the game even starts. Listbuilding as a "skill".
Once they put structure back into the game, people set out to bust it to win in the listbuilding phase.
Points justify that yes. Without points there is no point in trying to bust the game because there are no limitations or structure to bust in the first place.
List building with points is a skill. List building without points is an exercise in diplomacy.
In the first scenario, you're attempting to build the best list you can depending on your definition of best. For most competitive players, the best list is the one that gives them the best chance to win. For casual players, the best list might be the one that most closely matched their army's fluff. In either case, points allows them to participate in this enjoyable and solo activity.
Without points, the solo aspect of list building completely evaporates as you have no frame of reference for what you're allowed to put in the list. You need an opponent for that. You sort of need to see your opponent's list before you can decide what goes into yours. Pure Age of Sigmar actually handles this pretty well with the alternating deployments. You literally choose your army as your opponent chooses his. It's really a negotiation between two players... a game of chicken where one player says enough is enough and stops deploying first.
I would go further than saying that without points there is no point in trying to bust the game. I would say that there is no point in coming up with lists in your spare time. The best you could do is say 'this unit is cool... maybe I'll field it with that unit some day'. You can't actually build a list without an opponent present and a game about to start.
If you say "but we agreed ahead of time the structure and limits on what we'd bring... we don't need points", then you've just added points under a different name. How is "we'll take one hero, one monster and 50 wounds of other models" any different from "All heroes are 1 point, you have 1 point to spend on heroes. All monsters are 1 point, you have 1 point to spend on monsters. All other models cost 1 point per wound. You have 50 points to spend on all other models."? It's just points under a different name. It's a structured, pre-game list building mechanism.
Pure Age of Sigmar lacks a structured, pre-game list building mechanism. I can't think of another commercially successful game that lacks such a mechanism.
Go back to what competitive gaming is. Its taking a ruleset and actively doing your best to bust it in an effort to win before the game even starts. Listbuilding as a "skill".
Once they put structure back into the game, people set out to bust it to win in the listbuilding phase.
Points justify that yes. Without points there is no point in trying to bust the game because there are no limitations or structure to bust in the first place.
List building with points is a skill.
Absolute bunk. It's as far from "a skill" as you can get in this day and age.
Go back to what competitive gaming is. Its taking a ruleset and actively doing your best to bust it in an effort to win before the game even starts. Listbuilding as a "skill".
Once they put structure back into the game, people set out to bust it to win in the listbuilding phase.
Points justify that yes. Without points there is no point in trying to bust the game because there are no limitations or structure to bust in the first place.
List building with points is a skill.
Absolute bunk. It's as far from "a skill" as you can get in this day and age.
You don't think there is any skill involved in creating a 'good' army list? Please note that I'm not talking about simply downloading a net list and going to your shop with cash in hand to buy models. I'm talking about actually building the list yourself. Net-listing definitely isn't a skill.
Can you explain why you think there is no skill involved in learning the rules, considering possible interactions, considering possible opponents and creating a viable/competitive army on paper that actually translates into a good army on the field? I consider that something you need to be good at (i.e. skilled at) to be successful.
Yeah. The reason list building is often pooh'd on as a skill is because a good chunk of people don't build their own list, they go to forums and netlist copy.
Kind of like how competitive gamers get tarred with the WAAC brush even if they are simply following the rules. Once someone is exposed to a WAAC player that also TENDS to be competitive, people apply the brush to ALL competitive players.
hobojebus wrote: Net listing is just standing on the shoulders of giants, it takes zero skill or intelligence to see what's won a competitive event and copy it.
It takes zero skill to straight up copy it, but there is some skill involved in modifying it without 'breaking it'. You have to be able to understand what the original author was thinking and then decide how much you can change without invalidating the effectiveness. Copying a 2000 point Skyrefyre list from the internet and playing it doesn't require any list building skill. Copying the same 2000 point list and then modifying it to fit into a 1000 point framewok DOES require skill because you can no longer fit all the required models into the points available. You need to make decisions. Should I just forget the Battalion and rely instead on the 'digger' weapons team's ability? Will I need to change my Stormfiends loadout? Do I still need to take multiple Warlocks? They're no longer mandatory, but I'll lose shielding and unbinding abilities. A skilled list builder can answer these questions. An unskilled one just goes back to Google and looks for ultra-competitive 1000 point net-lists.
