When I first heard about Age of Sigmar, I was skeptical. It had been some 15 years since I last played a Games Workshop game (circa 3rd edition 40k) and while I never had much of an attachment to the Warhammer Fantasy world, the fact it was just destroyed and replaced with something else was a little weird. After I gave it more thought and saw how streamlined (NOTE: This is not the same thing as "dumbed down" which is a common anti-AOS retort I've seen) it was, and the fact there were no points, I had a revelation: Finally, there was the style of game that I had long since wanted, being able to buy a force, and add things to it as you went along and just use them next game, without fiddling around with points to fit them in. The idea that I could decide after a game, you know I really want to add a unit of Retributors, and then just buy them and assemble them and next game just set them down with my force, was great. I had long lamented the concept that you needed an X point list to start playing, it's discouraging to new players who need to spend a large amount of money just to get started and to those starting new armies because you can't start small when everyone is playing 2,000 point games; my experience has been that if you aren't playing the same points everyone else is it's very hard to get a game in because people would rather play at their preferred points level than bring the points down to entertain a new/expanding player. In fact this very thing stopped me from getting back to Warhammer several years prior, because I didn't want to immediately start playing at 2,000 points or whatever the preferred points was just to start getting a game, and the impression I got was that people did not prefer to want to play at lower points.
As I read reviews, I saw more and more people slam the game for the "lack of balance", seemingly ignoring the fact that you were supposed to A) Not be a ****** and try to game the system and B) Have a chat with your opponent to decide what made sense. Still, I saw lots of posts laughing about how one could do something stupid like field 10 Nagashes or 16 cannons or other unrealistic things that never would happen, forgetting again that if someone tried that, they would likely not even get a full game as anyone setting up against it would call them out, likely not play, and worse that person would then get a reputation as "that guy" to be avoided since they try to game the system.
When The General's Handbook was announced, and the world rejoiced. Points, finally! The game is "complete" now. It will be balanced. And I felt a lump in my throat, because I knew what that meant: That any other way to play is now dead and buried. Points, once introduced to the game, will consume any other style and become the default way of playing. Communicating with your opponent goes out the window, because you no longer need to; the points are the only communication you need. When The General's Handbook finally came out, and not everything had points, that fear grew larger, because it meant anything without points might as well not exist. And that proved to be true: Those nice battalions in the Start Collecting boxes, or the larger boxed armies, or the new (Christmas 2016) battleforces? They don't exist, because they have no points. Grombrindal, the legendary White Dwarf himself, has zero reason to be bought by most players because he has no points, so you can't use him, and GW has stated that not everything is intended for all three playstyles, which as a result means they won't be used at all. As I feared, Matched Play quickly subsumed everything else to become the only way to play Age of Sigmar. The General's Handbook might as well have started on page 98 (that's the section where Matched Play begins).
My problem with this is twofold: First, Matched Play is one of the styles to play, not the only style. It's clearly intended for tournament type events where you need something to balance and can't reasonably chat with your opponent. Yet here we are, I would wager, where the vast majority of games have boiled down to two questions:
1. How many points?
2. Which of the six Pitched Battle scenarios will we use?
Everything else may as well not even be there because god forbid a scenario require deployment other than the standard. All those interesting Battleplans from the various campaign books and Battletomes might as well not exist anymore, because they aren't roughly even Pitched Battles with roughly even Matched Play army construction. The game goes from being wildly varied to droll and boring, with most of the options gutted because nobody wants to take the time and effort to be responsible hobbyists.
But wait, you say. We need points. Otherwise nothing will stop someone from fielding nothing but the most powerful units. Except yes, things will. Someone who does that is going to face the same problem that someone doing the hypothetical "ten Nagash" list is going to face, that is they will be labeled a ******, refused a game and then get a bad reputation around the group until either they are forced out or learn to play nicely.
Warhammer, perhaps more than any other wargame, is a social game. There is an implied agreement to not game the rules. There is an implied agreement to not try to out cheese one another. A little communication goes a long way, and could still go a long way. There is no reason other than not wanting to bother with talking anyone beyond asking points that Matched Play is now, for many people, the only way to play.
Perhaps the biggest issue with Matched Play is what it implies. You see, before Matched Play , the onus was on the player. If you saw someone who tried to game the system by taking only the best units, or infinite summoning, or the hypthetical ten Nagashes, or any other boogeyman situation, you knew they were a ****** who had zero regard for their opponents and only cared about themselves. With points though, you can still in many cases field very powerful units, even game the system in other ways, because the points aren't balanced across the board (look at any hypothetical power list), except now the player can pretend they aren't really a ******, that they're playing by the rules so there's nothing wrong or that the rules are to blam. Communication, responsibility and accountability take a backseat because there's a fallback that absolves the player from any of those things.
Note I'm not at all saying Matched Play is bad. I'm saying that Matched Play being the default way to play is bad, not because of what it is but because it cuts out a large swathe of the game, for fear of hypothetical situations that never actually happened and likely will never happen except with the rudest of players who literally don't care about anything other than saying they won a game, and it's just as likely those players wouldn't play Warhammer because of all its flaws as a competitive game. Matched Play is perfectly fine, dare i say it necessary, for tournaments, and I'm glad it exists. I just dislike that Matched Play has become, for many of us, the only way to play Age of Sigmar and anything that isn't Matched Play no longer has a place in the game.
In short, I feel that Matched Play should remain an option for Age of Sigmar, not the option. There is IMHO more fun to be had by using Open Play and actually communicating and not being a ****** than there is just throwing down with a 2,000 point list and pretending that it's somehow balanced because it has 3+ Battleline units, 0-6 Leaders, 0-4 Behemoths and 0-4 Artillery. Plus, this puts the onus back on the player to play responsibly. And as a result the game will be better off.
Keep Matched Play where it belongs: The domain of tournaments and structured leagues. For everything else, show some responsibility towards an enjoyable game
TL;DR I firmly believe that while Matched Play has its uses, it's a mistake to have it be the default style of play (which for many of us it has become such) because it eliminates responsibility and accountability from the players and instead shifts blame to "But I'm playing by the rules with a legal army!" and, on top of that, all the hypothetical "boogeyman" scenarios such as fielding 10 Nagashes or simply "filling the deployment zone with the most powerful units in the game" never actually happened because there's already a mechanism in place to curb it: Someone who did that would find it hard, if not impossible, to get anyone to play with them because they would clearly be a jerk. Removing this responsibility and accountability means the player is no longer responsible for their own actions and to not be a jerk, and can hide behind the rules to claim that they aren't a jerk.
Well I agree it should not be the default. I have yet to play a matched play game and I own the General's Handbook. That doesn't mean I want play it but we have had fun playing open and see no reason to change.
You're right... and wrong. Matched play shouldn't be the default in all situations. BUT situations where you don't have that much contact with others (like pick up style games) it comes in handy and could be used as the standard to set quick baselines.
I dont play matched either, but I understand why it is the default even in the AoS wasteland where I am, and its simple. IT was what a great many if not the majority of folks wanted in AoS to begin with.
I think that seeing matched play as the excuse WAAC players use, while justified to a certain extent, is an unproductive stance to take. The real problem here is the players, and the idea that matched play can be an excuse is the specific portion that needs to be addressed. The solution is not in modifying/avoiding matched play but in not accepting 'its the rules!' as an excuse to be a complete dick on the tabletop. I understand this is hard for some people who have to make do with competitively-minded groups but that still doesn't change what the core problem actually is.
I said it before, I will say it again. Matched play or points is an excuse for a nerd/geek to become a jock and be proud of it. Since for most of us we can't be jocks with boides, we can do it with our minds.
I find it amazing and shocking that I try to get a game of 40K or what ever and try to get a different type of game in and I can't, but as soon as I say points, people will ask "how many?" and then I can get a game off.
So for me to get a game in, I need to do this. Just shocked nobody is willing to try and play other ways. It's basically their way or no way at all.
I even find this with points as well. It has to be a bound army. If I ask to play an unbound army in 40K, forget it. Now a lot of people don't have a bases to go buy or judge by how much better they are than other people.
Davor wrote:I said it before, I will say it again. Matched play or points is an excuse for a nerd/geek to become a jock and be proud of it. Since for most of us we can't be jocks with boides, we can do it with our minds.
I find it amazing and shocking that I try to get a game of 40K or what ever and try to get a different type of game in and I can't, but as soon as I say points, people will ask "how many?" and then I can get a game off.
So for me to get a game in, I need to do this. Just shocked nobody is willing to try and play other ways. It's basically their way or no way at all.
I even find this with points as well. It has to be a bound army. If I ask to play an unbound army in 40K, forget it. Now a lot of people don't have a bases to go buy or judge by how much better they are than other people.
Yes, my reasoning is that Open Play can do all the things Matched Play can for non-tournament games, but requires people to 1) Communicate and 2) Bear responsibility for what they do. But the community seems to want to limit communication as much as possible if they don't have to.
NinthMusketeer wrote:I think that seeing matched play as the excuse WAAC players use, while justified to a certain extent, is an unproductive stance to take. The real problem here is the players, and the idea that matched play can be an excuse is the specific portion that needs to be addressed. The solution is not in modifying/avoiding matched play but in not accepting 'its the rules!' as an excuse to be a complete dick on the tabletop. I understand this is hard for some people who have to make do with competitively-minded groups but that still doesn't change what the core problem actually is.
That is the core problem, but Open Play already did that with an implicit social agreement, and the community raged because they didn't want to abide by it, as far as I can tell. In fact, Open Play did that even more because the rule was, literally, there are no rules. Hence why you see boogeymen like the "ten Nagash" or as Peregrine (as a staunch anti-AOS/anti-Open Play debater) liked to say:
Peregrine wrote:
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.
Except that never actually happened because while yes, it is a competitive game (by design of not being a cooperative game), I can't think of any situation where someone would actually do that and not expect social repercussions for doing it. That's the sort of "boogeyman" that killed Open Play in the womb for most gaming groups, the fear that someone could do something so insultingly rude to their opponent and somehow just say "It's the rules, deal with it". There were ways to agree on things; I did some hunting and found what was supposedly GW official guidelines from an email (pre-General's Handbook) that was something like 0-2 Heros/Monsters, 1-12 Warscrolls and I forget what else, but it would easily be something you could agree on e.g. "Let's both bring up to 1 hero on monster, up to 2 heroes on foot, 4-5 warscrolls each, and up to 1 monster or artillery" and assuming neither player wanted to be a dick, reasonably expect something that would not be a blowout, at least not any more than you can already get with the way Matched Play is (e.g. Clan Skyryre can build an insanely nasty "fair and balanced" army with Matched Play)
I tend to think of this as a "path of least resistance" sort of thing. In many communities, setting up a matched play game involves two questions... "do you want to play" and "how many points". All other potential questions are covered by the rules. Setting up an open play game involves much more negotiation. This negotiation takes time and almost requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game.
Matched play is just quicker and easier to work with. Open play feels more suitable for small groups of friends who have the time and familiarity with each other to negotiate all of the extra house rules they'll need to make the games work.
While it would be a mistake to assume that everywhere Matched Play is the default, take a few things into consideration:
1) online discussions tend to center around the competitive aspect of the game. As such, many of the posters are competitive players and if you just follow internet forums it can seem that everyone is matched play competitive style players. (confirmation bias)
2) matched play / competitive players tend to be the ones out in public more. Open play, casual players I find in my experience tend to play in their homes and are not as vocal. As such, it can seem that everyone is matched play competitive style players (confirmation bias)
Now taking all that into account, while it is safe to say that not everyone is matched play only, I do think its accurate to say most people that are visible in the community will be matched play only and that the bulk of the community wants matched play to be the default because that is the play style.
This is not because most people want a tournament game. In fact, I have found that true tournament players are in the minority in nearly every community I have been a part in or have played with.
The real reason that most people favor matched play is simply that is the style of play that is most conducive to pick up gaming, which is by and large the most common form of gaming today and has been for nearly 15 or more years now. It is the expected norm.
Pick up gaming is attractive for a variety of reasons.
* its faster
* its easier
* it doesn't involve a great investment of personal time or energy
* it doesn't require a great deal of communication
This will never change. I cannot possibly see this changing ever.
The reason why in my neck of the woods going against matched play norm will get you railroaded out of town on a flaming train is simply people want consistency. They want the rules to be the same in every game in a system. They don't want people introducing house rules in the public context (private in your house is fine but as soon as you step out into a public event with rules alterations, you better be wearing kevlar)
That means that anything NOT matched play is not consistent and thus subject to great personal politicing to get any foothold.
There are some good points to be had to not want matched play as the standard. Strong points in my opinion. However, the vast bulk of players of AOS, indeed any wargame today, are pick up gamers that don't want to negotiate rules and don't want to invest more time or energy than need be to play a game and then go home. As such, I don't feel that this is possible to achieve (making matched play not the default)
If the vast majority of players are pick up gamers, then whatever makes pick up games the easiest will be what is the default.
Kriswall wrote: I tend to think of this as a "path of least resistance" sort of thing. In many communities, setting up a matched play game involves two questions... "do you want to play" and "how many points". All other potential questions are covered by the rules. Setting up an open play game involves much more negotiation. This negotiation takes time and almost requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game.
Matched play is just quicker and easier to work with. Open play feels more suitable for small groups of friends who have the time and familiarity with each other to negotiate all of the extra house rules they'll need to make the games work.
I have some counter to these arguments. I just love a good debate which I think this is.
There is 86 400 seconds in a day. So what was that you said about time?
Even if doing the "want to play? How many points" as your only negotiating you still need "requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game" other wise it can just go as bad without points. Just read the many threads on Dakka alone on bad or horrible game experiences. All of them if not then most of them with points. Let me please add to that. Maybe about taking some of those few thousands of seconds in a day and discuss with your opponent you will not be adding more horror stories on Dakka in the future and actually Wasting More Time playing a game with points than you would have been with discussing with your opponent or as you said "negotiations".