Also, having a net-list doesn't mean you know how to play it. I've seen tons of meta topping tournament lists get tabled because the player has no idea how to play it. Very few lists are actually point and click. Most require playing skill.
Also, just copying a list you saw probably won't work as well for you as making your own list.
Different metas, playstyles and player skills means a "good" list can be pretty awful for you.
auticus wrote: Without points there is no point in trying to bust the game because there are no limitations or structure to bust in the first place.
I think it's more that anyone who cares about list-building or wants to play competitively realizes that a no-points game is unplayable garbage and moves to a better game. So without points you're left with the handful of stubborn players who really want to play the game for whatever reason and are willing to do all of the pre-game negotiation and compromising required to make it interesting instead of just an exercise in "I have more money to spend on this game, I win". The game still has the "break it to win" appeal, it's just that everyone who wanted to do that is already gone.
auticus wrote: Without points there is no point in trying to bust the game because there are no limitations or structure to bust in the first place.
I think it's more that anyone who cares about list-building or wants to play competitively realizes that a no-points game is unplayable garbage and moves to a better game. So without points you're left with the handful of stubborn players who really want to play the game for whatever reason and are willing to do all of the pre-game negotiation and compromising required to make it interesting instead of just an exercise in "I have more money to spend on this game, I win". The game still has the "break it to win" appeal, it's just that everyone who wanted to do that is already gone.
That still sounds like the lesser evil to me, since you tend to not attract the people who want to "break it to win" in the first place because there's little or no structure that they can rely on.
Wayniac wrote: That still sounds like the lesser evil to me, since you tend to not attract the people who want to "break it to win" in the first place because there's little or no structure that they can rely on.
Only at the cost of attracting hardly any players, period. Would you rather play a game against competitive players who try to build powerful lists or show up on AoS night and stand around watching all night while everyone else plays Warmachine/KoW/etc and ignores your attempts to get a no-points AoS game going?
auticus wrote: Without points there is no point in trying to bust the game because there are no limitations or structure to bust in the first place.
I think it's more that anyone who cares about list-building or wants to play competitively realizes that a no-points game is unplayable garbage and moves to a better game. So without points you're left with the handful of stubborn players who really want to play the game for whatever reason and are willing to do all of the pre-game negotiation and compromising required to make it interesting instead of just an exercise in "I have more money to spend on this game, I win". The game still has the "break it to win" appeal, it's just that everyone who wanted to do that is already gone.
Absolute nonsense. The "I have more money to spend on this game, I win" and "break it to win" crowd were also the people who most whined about the lack of points. They came up with ridiculous scenarios like multiple Nagashes or Archaons or Glottkins; stuff that wouldn't happen in most cases because who really wanted to have multiples of a single character model?
Wayniac wrote: That still sounds like the lesser evil to me, since you tend to not attract the people who want to "break it to win" in the first place because there's little or no structure that they can rely on.
Only at the cost of attracting hardly any players, period. Would you rather play a game against competitive players who try to build powerful lists or show up on AoS night and stand around watching all night while everyone else plays Warmachine/KoW/etc and ignores your attempts to get a no-points AoS game going?
It helps to have a shop that actually promotes AoS or teaches the rules right rather than just ignoring customers wanting to play or be introduced to it.
Again, I think it would speak volumes to the type of uncreative, wannabe tryhard players that are so uncreative that they can't play a narrative game that encourages coming up with things on the fly. Really, that seems to be everything here, and I honest to God blame the "game store" mentality in the USA, where people don't want to do anything to build a club or community but want to go down to a game shop for all their needs (which then has the double edged sword of promoting this "pay where you play" stuff). It's easy to get a group of like minded people together and NOT rely on random pickup games with who knows what, but people don't seem to want to do that and honestly I do not get why it's so popular in Europe and the UK especially, and almost unheard of in the US.
Kanluwen wrote: Absolute nonsense. The "I have more money to spend on this game, I win" and "break it to win" crowd were also the people who most whined about the lack of points. They came up with ridiculous scenarios like multiple Nagashes or Archaons or Glottkins; stuff that wouldn't happen in most cases because who really wanted to have multiples of a single character model?