Come on, lets say it for what it is. It's talking to someone. Negotiating, like come on, really man? These are plastic toy soldiers after all. This is not a hostage situation (unless you are saying we are holding those few precious seconds as hostage), we are not negotiating a peace treaty among countries, we are all just smuchks who play with plastic to soldiers. What is wrong with talking with other smuchks, or spankers, or blokes, or hell fellow like minded people who have the same interests as yourself and just talk to them like humans instead of lawyers like we claim GW to do and be.
As for quicker and easier. Two words that are not associated with 40K at all. Same for Fantasy. Ironically quicker and easier two words associated with Age of Sigmar. How Ironic you said that for an Age of Sigmar game.
Any more excuses? I am sure I can find if not me, others will have an answer for your excuse. What can be said about "not having points" can be said for "having points".
I disagree with the OP. For me Warhammer is all about having fun, and I can say the following of AoS:
1. I have more fun playing Matched Play than Open Play.
2. I have more fun with points than without.
3. I have had more fun since the GHB came out than before.
4. My best games have been at tournaments.
5. With points I even have fun getting smashed in the face. Without points I didn't.
6. I found even with negotiating, open games are lackluster. They offer no tactical enjoyment for me, it feels like there is no skill involved and we are just rolling dice to "see what happens". There is nothing to try and improve on, and makes the game ultimately pointless.
I think unpointed games only work with a GM. Be it a 3rd party, or one of the players taking on a GM style role and providing a challenge for the opponent rather than trying to win the game. And moving forward that's the only way I would want to play them. I never want to play an unpointed open pick up game again, and I had so so many more bad game experiences than I do now playing exclusively with points.
This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
I can't really blame people for wanting to do easier pick up games. Real life takes a lot of effort so its fair that people don't want their leisure activities to take a lot of effort as well. Further, points give a standard that everyone can negotiate from, which means even players who were communicating to figure out an even match can do so much more easily using matched play. Which again brings the problem back not to the system being used but to holding people responsible for being jerks regardless of the context. Because being a jerk is being a jerk, using points as an excuse to do so is no better, if not worse.
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
Outside of tournaments I see 1000 points cropping up pretty often. Especially if that's all you have I don't see finding games to be a huge problem.
It can scale, but I find in general it's a better experience to NOT just say "How many points?" but actually give some thought to the reasons behind the battle (and it doesn't have to be much). As I said in the OP I don't have a problem with Matched Play as a thing, my issue is more that it's largely the default in many groups, and extends so far as to eliminating things like additional Battleplans because they aren't "balanced" since they aren't Pitched Battle scenarios. That to me is a problem because many of those Battleplans are not only well balanced but provide an instant storyline for why the game is taking place so it doesn't just become yet another random one-off game that means nothing because there's literally no reason the armies are fighting other than Bob and Jim both decided to go to the game shop that day and ended up playing a game of Warhammer.
I can certainly see how just using the pitched battle scenarios would get boring. Fortunately my group, while using those as default, has no problems going with other scenarios from time to time. 3-way battles using the FFA scenarios given in the open play section of the GHB (with a few modifiers) have been a blast.
A very long time ago, a friend wanted to play Warhammer 40k - 2nd edition.
So, I showed up with the space marine contents of the starter box (Two tactical squads, with flamers and missile launchers), plus a Rhino I had bought.
My friend had a Chaos army. It consisted of Abaddon, Kharn, Ahriman, a Blood Thirster, and a Great Unclean One.
I explained that was really unlikely to be a fair match, but he wanted to try it, and two turns later that was over. I was annoyed.
He was really surprised, because while he had special characters, I outnumbered him four to one. I explained that really, any one of these models was more than a match for what I'd brought, and after some testing that was true.
Later, we got into points, added it up, and started having fun, balanced games.
Today, I bet we could just set units down that were roughly fair, and play a game.
The lesson, I think, is that matched play and points are perfect for people who don't know each other or the game so well that they can balance by dead reckoning. But, if two friends know the game well, they can enjoy the freedom of open play in a way new players or strangers may have difficulty with.
I am with Oggthrok on this one. I do like the more open and loose style, but without points I worry about being an "accidental jerk." I have seen games where the people thought the lists were even but didnt realize they had taken elite units against basic units. (Think 10 Ard' boys to fight 10 Dwarf Warriors) terribly imbalanced but both players thought they were bringing a their faction's most basic unit. With points, i find it much less stressful. I can know without much effort that an extra Gyro' is needed with the Wariors to keep things close-ish. So while I would love to always play narrative type games, matched is my default because realistically I am just not that familiar with most armies and couldnt really set a "balanced" list.
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
I am not saying you are wrong Bottle, but this is where Wayne is correct. It's the "community" telling others how to play. We must play your way, and this to me is wrong. Nobody should have to conform to anything and the community should have an open mind which again Wayne says, it doesn't. The problem where you did err Bottle is saying he should be playing at 1000 points. Why? What if he doesn't want to? Now you are forcing him to do so. "Just take 1000 points," right there, you just told him what to do and "how to play." What if money is really an issue right now for him? Now you just shamed him that he can't do 1000 points. You just made 1000 points looks so frivolous that it's nothing, while to others it could mean a lot.
While you said it politely, you should have said
" while you might get games at lower points it will be really hard to do so, and the community usually is minimum 1000 points when playing pick up games. If you want an easier time to find games, that is what you should be aiming at.
@ Amazingturtles, I don't know what the "common points" are, 1500-2000pts vary from region to region. All you can do is see what it is in your region or area and try that. In my area sadly 1000 points is minimum as well. I wanted to try and get a game or two with 500 or less points so I can get a better feel for the game but I have no takers. Thing is, I don't want to glue my minis and then later say "I should have done something else" so this is why I wanted small point games.
Now the "community" is telling me it's not good enough so now I have lost a lot of interest because I have to conform to others, and in conforming how others play, I am taking the enjoyment out of my hobby now because now I am not having fun putting together my minis. I am also told I can't mix alliances where before I could.
In the two geographical areas where I used to live and still follow, AoS participation went up exponentially after the General's Handbook. My local GW has - off the record, of course - pretty much said the same. I was out of AoS until points arrived as well, TBH. And before I get accused of being WAAC, my only army is Scourge Privateers who have four - or five, if you include Fellheart - options, and are basically garbage on the table. However, points gave my army and hobby a goal, structure and framework that was previously absent.
In order to save AoS, GW compromised on its original "laissez-faire" philosophy, and this has understandably annoyed many of the original players who were loyal to the game from the start. However, this is another WHFB situation, where there weren't enough such people to sustain one of their two core games. As a result, the options were either push the game towards the mainstream player, or watch it die. GW chose the former, and therefore went with Rowntree's pragmatism over Kirby's and/or Jervis's stubborn idealism.
PS: And by the way, nobody is telling anyone how to play. People are choosing their own preferred way organically, and if points players have reached the critical mass to be the only way to guarantee a game, so be it.
amazingturtles wrote: This might be a bit of a side thing, but one of my big worries with matched play is what I see being said is the normal game size: it's usually 1500-2000 pts, right?
part of my initial interest in AoS is because i wanted something casual and fun with a small model count. i simply do not have enough to make a 2000pt army.
Don't worry AoS scales to 1000 points really well! :-) I often only take 1000pts to the store because I only have time for a quick game and my opponents are always obliging. It also lets me collect multiple small forces of Death, Chaos and Destruction to play as well as my (now 3000+) Order army.
Just take 1000 points, and if the opponent wants to use more use a scenario like the Ritual that is weighted in favour of the smaller force :-)
I am not saying you are wrong Bottle, but this is where Wayne is correct. It's the "community" telling others how to play. We must play your way, and this to me is wrong. Nobody should have to conform to anything and the community should have an open mind which again Wayne says, it doesn't. The problem where you did err Bottle is saying he should be playing at 1000 points. Why? What if he doesn't want to? Now you are forcing him to do so. "Just take 1000 points," right there, you just told him what to do and "how to play." What if money is really an issue right now for him? Now you just shamed him that he can't do 1000 points. You just made 1000 points looks so frivolous that it's nothing, while to others it could mean a lot.
While you said it politely, you should have said
" while you might get games at lower points it will be really hard to do so, and the community usually is minimum 1000 points when playing pick up games. If you want an easier time to find games, that is what you should be aiming at.
Sorry Davor, but that was a bizarre comment to read. I am pro-fun with Warhammer and everything that you quoted was a friendly recommendation on how to have fun with AoS in the way @amazingturtles wanted. Not sure how you could take it any other way but it seems in the pursuit of moaning you are twisting my words and being overally pedantic.
In my experience AoS is super fun at 1000 points - of course you can go lower if you want. I am just sharing first hand experience which I deemed to be useful. I have played 1000 point games. It was fun. It was easy to get a pick up game that size. I am not forcing anyone to do or play anything, just saying what's fun. On the flip side you and Wayniac seem much more focused on complaining about how others are enjoying the game in my view.
Bottle wrote: On the flip side you and Wayniac seem much more focused on complaining about how others are enjoying the game in my view.
That's the way it reads to me too.
Personally, the best games i've played have been 1000 pt. matched games and a few entirely unbalanced games with a a clear narrative (like a small amount of sylvaneth vs. a massive horde of skaven.)
It all comes down to personal preference and saying/implying that using pts. is the 'wrong' way to play is just as ridiculous as acting as if pts. is the ONLY way to play.
My ideal opponent is someone who wants to enjoy playing, first, with the logistical details second.
Bottle wrote: On the flip side you and Wayniac seem much more focused on complaining about how others are enjoying the game in my view.
Not at all my friend. While a lot of my posts may seem negative in a lot of Dakka posts lately, I have nothing against GW but keep an open mind and maybe a bit cynical. I don't like complaining at all. I just see things different from a lot of people and while I should do what the Orc says in Lord of the Rings, "Keep my mouth shut", I like to participate and give my views just like how everyone does. Maybe I am old. Maybe I don't socialize so I don't know how to take people on the internet. When I read something, I do it in more than 140 characters. So maybe reading your brief statement I took it the wrong way.
Maybe sometimes when I read something I nit pick too much, I make sure 1+1+1=3 when I shouldn't really be nit picking. For that I apologize.
As for Wayniac, I don't think he complains either just see things differently than I or anyone else does.
I never actually said Open Play was the "right" way, I said that people should take responsibility and accountability and not just say "But points". I did, in fact, say Matched Play is fine for tournaments and events. But, at least in my area, I see it as a replacement for even just working out what kind of game you want to play with your opponent.
Wayniac wrote: I never actually said Open Play was the "right" way, I said that people should take responsibility and accountability and not just say "But points". I did, in fact, say Matched Play is fine for tournaments and events. But, at least in my area, I see it as a replacement for even just working out what kind of game you want to play with your opponent.
You still need to agree on what you want with points.
Wayniac wrote: I never actually said Open Play was the "right" way, I said that people should take responsibility and accountability and not just say "But points". I did, in fact, say Matched Play is fine for tournaments and events. But, at least in my area, I see it as a replacement for even just working out what kind of game you want to play with your opponent.
To share my experience. I have played lots of games of negotiated open play and lots of games of pointed matched play and the pointed match play games where more fun. Simple as that. You might want to consider that your local players also feel the same way; that matched play is more fun on the regular than open.
My personal advice to you would be, don't worry what the default is. The most important thing is for people to play what's fun for them. And if you want to play more narrative games what are you doing proactively to ensure that happens? Forgive me as my view of you only comes from your threads - but to be very honest all I see you do is complain. On the other hand there are people organising all kinds of cool narrative games. From big events like Holy Hammer and RAW16 to small one-offs like that comment in your thread on TGA (that game looked freaking awesome, didn't it!?) - are you setting up those sorts of games? Are you inviting people to come play them? It might be that your locals don't want to play those sorts of games - so be it, let them have fun with matched play. But if you want to have fun with narrative and open play you are going to have to put in the effort to find the right players and set up the right game.
I always try and stay positive. You can find the right players who enjoy the game the same way as you if you keep looking - and what you are likely to find is that tournament matched play players are also keen to play narrative if the effort is put in. RAW16 is the example, those guys put all that effort in and got a packed house of regular tournament players embracing narrative play for a weekend. Good luck :-)
The thing is, relying on social pressure is basically trying to make the best of a bad game. There's plenty of reasons to do this, but players shouldn't have to.
I used to play Commander (EDH) with friends pretty regularly with the same premise. It works ok, but after a while it wears on people. Someone really loves something that others don't want to see anymore so they agree not to play it, but that takes something they love about the game away from them.
Ultimately, a game is more fun if people can play what they want. As much as players try to divide themselves along these lines, the truth is, a game that strives to be "competitive" generally does a better job providing the "casual" ideal of a system where players can take whatever they want. There's not a perfect system out there, but I realized long ago that if I feel like I need to dictate my opponent's options in order to enjoy a game, I'm probably better off playing a different game.
Kriswall wrote: I tend to think of this as a "path of least resistance" sort of thing. In many communities, setting up a matched play game involves two questions... "do you want to play" and "how many points". All other potential questions are covered by the rules. Setting up an open play game involves much more negotiation. This negotiation takes time and almost requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game.
Matched play is just quicker and easier to work with. Open play feels more suitable for small groups of friends who have the time and familiarity with each other to negotiate all of the extra house rules they'll need to make the games work.
I have some counter to these arguments. I just love a good debate which I think this is.
There is 86 400 seconds in a day. So what was that you said about time?
Even if doing the "want to play? How many points" as your only negotiating you still need "requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game" other wise it can just go as bad without points. Just read the many threads on Dakka alone on bad or horrible game experiences. All of them if not then most of them with points. Let me please add to that. Maybe about taking some of those few thousands of seconds in a day and discuss with your opponent you will not be adding more horror stories on Dakka in the future and actually Wasting More Time playing a game with points than you would have been with discussing with your opponent or as you said "negotiations".
Come on, lets say it for what it is. It's talking to someone. Negotiating, like come on, really man? These are plastic toy soldiers after all. This is not a hostage situation (unless you are saying we are holding those few precious seconds as hostage), we are not negotiating a peace treaty among countries, we are all just smuchks who play with plastic to soldiers. What is wrong with talking with other smuchks, or spankers, or blokes, or hell fellow like minded people who have the same interests as yourself and just talk to them like humans instead of lawyers like we claim GW to do and be.
As for quicker and easier. Two words that are not associated with 40K at all. Same for Fantasy. Ironically quicker and easier two words associated with Age of Sigmar. How Ironic you said that for an Age of Sigmar game.
Any more excuses? I am sure I can find if not me, others will have an answer for your excuse. What can be said about "not having points" can be said for "having points".
Ball is back in your court.
86,400 seconds in a day... the overwhelming majority of which are already spoken for. On an average weekday, I wake up around 6:30AM to get ready for work. I finish work around 5:00PM and drive home (~1hr) to change/eat dinner with my family. Assuming it's a gaming night, I'll head back out and get to the store around 7:00PM. The store closes at 9:00PM. So... your 86,400 seconds has been pared down to 7,200 seconds. Playing a matched play game can eat up most of that time. Adding in an element of negotiation before every game and we usually run out of time. Heck, we sometimes run out of time as it is. Not everyone has all day free to devote to gaming. In the rare instance where I have a lot of time, I'm more than happy to negotiate and play an open play game. Rarely happens. On an average night, the choice is usually between playing a game with as many predefined expectations as possible (matched play) or not playing due to lack of time. MOST of the people I play with have the same sort of schedule and real life time commitments.
Kriswall wrote: I tend to think of this as a "path of least resistance" sort of thing. In many communities, setting up a matched play game involves two questions... "do you want to play" and "how many points". All other potential questions are covered by the rules. Setting up an open play game involves much more negotiation. This negotiation takes time and almost requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game.
Matched play is just quicker and easier to work with. Open play feels more suitable for small groups of friends who have the time and familiarity with each other to negotiate all of the extra house rules they'll need to make the games work.
I have some counter to these arguments. I just love a good debate which I think this is.
There is 86 400 seconds in a day. So what was that you said about time?
Even if doing the "want to play? How many points" as your only negotiating you still need "requires both players to have a similar outlook on the game" other wise it can just go as bad without points. Just read the many threads on Dakka alone on bad or horrible game experiences. All of them if not then most of them with points. Let me please add to that. Maybe about taking some of those few thousands of seconds in a day and discuss with your opponent you will not be adding more horror stories on Dakka in the future and actually Wasting More Time playing a game with points than you would have been with discussing with your opponent or as you said "negotiations".
Come on, lets say it for what it is. It's talking to someone. Negotiating, like come on, really man? These are plastic toy soldiers after all. This is not a hostage situation (unless you are saying we are holding those few precious seconds as hostage), we are not negotiating a peace treaty among countries, we are all just smuchks who play with plastic to soldiers. What is wrong with talking with other smuchks, or spankers, or blokes, or hell fellow like minded people who have the same interests as yourself and just talk to them like humans instead of lawyers like we claim GW to do and be.
As for quicker and easier. Two words that are not associated with 40K at all. Same for Fantasy. Ironically quicker and easier two words associated with Age of Sigmar. How Ironic you said that for an Age of Sigmar game.
Any more excuses? I am sure I can find if not me, others will have an answer for your excuse. What can be said about "not having points" can be said for "having points".
Ball is back in your court.
86,400 seconds in a day... the overwhelming majority of which are already spoken for. On an average weekday, I wake up around 6:30AM to get ready for work. I finish work around 5:00PM and drive home (~1hr) to change/eat dinner with my family. Assuming it's a gaming night, I'll head back out and get to the store around 7:00PM. The store closes at 9:00PM. So... your 86,400 seconds has been pared down to 7,200 seconds. Playing a matched play game can eat up most of that time. Adding in an element of negotiation before every game and we usually run out of time. Heck, we sometimes run out of time as it is. Not everyone has all day free to devote to gaming. In the rare instance where I have a lot of time, I'm more than happy to negotiate and play an open play game. Rarely happens. On an average night, the choice is usually between playing a game with as many predefined expectations as possible (matched play) or not playing due to lack of time. MOST of the people I play with have the same sort of schedule and real life time commitments.
Please forgive me. I am not sure what I was thinking of. I guess I was just trying to being an arse when reading the comment. I don't know why, but when I saw the time, I was thinking of my collage teacher when he said that to us when we used excuses why we were busy in the day. I guess the point I was trying to be but being an arse the point didn't come across, speaking to someone for a few minutes is not that difficult or time consuming. I guess that is what I should have said in the begining.
Time is the big killer I think. Yes its easy to go up and talk to a complete stranger about a game ( we are as a general rule a bunch of introverts who turn extrovert at the mere mention of our favorite hobbies) but the trick is, getting to a place to play, and having time to play, and then getting to meet someone. With points you can show up and have a good idea whats what. AoS can be a lot of fun, but it can also suck hard when its a tabling match in 2 turns due to gross imbalance, and with it being as new as it is, it is very easy to make one of these OP armies completely unintentionally. My duardin have fought and won battles we certainly should not have, and have lost a good number the same. Scenarios really do nothing for balance (I am sure that opened a sh** storm, but from my experience thats just the facts) so I look at it this way,. I have to drive about 70 miles to get in a game, that aint happening on a weekday. So I have maybe 2, usually 1 partial day to do it. I would rather build up a force (granted I do not use points, but after playing the same folks it doesnt matter anymore) and be able to get right to biznizz.
The vast majority of commercially successful wargames use points or some sort list composition system. It just makes it easier to facilitate pick up play between strangers at your FLGS. If you and your gaming group have the time and of like mind to the point where you can do pointless, scenario gaming then good on you! But not everyone has the time or group to do that. Besides that, OP, what does it matter what other people are playing? Just let them have fun with the game.
Hell, there are several people that have decided to give AoS a try just because they introduced Matched Play. Isn't the growth of the community a good thing?
The growth of the game is a good thing, but not in my opinion at the cost of losing everything that made it good and turning it into another X many points only pick from these scenarios thing. That is mainly what I am talking about not points themselves but the fact that anything without points now might as well not exist and anything that isn't a pitched battle scenario might as well not even be in the game.
what does it matter what other people are playing?
The answer should be that it doesn't.
The real answer though is that in regards to this topic, what other people are playing is largely going to also have to be what you end up playing as deviating from the standard in gamer-speak is seen to many as a very bad thing.
Not a problem if standard matched play is your thing (as it seems to be with the mass bulk of players). A big problem if you want to see more of the game than matched play unless you are ok with playing with yourself in your garage.
what does it matter what other people are playing?
The answer should be that it doesn't.
The real answer though is that in regards to this topic, what other people are playing is largely going to also have to be what you end up playing as deviating from the standard in gamer-speak is seen to many as a very bad thing.
Not a problem if standard matched play is your thing (as it seems to be with the mass bulk of players). A big problem if you want to see more of the game than matched play unless you are ok with playing with yourself in your garage.
This sums it up nicely. It's not Matched Play itself. It's Matched Play subsuming all other ways as "the one and only way" to play, with nobody ever wanting to deviate or accept anything but.
And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
Bottle wrote: And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
Exalted.
I'd like to start off by answering the "How do I set up a Narrative game/event that will appeal to Matched Play regulars" question with an idea. Come up with an event where the players aren't necessarily matching off against one another. That way, they can participate without feeling the need to min/max and win. Here are a few spit balled ideas that I ran for 40k back in the day and could easily be converted to AoS.
1. Pumpkin Smashing... put a bunch (A BUNCH!) of pumpkins or similar tokens all over the board. They have 1 wound and a 5+ armor save, 4+ against shooting since they're so low to the ground. Each player brings up to 5 models. The winner is the one who is able to smash the most pumpkins over a 5 round period. Attacking your opponent is a valid strategy, but keeps you from smashing pumpkins. We used to run this around Halloween/Thanksgiving. The pumpkins could just as easily be skeletons or rats or anything.
2. Gladiator Fights... each player brings one non-Monster model with the Hero, Priest or Wizard keyword. All players deploy at even intervals around a 4" square map and then take turns in clockwise order. Last man standing wins. The fights go super quick, so you run it a few times and people realize they can gang up on the meaner models early. Run follow up events where your "Gladiator" can bring 1-2 support units and in no time you've tricked people into playing narrative AoS.
In other words... start small and work up from there. Trying to get a matched play only person to play full army sized games of open play is an uphill battle.
OR...
Just call a duck a duck and tell people to show up with a 3000 matched play point "sideboard" and then just have them deploy using the open play rules, with sudden death objectives in play for outnumbered armies. Put a limit on the number of units that can be deployed to ensure that they don't field the whole 3000 points. That way, they'll both have relatively the same amount of stuff to choose from, but won't be deploying everything. Summoned units can only be pulled from whatever you didn't deploy.
Bottle wrote: And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
You can try to encourage people to play narratively all you want. Unless you can motivate players to actually frigging talk to one another outside of "Moan,moan,moan I don't want to play narratively because soandso might do this gamebreaking thing so I only want to play points where they can still do this gamebreaking thing but it's balanced because points."
Matched Play is a ridiculous thing that never should have been added because some people are terrified of interacting with other people socially.
Bottle wrote: And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
You can try to encourage people to play narratively all you want. Unless you can motivate players to actually frigging talk to one another outside of "Moan,moan,moan I don't want to play narratively because soandso might do this gamebreaking thing so I only want to play points where they can still do this gamebreaking thing but it's balanced because points."
Matched Play is a ridiculous thing that never should have been added because some people are terrified of interacting with other people socially.
Oh, here we go. More shaming from the open play crowd. "You're not having fun the same way I'm having fun! You're all just socially awkward and the way you're having fun is bad!"
Because there is no other plausible reason why people don't want to have a lengthy negotiation on what is balanced before playing a wargame.
Bottle wrote: And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
You can try to encourage people to play narratively all you want. Unless you can motivate players to actually frigging talk to one another outside of "Moan,moan,moan I don't want to play narratively because soandso might do this gamebreaking thing so I only want to play points where they can still do this gamebreaking thing but it's balanced because points."
Matched Play is a ridiculous thing that never should have been added because some people are terrified of interacting with other people socially.
Oh, here we go. More shaming from the open play crowd. "You're not having fun the same way I'm having fun! You're all just socially awkward and the way you're having fun is bad!"
Sorry, did Matched Play actually fix anything?
It added points on some things and altered the core mechanics of the game to basically go in line with how most people(barring TFGs) agreed they worked.
Since people are now behaving as though Matched Play is the Greatest Thing Ever to Happen to Age of Sigmar, it's not unreasonable to conclude that part of the reason that is being received as such is because it lets people not have to interact with others.
I mean, we're talking about a community that has members who get upset when they walk into shops and the employee (gasp) tries to sell them things.
Because there is no other plausible reason why people don't want to have a lengthy negotiation on what is balanced before playing a wargame.
It takes five minutes at the longest for me to set up a relatively balanced match. If you play pickup games regularly enough with someone, take a few moments after the game to exchange some contact information.
Matched Play gave people who had reservations about AoS's lack of points a reason to play the game. A points composition system is conducive to pick up play with strangers. Should it be the end all be all to AoS gaming? No. Absolutely not. But it has it's place. If people want to encourage narrative gaming they could do better than shaming the community.
TheCustomLime wrote: Matched Play gave people who had reservations about AoS's lack of points a reason to play the game. A points composition system is conducive to pick up play with strangers. Should it be the end all be all to AoS gaming? No. Absolutely not. But it has it's place. If people want to encourage narrative gaming they could do better than shaming the community.
But therein lies the crux of the issue.
Many of the people who had "reservations about AoS' lack of points" didn't even bother giving it a try.Most of the people that I, personally, interacted with did crap like watch videos online and complain about armies of multiple Nagashes or Archaons or whatever places like BoLS and Naftka were talking about in the comments sections.
Were there people who took advantage of the lack of points? Sure. But there's also people who make those same kinds of ridiculous lists using Matched Play rules instead.
You can pretend that the community is undeserving of the shaming, but honestly?
A bit of shaming is necessary when so many of the complaints were just unfounded ranting or any excuse to avoid playing a system where some of these people realized they weren't top dogs anymore because of their "listbuilding skills".
Addendum:
I realize there were certainly people with valid complaints or concerns about the mechanics of the system and things like that. That's fine. What I take issue with is the fact that there was such a vocal group of people who refused to even try playing Open/Narrative Play and now that there's points...they come flocking back and (IMO) have "taken over", forcing those of us who enjoyed Narrative/Open Play to have to start playing things their way.
Bottle wrote: And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
Exalted.
I'd like to start off by answering the "How do I set up a Narrative game/event that will appeal to Matched Play regulars" question with an idea. Come up with an event where the players aren't necessarily matching off against one another. That way, they can participate without feeling the need to min/max and win. Here are a few spit balled ideas that I ran for 40k back in the day and could easily be converted to AoS.
1. Pumpkin Smashing... put a bunch (A BUNCH!) of pumpkins or similar tokens all over the board. They have 1 wound and a 5+ armor save, 4+ against shooting since they're so low to the ground. Each player brings up to 5 models. The winner is the one who is able to smash the most pumpkins over a 5 round period. Attacking your opponent is a valid strategy, but keeps you from smashing pumpkins. We used to run this around Halloween/Thanksgiving. The pumpkins could just as easily be skeletons or rats or anything.
2. Gladiator Fights... each player brings one non-Monster model with the Hero, Priest or Wizard keyword. All players deploy at even intervals around a 4" square map and then take turns in clockwise order. Last man standing wins. The fights go super quick, so you run it a few times and people realize they can gang up on the meaner models early. Run follow up events where your "Gladiator" can bring 1-2 support units and in no time you've tricked people into playing narrative AoS.
In other words... start small and work up from there. Trying to get a matched play only person to play full army sized games of open play is an uphill battle.
OR...