And you know why they complained? Because they understood what you can do when you try to bring a powerful list in a no-points game, and that no-points games are garbage. Obviously none of those ideas were ever going to go beyond theory because nobody wants to spend that much money on a game just to prove that it's a bad game. They all said " this garbage" and moved to other games (including AoS with third-party points). But the fact that everyone dumped no-points AoS instead of spending money to break it doesn't change the fact that it's a "pay to win" game and inferior in every way to an alternate AoS with a balanced point system.
It helps to have a shop that actually promotes AoS or teaches the rules right rather than just ignoring customers wanting to play or be introduced to it.
Why would any store want to promote no-points AoS? It's a terrible game that encourages one-sided massacres and offers nothing in return. And it's not like the store makes extra money by selling a new customer no-points AoS instead of Warmachine/KoW/third-party AoS variants/etc. The obvious right thing for a store to do if a customer asks about AoS is to say "it's unplayable without points, but if you like fantasy games here are some better options" and then sell the customer the better games. The only reason to encourage no-points AoS is if you're a GW store where obedience to corporate dogma is the most important thing, and far more important than the best interests of the customer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: Again, I think it would speak volumes to the type of uncreative, wannabe tryhard players that are so uncreative that they can't play a narrative game that encourages coming up with things on the fly.
Why would we want to come up with things on the fly instead of playing a well-designed game and story-based scenario that works properly "out of the box"?
Really, that seems to be everything here, and I honest to God blame the "game store" mentality in the USA, where people don't want to do anything to build a club or community but want to go down to a game shop for all their needs (which then has the double edged sword of promoting this "pay where you play" stuff). It's easy to get a group of like minded people together and NOT rely on random pickup games with who knows what, but people don't seem to want to do that and honestly I do not get why it's so popular in Europe and the UK especially, and almost unheard of in the US.
Sounds like you're basing this on ridiculous stereotypes about "competitive" vs. "fun" players. The only difference between playing in a game store and playing in a club is that the store has free gaming space already available while the club requires you to pay extra to rent space. I suspect that the only reason clubs are common in the UK is that the UK is infested with GW stores that have driven out most of the independents and paying a little extra to avoid having to play in a GW store is an easy deal to sell.
Kanluwen wrote: Absolute nonsense. The "I have more money to spend on this game, I win" and "break it to win" crowd were also the people who most whined about the lack of points. They came up with ridiculous scenarios like multiple Nagashes or Archaons or Glottkins; stuff that wouldn't happen in most cases because who really wanted to have multiples of a single character model?
And you know why they complained? Because they understood what you can do when you try to bring a powerful list in a no-points game, and that no-points games are garbage. Obviously none of those ideas were ever going to go beyond theory because nobody wants to spend that much money on a game just to prove that it's a bad game. They all said " this garbage" and moved to other games (including AoS with third-party points). But the fact that everyone dumped no-points AoS instead of spending money to break it doesn't change the fact that it's a "pay to win" game and inferior in every way to an alternate AoS with a balanced point system.
Sure, in some circumstances I am sure that happened.
I can say that, locally for me? That was not the case. Several of those people dumped money into armies(I sold my Death army to one of those people during the initial few weeks of AoS) before they basically drifted off as they tended to play at "a different level".
It helps to have a shop that actually promotes AoS or teaches the rules right rather than just ignoring customers wanting to play or be introduced to it.
Why would any store want to promote no-points AoS? It's a terrible game that encourages one-sided massacres and offers nothing in return. And it's not like the store makes extra money by selling a new customer no-points AoS instead of Warmachine/KoW/third-party AoS variants/etc. The obvious right thing for a store to do if a customer asks about AoS is to say "it's unplayable without points, but if you like fantasy games here are some better options" and then sell the customer the better games. The only reason to encourage no-points AoS is if you're a GW store where obedience to corporate dogma is the most important thing, and far more important than the best interests of the customer.
Why would any store not want to promote a product they're stocking?
I saw a few people get effectively turned off from some of the local shops that did nothing but badmouth Age of Sigmar and try to push Warmachine/Kings of War(which is a joke) and instead head to a local GW during the launch week.
I would label myself pretty tough, but even I would think twice before playing Grombrindal without qualifying for their permission!
).
this garbage" and moved to other games (including