Just call a duck a duck and tell people to show up with a 3000 matched play point "sideboard" and then just have them deploy using the open play rules, with sudden death objectives in play for outnumbered armies. Put a limit on the number of units that can be deployed to ensure that they don't field the whole 3000 points. That way, they'll both have relatively the same amount of stuff to choose from, but won't be deploying everything. Summoned units can only be pulled from whatever you didn't deploy.
FWIW, there's really no reason you can't apply the matched play points system to these kinds of things in other kinds of play.
Who is shaming? I seen this mentioned from 2 different people now, maybe 3. Who is shaming who in here? Nobody is shaming anyone so why is this being brought up?
Also no one is complaining in this thread either. Who is complaining? When did someone thinks differently than most people become complaining?
A lot of well said thoughts on both sides of the fence were well said. Nobody is complaining or shaming at all.
With any game, if you enjoy the competitive aspect, you'll want a tighter ruleset to be able to cleanly and clearly make tactical decisions in your game. If you prefer "open" play, or "loosey goosey" or whatever you want to call it, you can always pull back from clearly defined rules with your opponent's consent. You can't necessarily build a tighter ruleset with your opponent.
Open play exists wherever two like minded people [or more] want it to. 40k has no open play system, yet I've played scenarios with my gaming group, held campaigns, seen how many gribblies a handful of movie Marines could handle... but I wouldn't want to have to go through the setup for that every time.
I was interested in starting a Lizardman army at the end of 8th, before AOS hit. The seemingly slapdash rules turned me completely off. I have literally created a simple slap-dash game I can play with my [7 and 5 year-old] kids using a handful of d6's and their Bionicle models. We socially decide which guys we want to be, the enemies we'll face, and the rules for each dude. I don't want to do that with a miniature wargame. A roleplaying game, like D&D? Sure, but not a wargame.
Anyhow, the GHB has gotten me interested in the Lizardman army idea again, so at the very least, the possibility of a game with structure has piqued my interest.
PS: I'm a pretty social guy, when it comes to gaming. I want to "play" with my opponent. I get excited, I boo at his good rolls, I declare that my tanks "duck" when they're shot at. I just like having a more structured game to play while I'm doing that.
Bottle wrote: And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
You can try to encourage people to play narratively all you want. Unless you can motivate players to actually frigging talk to one another outside of "Moan,moan,moan I don't want to play narratively because soandso might do this gamebreaking thing so I only want to play points where they can still do this gamebreaking thing but it's balanced because points."
Matched Play is a ridiculous thing that never should have been added because some people are terrified of interacting with other people socially.
Kan, are you interested in having a proper discussion or are you just here to try to trigger people? Please drop lines like the last one. I have played AoS from the start and have lots of experience with both open play (chatting to the opponent to agree the parameters) and matched play. And for me, matched play is just hands down more fun. Simple as that. Matched play has led me to having greater social interaction because it enables me to go to tournaments and play against other like-minded hobbyists.
So once again, I will politely ask you to refrain from those sorts of flame bait comments, and instead ask you to bring some more thought-out arguments to the table please.
And there are some great examples of narrative events that the matched play crowd throughly enjoy. RAW16 in the UK and Holy Hammer in the US (along with their other events, Holy Havok I think it was called). If you are willing to put in the effort you can get the tournament crowd to embrace the narrative and have a great time. It doesn't have to be a massive event either - looks at Kriswalls fantastic suggestions above - or any of Mongoose Matt's battle reports - or Discoking's battle reports - or that first comment on TGA in Wayniac's blog post. All fantastic examples of how to be positive about narrative play and get others enthused with that positivity. Matched play has rapidly grown the player base and that can only be great because it means there will be more people keen to get involved in the other sides of the hobby than ever before. Be positive - put some effort it - people will play.
Bottle wrote: And in that case, I say it would be more worthwhile to make threads such as "How do I encourage others to play Narratively?" or "How do I set up a Narrative game/event" that will appeal to Matched Play regulars?" rather than "Moan, moan, moan, everyone is playing nothing but Matched Play, moan, moan, moan"
Maybe. But if you read all my comments in here you will hopefully get the message that I am just wanting people to have fun with Warhammer and AoS - and I see this thread as being too much doom and gloom when we could be talking about exploring fun ideas to get people hooked on Narrative play. I don't want people to get hung up on others enjoying Matched play. I want people who like playing narrative games to keep trying to get others involved and to never give up.
Bottle wrote: Maybe. But if you read all my comments in here you will hopefully get the message that I am just wanting people to have fun with Warhammer and AoS - and I see this thread as being too much doom and gloom when we could be talking about exploring fun ideas to get people hooked on Narrative play. I don't want people to get hung up on others enjoying Matched play. I want people who like playing narrative games to keep trying to get others involved and to never give up.
Clearly you don't, if you post such dismissive nonsense and then play the "flamebait" card when someone replies to your post in kind about the system you've been touting.
Matched Play should never have been introduced. Period. End of story.
It was unnecessary to reintroduce points and it was unnecessary to reintroduce a pseudo-Force Organization System. Anything that took the "social interaction" out of a social game was a terrible idea, and it did nothing but cater to the crowd who want to just show up at a store with their armies and get into a game with no effort and refuse to waver from whatever list they read online or saw in a Tournament.
It did nothing but cater to the crowd who are the antithesis of what Age of Sigmar was about, a game where even a Goblin can be a hero and take down a mighty beast...if he got lucky, because it has gone back to people talking about what is or is not "efficient".
Matched Play and the players who flaunt its virtues("It's balanced!", "It's easier to get games!", "I don't have to experiment with different things to find out what does or doesn't work! Points let me know this!") are woefully counter to the system and what made the game fun at the start.
If I want to play a restrictive, points balanced game I'll play 40k.
We've argued many times in the past Kan. I think you are overly negative and pessimistic personally. I don't think calling people out for (in my opinion) moaning and not doing anything about it, is the same league as you trying to make out all matched play players are social retards. But hey-ho, you can keep making belittling comments of us if you want (whereas all I want to see is Wayniac be a little more upbeat and proactive). You also seem hell bent on dragging me into another argument but I've not got any time for you so on my block list you go. Bye bye
You did literally the same thing I did. You attempted to paint it as though Wayniac(and by extension other Open/Narrative players, since his thread is just sharing his thoughts on the dilemma faced by said players because of the fact that some people believe "Matched Play should be the default" for whatever reasons they might have) has done nothing but whine.
Matched Play has attracted a certain element who believe they should not have to do anything beyond plop models down and play.
While there's a certain attractiveness to that prospect, it also has downsides in the fact that points are not actually a good measure of balance. If I brought a Wanderer army consisting of the Waystone Pathfinders, paying the appropriate points and whatnot, with as many Glade Guard, Sisters of the Watch, Waywatchers, Wayfinders, and Waystriders as I could fit in against a person bringing a purely melee army...
I am going to win, unless I have bad rolls. That many ranged shots are going to make the game unfun for the other player.
Can points prevent that from happening? Nope!
Can talking to someone prevent that from happening? Yup!
Kanluwen wrote: You did literally the same thing I did. You attempted to paint it as though Wayniac(and by extension other Open/Narrative players, since his thread is just sharing his thoughts on the dilemma faced by said players because of the fact that some people believe "Matched Play should be the default" for whatever reasons they might have) has done nothing but whine.
But the difference for me is I tried to give as much positive advice following that - I have given examples of successful narrative events and tried to be encouraging and positive. And, yes, I have accused of Wayniac of moaning. But I'll say it now in case it hasn't been clear - I wish Wayniac and anyone else the best of luck with getting people to play narrative games and I think it can be easily achieved with the right frame of mind. I only accuse you of moaning as I see it being fruitless. What's it going to solve? Whereas on the other hand looking at succesful narrative games and events and discussing why they worked and why they got Matched Play players interested (RAW16 was very much made up of lots of UK tournament regulars) is going to be much more beneficial it enabling him to play the sort of games he wants to play.
If I have labelled all narrative players as whining as you say. I apologise. My expereince of posters like Wayniac is only from these sorts of threads and I acknowledge that may give me a warped perspective of you. I just want you to look on the bright side and start talking positively about how to promote narrative play rather than dwelling on the lack of it in your local area.
A proverb I like: "Don't try fixing the blame, try fixing the problem." So people are more into Matched Play than Narrative play around you - what are some good ideas on how to get them to enjoy the narrative side? (Maybe you have some good ideas too Kan?) I first suggest trying to run a game where you are the GM like the first one in the TGA blog post.
I also want to shout out Kriswall's suggestions again. They sound great!
Kanluwen wrote: You did literally the same thing I did. You attempted to paint it as though Wayniac(and by extension other Open/Narrative players, since his thread is just sharing his thoughts on the dilemma faced by said players because of the fact that some people believe "Matched Play should be the default" for whatever reasons they might have) has done nothing but whine.
Matched Play has attracted a certain element who believe they should not have to do anything beyond plop models down and play.
While there's a certain attractiveness to that prospect, it also has downsides in the fact that points are not actually a good measure of balance. If I brought a Wanderer army consisting of the Waystone Pathfinders, paying the appropriate points and whatnot, with as many Glade Guard, Sisters of the Watch, Waywatchers, Wayfinders, and Waystriders as I could fit in against a person bringing a purely melee army...
I am going to win, unless I have bad rolls. That many ranged shots are going to make the game unfun for the other player.
Can points prevent that from happening? Nope!
Can talking to someone prevent that from happening? Yup!
Yeah... so... the melee player could also just out deploy you by a LOT and then bum rush you, not really worrying about the comparatively small percentage of his army he loses to shooting before rolling into you like an angry, jagged tide. I know my Ironjawz absolutely crushes heavy shooting armies when I get into range and with all the movement enhancement, getting into range usually happens either turn 1 or 2, depending who goes first and where armies deployed.
Open Play is fine, but it requires a lot of trial and error to make balanced as you learn other players' armies, play styles and relative skill levels. This is great if you have the time. Lots of people either don't have the time or have it and choose to use it on other things. Matched Play flat out eliminates the need to haggle about balance and lets you simply get down to playing. If I have 2 hours per week to game, which is about average for me, I'd rather be playing for 2 hours per week from week 1 and NOT spending weeks/months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance. I have no interest in having to play several games before coming to an agreement that maybe unit XYZ is a little strong and that you should take fewer to make for a more balanced game. It's so much easier to say unit XYZ is worth 100 points and then have the community as a whole debate on whether or not 100 is appropriate. That's one reason I like PPC. It takes the "people should talk to each other about what balance looks like" and expands it to an entire global community where everyone can take part in the conversation. It's like Open Play on steroids.
Matched Play should never have been introduced. Period. End of story.
Wouldn't have played, nor anyone I know, so I'm rather glad they did believed and added it in.
Yeah. Pretty much this. None of my friends would be playing at all without Matched Play. There are other gaming options that are just quicker and easier to pick up.
Kanluwen wrote: You did literally the same thing I did. You attempted to paint it as though Wayniac(and by extension other Open/Narrative players, since his thread is just sharing his thoughts on the dilemma faced by said players because of the fact that some people believe "Matched Play should be the default" for whatever reasons they might have) has done nothing but whine.
Matched Play has attracted a certain element who believe they should not have to do anything beyond plop models down and play.
While there's a certain attractiveness to that prospect, it also has downsides in the fact that points are not actually a good measure of balance. If I brought a Wanderer army consisting of the Waystone Pathfinders, paying the appropriate points and whatnot, with as many Glade Guard, Sisters of the Watch, Waywatchers, Wayfinders, and Waystriders as I could fit in against a person bringing a purely melee army...
I am going to win, unless I have bad rolls. That many ranged shots are going to make the game unfun for the other player.
Can points prevent that from happening? Nope!
Can talking to someone prevent that from happening? Yup!
Yeah... so... the melee player could also just out deploy you by a LOT and then bum rush you, not really worrying about the comparatively small percentage of his army he loses to shooting before rolling into you like an angry, jagged tide.
Do you actually know what Waystone Pathfinders do? Serious question.
Realm Wanderers: Waystone Pathfinders have travelled the realms for countless years and know many hidden paths. Instead of setting up the units in this battalion on the battlefield, you can place them to one side. In your first movement phase, set up all of these units wholly within 6" of the edges of the battlefield, and more than 9" from any enemy models. This is each unit's move for that movement phase.
So. How do you outdeploy that?
I know my Ironjawz absolutely crushes heavy shooting armies when I get into range and with all the movement enhancement, getting into range usually happens either turn 1 or 2, depending who goes first and where armies deployed.
Protective Volley: Perhaps the greatest weapon of the Waystone Pathfinders lies in their ability to cut down any foes that draw close enough to threaten their leader with devastatingly effective volleys of bow-fire. In your hero phase, pick one enemy unit within 12" of the battalion's Nomad Prince. All other Waystone Pathfinder units can immediately make a shooting attack against that unit as if it were the shooting phase.
And then let's not forget that if someone really wanted to be a twerp about it, they can take nothing but Sisters of the Watch(any 4 units from Eternal Guard, Glade Guard, Wildwood Rangers, and Sisters of the Watch) so that they can fire shots at you as you charge in("Loose Until the Last" special rule).
Open Play is fine, but it requires a lot of trial and error to make balanced as you learn other players' armies, play styles and relative skill levels. This is great if you have the time. Lots of people either don't have the time or have it and choose to use it on other things. Matched Play flat out eliminates the need to haggle about balance and lets you simply get down to playing. If I have 2 hours per week to game, which is about average for me, I'd rather be playing for 2 hours per week from week 1 and NOT spending weeks/months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance. I have no interest in having to play several games before coming to an agreement that maybe unit XYZ is a little strong and that you should take fewer to make for a more balanced game. It's so much easier to say unit XYZ is worth 100 points and then have the community as a whole debate on whether or not 100 is appropriate. That's one reason I like PPC. It takes the "people should talk to each other about what balance looks like" and expands it to an entire global community where everyone can take part in the conversation. It's like Open Play on steroids.
Except for the whole part where you've randomly assigned a value to the unit, rather than limiting the number of said unit you can take of course...
Once again, my issue is not Matched Play as an option. I'm glad they added it as well. My problem is that it has, for all intents and purposes, taken over. If I want an Open Play/Narrative game, there's a good chance nobody else will be interested in it because, presumably, they're too afraid of something "unbalanced" coming up. So I'm in a similar position to people like auticus, where I'd rather have the option to use Open Play if I wanted to, or Matched Play if I wanted that. But as it stands, it's basically one of two options:
1) Play Matched Play
2) Don't get to play at all
That's a really bad situation to make because it puts Matched Play from being an option to being, as stated before, the "one true way" where it's you conform to the rest of the herd, or you are forced to leave. I don't hate Matched Play at all, I think it was a good option to add because you need some structure for tournament games to avoid having bloated comp systems. However, I don't think that Open Play was that bad for pickup games; maybe 20 years ago in the early days of the internet but now, at least from what I've seen, shops and/or groups have Facebook groups or Meetup groups or a variety of ways to coordinate things before going to the store to play, so IMHO there should be no excuse for lack of communication. For example, there are constantly posts on my GW's facebook group about if anyone will be down for a game; it would be easy to iron out all of the discussion about how many units/heroes/etc. to bring on that page. Yet for some reason people don't, and I honestly cannot fathom why because it seems trivially easy to me if you post a response to someone asking for a game by saying well I want a small game so how about 5 units, up to two heroes, and one behemoth, and of course the implied "don't be a dick" which should never have to be stated.
For me really, the biggest blow to having Matched Play as the default is it goes right back to "Must have X to play". The appeal of AOS was that you could build things up as you go, and only play with a few units as you built up your army. Matched Play kicks that in the face and goes back to "Bring 2k points or you don't get a game" which is bad overall because it ignores the fact AOS was meant to lower the barrier to entry.
The argument has always been that without Matched Play, you could break the game, but I think that was an exaggeration since you can still "break the game" with Matched Play.
Kanluwen wrote: You did literally the same thing I did. You attempted to paint it as though Wayniac(and by extension other Open/Narrative players, since his thread is just sharing his thoughts on the dilemma faced by said players because of the fact that some people believe "Matched Play should be the default" for whatever reasons they might have) has done nothing but whine.
But the difference for me is I tried to give as much positive advice following that - I have given examples of successful narrative events and tried to be encouraging and positive. And, yes, I have accused of Wayniac of moaning. But I'll say it now in case it hasn't been clear - I wish Wayniac and anyone else the best of luck with getting people to play narrative games and I think it can be easily achieved with the right frame of mind. I only accuse you of moaning as I see it being fruitless. What's it going to solve? Whereas on the other hand looking at succesful narrative games and events and discussing why they worked and why they got Matched Play players interested (RAW16 was very much made up of lots of UK tournament regulars) is going to be much more beneficial it enabling him to play the sort of games he wants to play.
Do you not understand the difference between an openly advertised "Narrative Play weekend" and people just trying to get games running without having to worry about having the General's Handbook and a premade list with points on it?
Part of the thing that brought me back into regularly playing with Age of Sigmar was that I could pack my case up with models from whatever army I wanted to run, go to the shop and usually find a game(except on Saturdays because that's generally a 40k day--we made Sundays into "Sigmar Sundays" instead after a few months) with no effort.
That's not really the case anymore. The more toxic individuals who left because of a lack of points have been returning and generally taking up the table space, insisting upon anyone coming in "playing points" and generally being toxic to the community that got fostered into being with the pre-GHB environment.
If I have labelled all narrative players as whining as you say. I apologise. My expereince of posters like Wayniac is only from these sorts of threads and I acknowledge that may give me a warped perspective of you. I just want you to look on the bright side and start talking positively about how to promote narrative play rather than dwelling on the lack of it in your local area.
I can't talk positively about anything that brought toxic players who insist that their army is "balanced" because of points, despite it being nothing but cheesemongering nonsense designed to crush any prospective new players and unfun for anyone barring themselves to play against--or just a copy/paste from a tournament and when they lose they do nothing but whine about how the list should have won since it was a tournament list.
I don't mind losing games. I do mind having my time wasted with a game that we could have just as effectively rolled a single dice for and decided to see "Did my list win or did your list win? On a 1-3 I won, 4-6 you won..." because that's the level of fun had.
A proverb I like: "Don't try fixing the blame, try fixing the problem." So people are more into Matched Play than Narrative play around you - what are some good ideas on how to get them to enjoy the narrative side? (Maybe you have some good ideas too Kan?) I first suggest trying to run a game where you are the GM like the first one in the TGA blog post.
Lol yeah, okay. That'll totally bring players into narrative games...
"Derp let's play smash the pumpkins!".
The people who I've encountered who are into Matched Play are into it strictly for the competitive aspect. We've had narrative events cancelled because of the whining from one or two people and the event organizers just deciding it wasn't worth the bother.
A lot of it does seem to be entirely dependent on area. Folks like myself, auticus and possibly Kanluwen are in areas where pickup games/matched play/wannabe competitive games are the norm, and anything else you might as well not even bother. Others seem to be in more open-minded areas where someone isn't going to laugh at you for suggesting not using points.
@Kan, reading your post it's more apparent to me than ever that we see the world completely differently. The aggression in your posts, the talk of "toxic individuals" and general vitriol towards fellow hobbyists etc makes it clear that I don't want to continue having a discussion. I'm having fun playing Age of Sigmar matched play, I hope you are having fun too.
Bottle wrote: @Kan, reading your post it's more apparent to me than ever that we see the world completely differently. The aggression in your posts, the talk of "toxic individuals" and general vitriol towards fellow hobbyists etc makes it clear that I don't want to continue having a discussion. I'm having fun playing Age of Sigmar matched play, I hope you are having fun too.
Put him on ignore and re-read the last page. I was actually quite surprised by just how much more reasonable this thread seemed after I did that.
To expand on what Kriswall mentioned earlier, free for all games are a great way to create a self-balancing environment (either with or without points) and also provide plentiful narrative opportunities that many people may not have seen before. Simply put, the stronger players get ganged up on and often end up losing to enemies who brought an unquestionably weaker force to the table. FFA also puts more emphasis on playing rather than winning---only one player out of the bunch gets to win after all.
Wayniac wrote: Once again, my issue is not Matched Play as an option. I'm glad they added it as well. My problem is that it has, for all intents and purposes, taken over. If I want an Open Play/Narrative game, there's a good chance nobody else will be interested in it because, presumably, they're too afraid of something "unbalanced" coming up. So I'm in a similar position to people like auticus, where I'd rather have the option to use Open Play if I wanted to, or Matched Play if I wanted that. But as it stands, it's basically one of two options:
1) Play Matched Play
2) Don't get to play at all
That's a really bad situation to make because it puts Matched Play from being an option to being, as stated before, the "one true way" where it's you conform to the rest of the herd, or you are forced to leave. I don't hate Matched Play at all, I think it was a good option to add because you need some structure for tournament games to avoid having bloated comp systems. However, I don't think that Open Play was that bad for pickup games; maybe 20 years ago in the early days of the internet but now, at least from what I've seen, shops and/or groups have Facebook groups or Meetup groups or a variety of ways to coordinate things before going to the store to play, so IMHO there should be no excuse for lack of communication. For example, there are constantly posts on my GW's facebook group about if anyone will be down for a game; it would be easy to iron out all of the discussion about how many units/heroes/etc. to bring on that page. Yet for some reason people don't, and I honestly cannot fathom why because it seems trivially easy to me if you post a response to someone asking for a game by saying well I want a small game so how about 5 units, up to two heroes, and one behemoth, and of course the implied "don't be a dick" which should never have to be stated.
For me really, the biggest blow to having Matched Play as the default is it goes right back to "Must have X to play". The appeal of AOS was that you could build things up as you go, and only play with a few units as you built up your army. Matched Play kicks that in the face and goes back to "Bring 2k points or you don't get a game" which is bad overall because it ignores the fact AOS was meant to lower the barrier to entry.
The argument has always been that without Matched Play, you could break the game, but I think that was an exaggeration since you can still "break the game" with Matched Play.
While I'm sorry for your situation, I do feel like there's not really a lot to be done about the situation.
I mean, when AoS came out, it was hailed by a lot of people as the end of the boring, WAAC mentality that had corrupted the spirit of the game, and a whole bunch of other hyperbole. But the fact that GW released the Generals Handbook, and that Matched Play immediately became the way to play the game... isn't that a sign that maybe the people clamoring for the thematic, narrative driven, bring what you want type of game were always a minority? And unfortunately, when you're a minority, chances are you're not going to get your way.
WHFB had a target audience (Matched Play); AoS had a different target audience (Narrative). And when the two are combined... Matched Play is the dominant Group, which sadly means that the Narrative guys, when the two groups can't agree, will have to accept that they're not getting their way, try and reach out for others with similar interests, or simply find Another game to play.
Is that "fair"? Probably not. But what can you even do about it?
Wayniac wrote: Once again, my issue is not Matched Play as an option. I'm glad they added it as well. My problem is that it has, for all intents and purposes, taken over. If I want an Open Play/Narrative game, there's a good chance nobody else will be interested in it because, presumably, they're too afraid of something "unbalanced" coming up. So I'm in a similar position to people like auticus, where I'd rather have the option to use Open Play if I wanted to, or Matched Play if I wanted that. But as it stands, it's basically one of two options:
1) Play Matched Play 2) Don't get to play at all
That's a really bad situation to make because it puts Matched Play from being an option to being, as stated before, the "one true way" where it's you conform to the rest of the herd, or you are forced to leave. I don't hate Matched Play at all, I think it was a good option to add because you need some structure for tournament games to avoid having bloated comp systems. However, I don't think that Open Play was that bad for pickup games; maybe 20 years ago in the early days of the internet but now, at least from what I've seen, shops and/or groups have Facebook groups or Meetup groups or a variety of ways to coordinate things before going to the store to play, so IMHO there should be no excuse for lack of communication. For example, there are constantly posts on my GW's facebook group about if anyone will be down for a game; it would be easy to iron out all of the discussion about how many units/heroes/etc. to bring on that page. Yet for some reason people don't, and I honestly cannot fathom why because it seems trivially easy to me if you post a response to someone asking for a game by saying well I want a small game so how about 5 units, up to two heroes, and one behemoth, and of course the implied "don't be a dick" which should never have to be stated.
For me really, the biggest blow to having Matched Play as the default is it goes right back to "Must have X to play". The appeal of AOS was that you could build things up as you go, and only play with a few units as you built up your army. Matched Play kicks that in the face and goes back to "Bring 2k points or you don't get a game" which is bad overall because it ignores the fact AOS was meant to lower the barrier to entry.
The argument has always been that without Matched Play, you could break the game, but I think that was an exaggeration since you can still "break the game" with Matched Play.
While I'm sorry for your situation, I do feel like there's not really a lot to be done about the situation.
I mean, when AoS came out, it was hailed by a lot of people as the end of the boring, WAAC mentality that had corrupted the spirit of the game, and a whole bunch of other hyperbole. But the fact that GW released the Generals Handbook, and that Matched Play immediately became the way to play the game... isn't that a sign that maybe the people clamoring for the thematic, narrative driven, bring what you want type of game were always a minority? And unfortunately, when you're a minority, chances are you're not going to get your way.
WHFB had a target audience (Matched Play); AoS had a different target audience (Narrative). And when the two are combined... Matched Play is the dominant Group, which sadly means that the Narrative guys, when the two groups can't agree, will have to accept that they're not getting their way, try and reach out for others with similar interests, or simply find Another game to play.
Is that "fair"? Probably not. But what can you even do about it?
That is the problem. I came back to GW games after 15 years in part because AOS looked like they were finally addressing concerns and saying screw it we are going to embrace the game in the style we feel it should be, only to be met with lots of rabid yelling about "muh points" and "waaah where's my balance" and "dumbing it down" to where they just threw up their hands and said okay here's something resembling very rough points, have at it.
Is there more to the game than speed and shooting? Feels like shooting is nuts and if you can't fire back or cross the table immediately your just gonna get torn up.
Went against an order battalion with waywatchers Nomad Prince and Hurricanum that just decimated my forces before I got anywhere.
TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.
Open Play is fine, but it requires a lot of trial and error to make balanced as you learn other players' armies, play styles and relative skill levels. This is great if you have the time. Lots of people either don't have the time or have it and choose to use it on other things. Matched Play flat out eliminates the need to haggle about balance and lets you simply get down to playing.
To be fair, while matched play allowed for a more pragmatic and practical approach that lets you simply get down to playing, let's not make the mistake of assuming that it doesn't also require a lot of trial and error to make balanced games as you learn other players armies play styles and skill levels (what were you saying about time...?). Points are not always even. And even in good points based systems (I'm thinking warmachine...), the synergies inherent in the game require a lot of,trial and error to make balanced, effective lists. Matched play eliminates the need to haggle about balance, it doesn't eliminate the problems.
Kriswall wrote: [
If I have 2 hours per week to game, which is about average for me, I'd rather be playing for 2 hours per week from week 1 and NOT spending weeks/months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance. I have no interest in having to play several games before coming to an agreement that maybe unit XYZ is a little strong and that you should take fewer to make for a more balanced game. It's so much easier to say unit XYZ is worth 100 points and then have the community as a whole debate on whether or not 100 is appropriate.
See above. All you are doing is arguing semantics and nomenclature. Matched play can just as easily require weeks and months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance.
In any case, arguing that having the xyz being worth 100ppints and then having 'the community' decide whether or not it's appropriate is better than playing several games and then coming to an agreement thst xyz is a little too strong and you should take fewer to make a more balanced is being a bit dishonest. You are describing the same thing. And how does 'the community' decide that xyz at 100pts is appropriate, other than playing the several games you seem to scoff at in the same sentence. In any case, I question whether 'the community' would even have thst debate. Having an official cost means gamers will often than not will not have the debate, regardless of the suitability of that points value for that unit. If it's poor, it will Be ignored, if it's good, it will be usedand abused with shrugged shoulders and indifference. Now, fair enough- you can go straight in without any hassle and negotiation, and spend all your two hours a week gaming, and still have a horrible outcome, because of this and you are not necessarily better off, or in a better position.
Kriswall wrote: [
That's one reason I like PPC. It takes the "people should talk to each other about what balance looks like" and expands it to an entire global community where everyone can take part in the conversation. It's like Open Play on steroids.
Sometimes what matters more is the guy in front of you, and not the global community.
Wayniac wrote: Once again, my issue is not Matched Play as an option. I'm glad they added it as well. My problem is that it has, for all intents and purposes, taken over. If I want an Open Play/Narrative game, there's a good chance nobody else will be interested in it because, presumably, they're too afraid of something "unbalanced" coming up. So I'm in a similar position to people like auticus, where I'd rather have the option to use Open Play if I wanted to, or Matched Play if I wanted that. But as it stands, it's basically one of two options:
1) Play Matched Play
2) Don't get to play at all
That's a really bad situation to make because it puts Matched Play from being an option to being, as stated before, the "one true way" where it's you conform to the rest of the herd, or you are forced to leave. I don't hate Matched Play at all, I think it was a good option to add because you need some structure for tournament games to avoid having bloated comp systems. However, I don't think that Open Play was that bad for pickup games; maybe 20 years ago in the early days of the internet but now, at least from what I've seen, shops and/or groups have Facebook groups or Meetup groups or a variety of ways to coordinate things before going to the store to play, so IMHO there should be no excuse for lack of communication. For example, there are constantly posts on my GW's facebook group about if anyone will be down for a game; it would be easy to iron out all of the discussion about how many units/heroes/etc. to bring on that page. Yet for some reason people don't, and I honestly cannot fathom why because it seems trivially easy to me if you post a response to someone asking for a game by saying well I want a small game so how about 5 units, up to two heroes, and one behemoth, and of course the implied "don't be a dick" which should never have to be stated.
For me really, the biggest blow to having Matched Play as the default is it goes right back to "Must have X to play". The appeal of AOS was that you could build things up as you go, and only play with a few units as you built up your army. Matched Play kicks that in the face and goes back to "Bring 2k points or you don't get a game" which is bad overall because it ignores the fact AOS was meant to lower the barrier to entry.
The argument has always been that without Matched Play, you could break the game, but I think that was an exaggeration since you can still "break the game" with Matched Play.
While I'm sorry for your situation, I do feel like there's not really a lot to be done about the situation.
I mean, when AoS came out, it was hailed by a lot of people as the end of the boring, WAAC mentality that had corrupted the spirit of the game, and a whole bunch of other hyperbole. But the fact that GW released the Generals Handbook, and that Matched Play immediately became the way to play the game... isn't that a sign that maybe the people clamoring for the thematic, narrative driven, bring what you want type of game were always a minority? And unfortunately, when you're a minority, chances are you're not going to get your way.
WHFB had a target audience (Matched Play); AoS had a different target audience (Narrative). And when the two are combined... Matched Play is the dominant Group, which sadly means that the Narrative guys, when the two groups can't agree, will have to accept that they're not getting their way, try and reach out for others with similar interests, or simply find Another game to play.
Is that "fair"? Probably not. But what can you even do about it?
Not play in public places?
That's basically about it, because the reason Matched Play seems to be "dominant" is not necessarily because the thematic, narrative driven players are a minority but because the Matched Play advocates are the ones who tend to be out in public more often than not.
It's not unlike the Lord of the Rings games. The models were, apparently, selling well enough that GW went after The Hobbit license...but how many times did you ever see games played in a local shop?
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.
Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.
Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.
Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.
Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.
Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?
Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)
Kanluwen wrote: You did literally the same thing I did. You attempted to paint it as though Wayniac(and by extension other Open/Narrative players, since his thread is just sharing his thoughts on the dilemma faced by said players because of the fact that some people believe "Matched Play should be the default" for whatever reasons they might have) has done nothing but whine.
Matched Play has attracted a certain element who believe they should not have to do anything beyond plop models down and play.
While there's a certain attractiveness to that prospect, it also has downsides in the fact that points are not actually a good measure of balance. If I brought a Wanderer army consisting of the Waystone Pathfinders, paying the appropriate points and whatnot, with as many Glade Guard, Sisters of the Watch, Waywatchers, Wayfinders, and Waystriders as I could fit in against a person bringing a purely melee army...
I am going to win, unless I have bad rolls. That many ranged shots are going to make the game unfun for the other player.
Can points prevent that from happening? Nope!
Can talking to someone prevent that from happening? Yup!
Yeah... so... the melee player could also just out deploy you by a LOT and then bum rush you, not really worrying about the comparatively small percentage of his army he loses to shooting before rolling into you like an angry, jagged tide.
Do you actually know what Waystone Pathfinders do? Serious question.
Realm Wanderers: Waystone Pathfinders have travelled the realms for countless years and know many hidden paths. Instead of setting up the units in this battalion on the battlefield, you can place them to one side. In your first movement phase, set up all of these units wholly within 6" of the edges of the battlefield, and more than 9" from any enemy models. This is each unit's move for that movement phase.
So. How do you outdeploy that?
I know my Ironjawz absolutely crushes heavy shooting armies when I get into range and with all the movement enhancement, getting into range usually happens either turn 1 or 2, depending who goes first and where armies deployed.
Protective Volley: Perhaps the greatest weapon of the Waystone Pathfinders lies in their ability to cut down any foes that draw close enough to threaten their leader with devastatingly effective volleys of bow-fire. In your hero phase, pick one enemy unit within 12" of the battalion's Nomad Prince. All other Waystone Pathfinder units can immediately make a shooting attack against that unit as if it were the shooting phase.
And then let's not forget that if someone really wanted to be a twerp about it, they can take nothing but Sisters of the Watch(any 4 units from Eternal Guard, Glade Guard, Wildwood Rangers, and Sisters of the Watch) so that they can fire shots at you as you charge in("Loose Until the Last" special rule).
Open Play is fine, but it requires a lot of trial and error to make balanced as you learn other players' armies, play styles and relative skill levels. This is great if you have the time. Lots of people either don't have the time or have it and choose to use it on other things. Matched Play flat out eliminates the need to haggle about balance and lets you simply get down to playing. If I have 2 hours per week to game, which is about average for me, I'd rather be playing for 2 hours per week from week 1 and NOT spending weeks/months slowly building up to a comfortable level of balance. I have no interest in having to play several games before coming to an agreement that maybe unit XYZ is a little strong and that you should take fewer to make for a more balanced game. It's so much easier to say unit XYZ is worth 100 points and then have the community as a whole debate on whether or not 100 is appropriate. That's one reason I like PPC. It takes the "people should talk to each other about what balance looks like" and expands it to an entire global community where everyone can take part in the conversation. It's like Open Play on steroids.
Except for the whole part where you've randomly assigned a value to the unit, rather than limiting the number of said unit you can take of course...
Yeah, just like Open Play.
I'm honestly not sure what your points are. Some Wanderers Battalion is overpowered and not fun to play with or against? If what you say is all accurate, the likely outcome is that the dude gets half a game before I concede and never play him again. Any player willing to take advantage of an army build with a clear and generally acknowledged power imbalance isn't going to be easy to negotiate with regardless of whether or not points are in use. Granted, this is the first I've heard of a Wanderers Battalion being overpowered and 'god tier'. Shooting is nice, but generally isn't going to wipe out an army where the most basic troops have 4+ armor and 2 wounds each... especially when deploying so close means you've saved me the trouble of having to run you down.
You obviously hate everything about Matched Play and everything about the players who enjoy Matched Play. At the end of the day, Open Play had a chance and didn't shine. The General's Handbook, and the Matched Play rules in particular, were an obvious play to save a failing product launch. All available evidence suggests that sales of AoS have increased since Matched Play was introduced. If you like Open Play, play it. If nobody is willing to play Open Play... ask yourself why. If your community has universally chosen Matched Play, there is almost certainly a reason.
Kriswall wrote: You obviously hate everything about Matched Play and everything about the players who enjoy Matched Play. At the end of the day, Open Play had a chance and didn't shine. The General's Handbook, and the Matched Play rules in particular, were an obvious play to save a failing product launch. All available evidence suggests that sales of AoS have increased since Matched Play was introduced. If you like Open Play, play it. If nobody is willing to play Open Play... ask yourself why. If your community has universally chosen Matched Play, there is almost certainly a reason.
For my group, I know exactly the reason why, and it makes me sad to think about it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.
Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.
Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?
Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)
Cried, I'm starting to notice a pattern with those who hate matched play at this point, and it's that you always seem to have to slip in something derogatory towards those who don't enjoy what they prefer.
But it does sound like you wouldn't have had any game at all beforehand, which does answer my question.
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.
Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.
Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?
Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)
Cried, I'm starting to notice a pattern with those who hate matched play at this point, and it's that you always seem to have to slip in something derogatory towards those who don't enjoy what they prefer.
But it does sound like you wouldn't have had any game at all beforehand, which does answer my question.
Have you missed where I said, both in the original blog post and elsewhere, i don't hate matched play, I just think it should stay for tournaments/events and not regular games? Or the fact that it's been others who refer to myself and others as "whining" and "moan moan moan matched play" which is actually derogatory and dismissive?
NinthMusketeer wrote: TBF the Campaign Books are a gold mine of narrative content, and there are a huge number of battalions not available in Matched Play. Hopefully GW will keep things this way, as it is a great way to not only cater to the narrative crowd without upsetting the matched crowd but also encourages narrative play in 'general'.
Yes and you know what will happen instead? Those things won't exist to the community because the matched crowd normally outnumbers (or at least are more vehement in how their way is best) the narrative. That's how it is at my shop anyways. If it's not available for Matched Play, it's not available period. There is no group or even a group preferring Matched and a group preferring Narrative (I'd be happy with that since it would mean I could do both!), it's either you conform to Matched or you don't get games at all.
Would that group even be there at all if there was no matched play?
Who knows? That's a player problem though, because that group refused to police themselves and instead cried for something "official" to do it for them instead of doing it themselves or, before TGH, using one of the many fan balancing systems (some of which were better than GW's official version)
Cried, I'm starting to notice a pattern with those who hate matched play at this point, and it's that you always seem to have to slip in something derogatory towards those who don't enjoy what they prefer.
But it does sound like you wouldn't have had any game at all beforehand, which does answer my question.
Have you missed where I said, both in the original blog post and elsewhere, i don't hate matched play, I just think it should stay for tournaments/events and not regular games? Or the fact that it's been others who refer to myself and others as "whining" and "moan moan moan matched play" which is actually derogatory and dismissive?
I can read the thread, it's been going on back and forth, though it took a sharp turn upward when Kan came in.
My problem is I rarely meet advocates of open play that don't speak insultingly.
For me it's largely been the opposite (both here and elsewhere). It's almost always the competitive crowd that speaks disparagingly of others, the casual crowd seems to always just get fed up that they are basically told to "sit down and shut up". Same with the "pro-GW" and "anti-GW" sentiments, the pro crowd are always the ones who start insulting the others or tell them to just leave rather than address anything they said.
It's not limited to games though. I saw the attitude in World of Warcraft too which I played for many years; the people who didn't want to rush through everything were told to shut the feth up or go form their own group, never the ones who wanted to blow through everything as fast as possible.
@Wayniac, have you tried putting a shout out on your groups Facebook page for a fellow narrative/open player? I know you play ghoul kings, maybe send out a suggestion to play through the battleplans from the battletome as a mini campaign with someone. If they are reluctant because of no points - meet them half way and agree a points value to play the games with. Maybe giving one side a boost in points of the battleplan suggests one side should have more models.
I would try doing that, and if I got no answer, I would do it again and again on a weekly basis until I did. I would set up threads on TGA looking for fellow Florida players and make the drive to theirs on a weekend to play a game.
I would look into attending Holy Wars in early 2017 (it's a bit of a trek for you - but ironically just down the road from Auticus who also says he has no narrative players close by - you should go to that Auticus, sounds like the sort of event you would love :-) - Wayniac, you would probably have to fly, but the experience would be worth it. It draws players from all over the states so you might meet someone closer to home.
pm713 wrote: Out of interest what are people like me going to do without Matched play? I'd like to have a game without entering negotiations.
Adapt?
I mean, I'm sure you're not opposed to playing a 'new' Wargame, if it was a good game, right? And any new gsme would cost you an investment of time, Money, effort etc etc as you get to grips with it. No different here. And while it has its hurdles (different hurdles,to matched play), open play does allow you to approach your gaming in a completely different way. As the name suggests, it opens it up and can really broaden your horizons. Personally, I find creativity and embracing the narrative is its own reward, and it's done nothing but enhance and rejuvenate my enjoyment of the entire hobby. Matched play can get stifling when it's all you do.
As was said, you're not negotiating a peace treaty, and for what it's worth, it's actually a very enjoyable approach to take.
I play different games for different reasons, and while warmachine is my 'go to' game for the pragmatism and practicality of its 'organised play', I genuinely enjoy the creative/diy/narrative games that I play at my friends house on a Friday evening with flames of war, lotr sbg (historical proxy), infinity and various historicals- we're giving saga a whirl in the new year!
pm713 wrote: Out of interest what are people like me going to do without Matched play? I'd like to have a game without entering negotiations.
Adapt?
I mean, I'm sure you're not opposed to playing a 'new' Wargame, if it was a good game, right? And any new gsme would cost you an investment of time, Money, effort etc etc as you get to grips with it. No different here. And while it has its hurdles (different hurdles,to matched play), open play does allow you to approach your gaming in a completely different way. As the name suggests, it opens it up and can really broaden your horizons. Personally, I find creativity and embracing the narrative is its own reward, and it's done nothing but enhance and rejuvenate my enjoyment of the entire hobby. Matched play can get stifling when it's all you do.
As was said, you're not negotiating a peace treaty, and for what it's worth, it's actually a very enjoyable approach to take.
I play different games for different reasons, and while warmachine is my 'go to' game for the pragmatism and practicality of its 'organised play', I genuinely enjoy the creative/diy/narrative games that I play at my friends house on a Friday evening with flames of war, lotr sbg (historical proxy), infinity and various historicals- we're giving saga a whirl in the new year!
Okay. But you aren't talking about a good new game. You're asking me to have what will be a long and potentially annoying discussion to play a game of AoS. If it was some masterpiece and a game of such masterful quality it was the pinnacle of wargaming then I would happily talk about what kind of game every time. But it's not. It's a decent game where you're asking me to spend a lot of time and money to prepare for games I might not even have because I have to ask and debate what I'm doing all the time.
I can still do all the narrative and different games and still use points without having to deal with some annoying discussion every game. I don't mind playing a new wargame. I do mind playing a time consuming, expensive wargame that requires irritating discussions because I have much better things to do with my time. Having points simplifies things greatly and makes AoS worth playing.
pm713 wrote: Out of interest what are people like me going to do without Matched play? I'd like to have a game without entering negotiations.
Upon reading this question, my mind made the basic connection between that and what my group did before the GHB launched. Unfortunately my next thought was how useless of an answer it was. But fwiw my group used PPC to play with points for the year or so pre-ghb. Being former fantasy players from 8th the list building was already familiar to us, and our initial attempts at figuring out balanced matches from scratch ended disastrously.
I can look at two forces now and roughly gauge how balanced they are against each other but that's only because I now have a ton of experience. Without that even two forces that seem balanced at the start of the game may turn out to be far from it, and I think the factor of needing to go through multiple one-sided games to figure things out (or have a third party with experience) is the second biggest reason for why people prefer matched play. That also shows how matched is good even for the negotiators; it gives a baseline to start from that makes things much easier than starting from nothing.
I think that ultimately in the end we all have individual choices to make.
If our primary gaming environment is a local game store then expect that your primary default is going to be whatever the competitive meta and rules and scenarios are supposed to be that favor the pick up gamer mentality and wants/desires.
If you want to delve outside of that, it needs be done either in private or events that do not use the standard need be created and run.
Understanding of course that if you set out to create a narrative style event that uses scenarios outside of the GHB or uses non points that you should expect low attendance at first and even some slack or personal attacks from members of your community that are strongly against seeing something like that being a public event.
That being said, I speak from experience when I say that it can become successful but it does come at a cost of needing thick skin to see it through.
Anecdotal Evidence. But when the GHB dropped, AOS surged in my area. Nearly my entire group picked up an army, as did I. All of us where interested, but didnt want to deal with the hassle of, every time we meet up at the LGS we haggle and try to figure out what we want. We each arrive with a 2500pt list, roll on the thing and BOOM we are off. Our old Tomb king player even came back. He removed all the square bases off his models and put them on better ones.
Okay. But you aren't talking about a good new game.
Aren’t I? I’m talking about engaging in a game mode you’ve never done before. No different to what you’d need to do if you picked up a new game. you asked what people like you would be expected to do without matched play. I answered.
You're asking me to have what will be a long and potentially annoying discussion to play a game of AoS.
Am I? Nothing needs to be either ‘long’ or ‘potentially annoying’ about it. I enjoy this style of play, and I certainly don’t want to be standing around for hours on end deciding how we’re gonna play. In my experience, (and I’ve been playing this way with flames of war, historicals and even infinity for a fair few years now), the discussion can be sorted out in five or ten minutes. If you need longer – well, you have my details on FB. Drop me a line. The more you do it, like anything, the easier it becomes. Its not the hurdle you imagine it to be.
If it was some masterpiece and a game of such masterful quality it was the pinnacle of wargaming then I would happily talk about what kind of game every time. But it's not. It's a decent game where you're asking me to spend a lot of time and money to prepare for games I might not even have because I have to ask and debate what I'm doing all the time.
I’m asking you to put a bit of effort into game building and community building. Neither of which is a bad thing. I’m also suggesting, from personal experience that putting some time and money to prepare for games can also lead to games being more enjoyable.
And then, there is the alternative with matched play (or ‘organized’ play, in every game, from 40k to warmachine etc) where you don’t have to do these things, where you don’t have to ask and debate what you face, and you can still very easily end up with blood angels versus scatterbike eldar, or Karchev mad dogs spam versus Skorne. Because points aren’t necessarily balanced either, or a guarantee for a fun game. And sure, while you’re getting that ‘effortless’ game that you seem to want every time, is it always worth the lack of effort? What happens with matched play, when everyone simply chases the meta, 90% of the game gets ignored and everything gets stale because you’re fighting the same few lists all the time with the same few lists.
And how do you know that open play isn’t some kind of masterpiece? Or a pinnacle of wargames? Have you ever played it? Like I’ve said, from my own personal experience, while I enjoy matched play equivalents, there is great value to the open play approach. Its done nothing but good things for my hobby enjoyment. The fact we approach multiple wargames this way now should suggest to you that the approach has some merit and that maybe, its worth considering. And for what it's worth, I genuinely would encourage you to give it a go.
I can still do all the narrative and different games and still use points without having to deal with some annoying discussion every game.
You can, in theory, but that isn’t really what happens. What happens in reality is the second point-based pick up play becomes ‘the standard’ the vast majority of gamers simply will not deviate from the tiny bounds of officialdom, and people like Wayne either end up being forced to play a game mode they’re not interested in, or they don’t get to play. You turn up, and ask about narrative and different games, and people will look at you like you have two heads, and wont comprehend the idea of games beyond ‘75pts steamroller, roll for scenario’ or whatever the equivelant is in your game of choice. What happens is games will typically devolve into ‘meta’, and you end up with a handful of builds that people crutch on. And a lot of the creativity of the community dries up. (and then, amusingly, people will complain about the game being stale and/or broken, and will blame the company for it. Its not like there’s something they could do in the meantime either, is it?)
And that discussion isn’t necessarily ‘annoying’. Matched play, and the long term consequences of matched can be just as ‘annoying’ and stifling in the long term. I’ve actually found discussing my games beforehand to be rather empowering in terms of game building and scenario building. And anyway, I enjoy dealing with people. Wargaming doesn’t end at the table edge. The hobby is bigger than that, and encompasses far more than what transpires on the board.
I don't mind playing a new wargame. I do mind playing a time consuming, expensive wargame that requires irritating discussions because I have much better things to do with my time. Having points simplifies things greatly and makes AoS worth playing
Ultimately, it's about changing perceptions and changing approaches. Taking some time out to organise and gsme-build is not necessarily a bad thing, and discussions don't have to be 'irritating'.
Don’t worry PM – I do get it. I see, and appreciate the value in organised play, and I see the value in a solid, robust points system – there is a reason that Warmachine is my go-to game after all. As you say, it simplifies things, and makes things a lot more pragmatic and practical, and there is a time and a place for that, and great value in sometimes, just being able to chuck stuff out of the box and have a game without any drama or fuss. but bear in mind that a lot of things are sacrificed on that altar to make things ‘simple’ and pragmatic, and I disagree that it is always worth it, all of the time. Like I said earlier, is that effortless game worth the lack of effort?
I also value the narrative approach, and the discussion involved in game building is a part of that. I’ve found it an interesting and enjoyable experience overall. In terms of having much better things to do with my time – I don’t actually have all that time to go gaming any more, thanks to real life commitments. I can do a few hours on a Friday evening, and the occasional weekend (usually afternoon, rarely both days!) and for me, maximising the value from the very limited time I spend for my wargames is crucial. And I’ve found that oftentimes, that ‘irritating’ discussion required for game building goes a long way towards making the interesting and enjoyable games that make those few hours I can put towards my wargames worth it. I’ve had ‘effortless’ pick up games that have been utterly lousy, and frankly, a complete waste of time, to the extent that I might as well not have bothered in the first place, and frankly, if having a bit of a chat towards game building beforehand would prevent, or help limit those occurences, then frankly, I see no harm in it, and am all for it.
You’re not wrong in wanting the things you do – please don’t think that that is the thrust of my argument. Because, if anything, I do ‘get it’, and I do want exactly the same things as you do. But there is a bigger picture out there, and matched play is only part of it. You can play games without matched play. You can enjoy these games and find immense fulfilment from them. Don’t dismiss them, and think about this approach the next time that you find matched play becoming stale.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Anecdotal Evidence. But when the GHB dropped, AOS surged in my area. Nearly my entire group picked up an army, as did I. All of us where interested, but didnt want to deal with the hassle of, every time we meet up at the LGS we haggle and try to figure out what we want. We each arrive with a 2500pt list, roll on the thing and BOOM we are off. Our old Tomb king player even came back. He removed all the square bases off his models and put them on better ones.
Same for me. When there is no Generals Handbook and I tried to get some people to get into Age of Sigmar all I got was "eye rolling from the owner of the gaming store" and nobody interested from the player base. Now that the Generals Handbook is out, a few people got interested in Age of Sigmar now.
Ironically still can't get any games in now. Why? "Negotiations" are still needed. Still need to play their way. "Oh you don't have enough points, when you have more then get back to me". So nothing has changed at all. You still need to discuss with your opponent.
Before I say anything else (as I generally prefer the points) I should say I went back and read the OP, and really, I have to agree with him. But, it's not an AoS thing - it's a phenomenon you see in a lot of games where people want to "win" more than anything, and it kind of ruins the "play" part of a game.
As an example, long ago I played the excellent MMO "City of Heroes." I played a Super Strength tank, who soaked damage while my Blaster friends shot up the bad guys. Much XP was reaped.
Then, one day, it was revealed that a certain build was over powered. A Fire/Devices Blaster could render a group of enemies unable to attack them, and then could drop powerful area of effect attacks on them. It was so powerful, you could solo your way through levels in fractions of the time it used to take.
Now, no one needed my tank. Everyone I knew "repecced' their characters into Fire/Devices Blasters. I'd ask to team up, and they would explain that a tank would only slow down their XP per minute ratio, which needed to be kept high, because winning. I waited until they all hit level 50, assuming they'd get it out of their systems when they hit max level and ran out of content and realized there was no prize at the end of the game for getting there fastest. Instead, I'd watch as they made new Fire/Dev characters... and start all over again.
I was mad at the game designers back then, because they weren't patching the problem fast enough, and that was ruining the game for me.
But, the designers really did nothing wrong. My friends could have said "You know what, this is getting old, I'm going to play a scrapper this time." Or, I could have rolled up a new character, made them a Fire/Devices Blaster, and been in on the fun. We were both married to our way of doing things, unable to see why the other would enjoy their inferior game style.
Luckily, the MM part of MMO means I was eventually able to meet enough grumps that we could make an interesting team.
With AoS its a little harder, but I would recommend something as straitforward as trying to get a campaign going from the books. Like, post a sign, "looking for players" and explain you want to play only the forces that exist in that storyline, and play it out as a storyline, not a one-off competition. You might not get any takers, but if you get even one, you have a chance of developing the start of a group who can enjoy playing two ways, instead of just one.
Deadnight wrote: I’m asking you to put a bit of effort into game building and community building.
This struck a chord. I have no problem with community building. It's a necessary and generally rewarding activity if you want to be part of a community. Game building, on the other hand, is not something I have even a little bit of interest in. I expect the game designers to have already done all of the game building that needs to be done. Age of Sigmar's Open Play system feels like an unfinished game where I'm being required to create the balance mechanism on an opponent by opponent basis by playing a series of play test games.
I recently started playing Star Wars Destiny, a card and dice game. To make a deck, you choose 30 points worth of characters, a single battlefield location and a 30 card deck with no more than 2 of each card in your deck. It would be ludicrous to think that FFG would instead have said "pick however many characters you want to play with, a location and then make a deck with whatever you feel is appropriate". Nobody would play. That's how AoS feels to many of us. It feel like an unfinished game where the authors never bothered to write the chapter on army construction and expect us to add house rules to make the game feel balanced. Some of the house rules are easy. "Bringing 40 Nagash models is a jerk move." Others are harder. How many Ardboyz represent a fair fight against 15 Liberators? 10? 15? 20?
Also, and I know this has been brought up before... if I'm forced to create the balance mechanism and decide what constitutes a fair fight, any victory is going to feel meaningless as I'll never know if I won because of my in-game actions or because I got the balance mechanism wrong. Many of us don't want to play a competitive game where the two options are loss and hollow victory. When I play games, I'll either pick a competitive game where everyone has an equal chance of winning and victory is based on player skill during the game and the list building steps OR a cooperative game where you win or lose together OR a true narrative game (like DnD) where playing the game is the whole point and there is no real winner or loser.
This struck a chord. I have no problem with community building. It's a necessary and generally rewarding activity if you want to be part of a community. Game building, on the other hand, is not something I have even a little bit of interest in. I expect the game designers to have already done all of the game building that needs to be done. Age of Sigmar's Open Play system feels like an unfinished game where I'm being required to create the balance mechanism on an opponent by opponent basis by playing a series of play test games.
You say it feels unfinished, and you're not wrong. But, someone else will say 'freeform' and 'open ended' and be all the happier for it. Make your own sandwich, or buy at subway?
I mean, this is a creative time consuming and intensive hobby. We assemble minis. We convert them. We paint them. We write lore about them. We live in other worlds. Why should we stop being creative when we put them on a board and bringing their stories to life? Thst just baffles me when at that point people are so shocked and sometimes outraged at the idea of us taking charge of our own hobby. When I was a kid, I didn't need someone else's rules to go and play with my toys and my friends. We were perfectly capable of making up our own games. don't see it as being any different now.
I recently started playing Star Wars Destiny, a card and dice game. To make a deck, you choose 30 points worth of characters, a single battlefield location and a 30 card deck with no more than 2 of each card in your deck. It would be ludicrous to think that FFG would instead have said "pick however many characters you want to play with, a location and then make a deck with whatever you feel is appropriate". Nobody would play. That's how AoS feels to many of us. It feel like an unfinished game where the authors never bothered to write the chapter on army construction and expect us to add house rules to make the game feel balanced.
Not really relevant. I've read historical rules sets like the core hail Caesar rules that didn't have any force construction rules. Some things are meant to be free form and open ended and this is not a bad thing. You call it ludicrous, but it's not. It's just a different approach, and one that you apparently unable to comprehend because you are so used to 'game fully ready out of the box'. Yeah you are not wrong, but you are not right either. Not everything needs to be fully functional or prepared for immediate use by you. For some, including myself, there is great joy is in the diy approach, the construction, whether it's legos, kit cars, wargames or whatever else. You are missing out, by not having any interest in this side of the hobby. It's a real shame, if you ask me.
Some of the house rules are easy. "Bringing 40 Nagash models is a jerk move." Others are harder. How many Ardboyz represent a fair fight against 15 Liberators? 10? 15? 20?
Let's see then. We can both 'read' a units stats, right. No reason you can't make a decent judgement from there. Adapt as required, if necessary.
As well. the end of the day, what do I bring with butcher3, or which caster do I take when my opponent pops down Caine or Stryker, if I want a fair fight. In a lot of ways, it's exactly the same thing, just a slightly different angle.
Also, and I know this has been brought up before... if I'm forced to create the balance mechanism and decide what constitutes a fair fight, any victory is going to feel meaningless as I'll never know if I won because of my in-game actions or because I got the balance mechanism wrong.
Uh huh, and what guarantees do you have that if the game designer created the balance mechanisms, thst it constitutes a fair fight and that you won because of your amazing 'skill'? (Or did you just take scatterbike eldar to his blood angels?)I mean, one of the last games of WMH mk2 I played, I one turned the entirety of my mates armies with my murder ponies on one flank, and my winter guard sprays on the other. His army had some of the most notoriously nasty infantry in the game-banes. And yet I Won the game without even trying. That's WMH, one of the better balanced wargames out there. Was it fair, did I win with 'skill' or did I simply have the perfect hard counter? Was it a hard fought contest, a 'fair fight' was it meanigless? I mean, the points were the same, so it was fair, right? Or was it? The simple fact is that the exact Same thing happens in every game kris. Holding it against open play because you might somehow get it wrong and you claim it To be meaningless and 'hollow' is a double standard. It's short sighted and incorrect because the exact same things happen in the gsme mode you say you prefer, but you seem to be oblivious to it or don't want to hear about it With the greatest respect to you kris, (and believe me. I'm not trying to be cheeky here) all you are doing by thinking this way is deluding yourself.
Many of us don't want to play a competitive game where the two options are loss and hollow victory.
I've been playing open play games for about three or four years, and I've never had a 'hollow' victory. Why do you think I've been playing it for this long, and why do you think I enjoy it as much as i do If I can't get it to work? sDespite how you think, it's nowhere near as hard to get interesting and fair games. If 'losses' and 'hollow victories' are all you think you can do with it, I really don't know what to say other than you are being extremely unfair and short sighted to it.
We've had some, frankly brilliant, tense and very engaging battles that often came down to a knife edge. And as I can ably demonstrate with no end of examples, while I have had plenty similarly brilliant, tense and engaging battles in 'matched play' where I didn't have to do the work about balancing things, being honest about it. there are plenty 'matched play' based competitive game victories that are just as hollow as what you claim to hate in open play. I've been on both ends of them. As have you, probably.
OR a cooperative game where you win or lose together OR a true narrative game (like DnD) where playing the game is the whole point and there is no real winner or loser.
Nothing stopping you approaching wargames cooperatively either - and dnd is no more narrative than wargames. If it was a good game, and we both enjoyed it, then we both 'won', someone wins and someone loses tactically, but that doesn't necessarily have to be 'the point'. I've had some excellent rpg sessions in my time back home in Ireland where worlds were brought to life like magic by a great GM buddy of mine, and I've had some rpg sessions that were mindless drudgery and so focused so purely and so obsessively on mechanics that any idea of story or narrative therein was a farce. DnD is not any 'truer' for narrative. It's just as open to 'gaming', to 'munchkining', and to obsessing over stats and 'crunch' at the expense of story, and storytelling as any other nerd hobby.This kind of approach, regardless of medium, takes a lot of work to get right, and to get good. And frankly, from my POV, regardless of medium, it's worth it. You get out what you're willing to put in.
What makes a game narrative ultimately is how you approach it. You don't need 'rules' to bring a story to life or to evoke what is happening. And FYI, it might surprise you, but wargamers were doing their games this way for decades prior to when you or I was born. Before the Internet, and before the idea of organised play was a thing, this is how wargames were done. This is how they had to be done. This is how plenty wargamers, especially historical players still play wargames. And there's is nothing at all wrong with it.
Let me pose the question though, we can safely establish that the points are, at best, a rough guide. Some points are too high, some are too low, some things are just nonsensical (e.g. Stormfiends as Battleline). Are 10 'Ardboyz @ 180 points equal to 10 Liberators @ 200?
Basically, it seems like we still have to negotiate, just the very first step is taken out because the points approximate (very poorly IMHO) an equal force. If we each bring a 2000 point list, is it really that more balanced than saying let's each bring 6 Warscrolls, 2 heroes and up to 1 behemoth? Or is it just the illusion that you're using something, rather than nothing, to determine what's fair and, in that case, why is "Do you want a 2000 point game?" better than saying "Let's each bring 6 units and a couple of heroes, but only one behemoth"? What makes one more valid than the other?
Ultimately, I get that Matched Play is here to stay, as much as I'm not a fan of it subjugating all other styles. I get that a lot of players wouldn't touch AoS with a ten-foot pole until points came out (although again I don't understand why a $35 book saying it was any better than deciding yourself), and I find it to be a godsend for running events of some kind. But it still makes me sad that the shining hope of finally having a narrative-focused game without the fuss of points or "Come back when you have a 2k army" would be gone, only to have it essentially be brought back at gunpoint because the status quo is too important to keep.
Hmm... yes, matched play IS better than saying 'lets bring X warscrolls' by a huge margin, even. But 'bring X warscrolls' is in turn better than nothing at all. Balance isn't binary, and something incomplete or flawed is still better than nothing, even for narrative players who now have a ballpark estimate of effectiveness for when they are figuring things out.
Though, it occurs to me, it doesn't sound like the narrative players have been killed by the GHB so much as the narrative players are still there but now outnumbered by the matched players. I rarely ever hear about a thriving narrative community suddenly going all-GHB, rather it's a struggling narrative.community that went to a successful matched play community. Which really brings the problem home in that people who want narrative should think about what they can do to change it rather than figuring out where the blame lies for lack of participation. Certainly the latter won't fix anything.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Hmm... yes, matched play IS better than saying 'lets bring X warscrolls' by a huge margin, even. But 'bring X warscrolls' is in turn better than nothing at all. Balance isn't binary, and something incomplete or flawed is still better than nothing, even for narrative players who now have a ballpark estimate of effectiveness for when they are figuring things out.
Though, it occurs to me, it doesn't sound like the narrative players have been killed by the GHB so much as the narrative players are still there but now outnumbered by the matched players. I rarely ever hear about a thriving narrative community suddenly going all-GHB, rather it's a struggling narrative.community that went to a successful matched play community. Which really brings the problem home in that people who want narrative should think about what they can do to change it rather than figuring out where the blame lies for lack of participation. Certainly the latter won't fix anything.
Yup.
The core issue for Open Play advocates is that quite a few people simply prefer Matched Play. You either have to make Matched Play less attractive by pointing out everything you don't like about it or make Open Play more attractive by selling people on what you like. The first tactic is pretty negative and puts people on the defensive. The second tactic is tough because you're trying to sell a product to someone who isn't actively looking for what you're selling.
Very simple response to the OP, on why points should be the default:
1) As a (potential) new player I don't want to have to learn everything about the game and how to balance it before I can put my first model on the table. With matched play I could in theory make up a list of the standard point value, buy and paint the appropriate models, and start playing the game. Without that structure I have no idea what models to get. I don't know how many models make up a normal game (since there's no point total to answer the question), I don't know what is considered "cheese" and not allowed, I have to spend vast amounts of time studying the game to figure out what might be an appropriate list. And if I have to do all of that before I can even attempt to play then forget it, I'll play a game that doesn't suck.
2) Relying on social pressure to balance the game turns the community into a toxic mess. Someone thinks a particular army is overpowered, someone else thinks it's just fine, and nobody is going to be happy. The people you shun from the community because they try to bring something you don't consider "fair" will warn other potential new players that your community is a clique of TFGs, the people that lose the argument over what is considered acceptable will resent the others and probably leave as well, and eventually you're playing the one remaining opponent over and over again and the store only sells AoS because GW makes it a package deal with 40k. This kind of stuff is bad enough when the rules provide a structure to fall back on and you can make a few specific (and explicitly stated) house rules to deal with the worst offenders, but it's a death sentence for a community when the only way to restrict an army is to threaten to kick the owner out of the group.
In short, matched play becoming the default is the best possible outcome, and GW's failure to make it the default at the start of AoS was an inexcusable display of incompetence.
But does match play really balance it? Or is it the illusion? What, exactly, is wrong with discussion? That's what I don't seem to get. I love chatting with people while I'm playing, I love coming up with different things to add to a game beyond just a boring "line up across from each other" type of scenario.
I mean, I get having something to balance for competitive/tournament type games. But why does that need to bleed into everything else? The biggest downside for me for Matched Play is that it goes back to the "Come back when you have a 2000 point army" approach, which AOS was meant to get away from (by encouraging you to buy a new unit for your next game and being able to field it immediately), which I've always found to be a problem when the "community" is unwilling to play lower points or accommodate new players; no newbie wants to be told they can't play their first game until they spend a few hundred dollars on an army.
I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.
Wayniac wrote: But does match play really balance it? Or is it the illusion? What, exactly, is wrong with discussion? That's what I don't seem to get. I love chatting with people while I'm playing, I love coming up with different things to add to a game beyond just a boring "line up across from each other" type of scenario.
I mean, I get having something to balance for competitive/tournament type games. But why does that need to bleed into everything else? The biggest downside for me for Matched Play is that it goes back to the "Come back when you have a 2000 point army" approach, which AOS was meant to get away from (by encouraging you to buy a new unit for your next game and being able to field it immediately), which I've always found to be a problem when the "community" is unwilling to play lower points or accommodate new players; no newbie wants to be told they can't play their first game until they spend a few hundred dollars on an army.
In all fairness, if new players don't want to spend a couple hundred dollars to be able to play, they should probably look for a different hobby. The cost of entry is generally considered to be a couple hundred dollars. When I ran a store, I was very up front about the costs associated with an average level of play. 'If you're going to play at home with your friends, buy whatever you think you and your friends will want to play with. If you're going to play here as part of the general community, you'll want to build up to ~2000 points fairly quickly. I can help arrange smaller games to start, but ~2000 is the standard. Let me show you what that means in terms of what you'll want to pick up over the next few visits...'
I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.
We really need to get away from personal attacks like "wannabe tryhards". Points provide an excellent starting point. In the overwhelming majority of games I play that have points based lists, the points are generally considered to be fai'. There will always be outliers, but so long as play testing and regular course correction via Erratas and FAQs happen, things tend to stay fair. GW just doesn't seem to really play test and is very bad at issuing FAQs/Erratas, so balance issues remain issues for longer than they should.
I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.
And if the community doesn't want to play without points, will you try and force it? Because the biggest thing there is, is that you still have narrative and matched play with points.. It's just that as people are discovering, not many people actually enjoyed without points, or want to play without points.
Because at this point, it's basically you still have narrative.. But you realize that more people want points, and so narrative players are mad that the community isn't conforming to their view, heck many communities are cropping up because points were added.
I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.
And if the community doesn't want to play without points, will you try and force it? Because the biggest thing there is, is that you still have narrative and matched play with points.. It's just that as people are discovering, not many people actually enjoyed without points, or want to play without points.
Because at this point, it's basically you still have narrative.. But you realize that more people want points, and so narrative players are mad that the community isn't conforming to their view, heck many communities are cropping up because points were added.
My community was completely and totally dead from an AoS standpoint before the GHB came out. Matched Play is the only reason we have a community. Narrative/Open Play wasn't viable in our store setting.
Narrative / Open Play is not viable in a culture that is very competitive period.
and so narrative players are mad that the community isn't conforming to their view,
Yes mad, annoyed, irritated that the style of play that they want to participate in is not supported by the community. The same way that the community was mad, annoyed, and irritated that competitive play wasn't supported in the beginning.
In the end we all play for a certain reason and when a game cannot meet your needs for whatever reason (in this case, the narrative players have to either conform to competitive play or gtfo) it is disappointing for that individual.
I know for me it can be mildly to moderately frustrating and annoying when I want to set up an event that doesn't use matched play scenarios, and am told that encouraging non matched play scenarios is destroying the community because it is "teaching people how to play wrong". Though I have always been a proponent of points... just not skewed unbalanced points. I did not like completely point-less play because we do have a few players running around that made our events less than fun... primarily with the summoning spam garbage and them having access to literally 20,000 points of demon models. Thats why I invested a few solid months in developing Azyr and why it was used so heavily by us and a few other groups (particularly in the beginning before the tournament groups came up with thier own systems and the nature of the beast is that the tournament rules will become the standard).
I'm not a fan of GHB points because there are builds that are massively better than others and like in any game where that is the case, a good chunk of the player base gravitates towards those and thats all you really get to see, but GHB points are better than no points. Not because of some perceived balance it fixes. Its not to me about balance, but rather structure. GHB points kind of have balance, but are still easily broken by people that want to win and only pick the most powerful mathematical builds. Its the structure that really gives points their purpose in GW games I find.
I must say that I had some mixed feelings about the GHB being released. On the one hand, it offered more guidance when it came to building an army, and it motivated me to get my figures all painted so I could field a nice, fully painted and legal 1000 point army.
On the other hand, the introduction of points did exactly what I feared it would: it led to this obsession with efficiency in all things. When I tried to build a list with the models I had and sought advice on how to use them, the responses I got gave off the impression that it didn't matter what I personally liked or wanted to field; all that mattered was how efficient certain builds were and how good or bad they were on the tabletop.
And that bugs me. The "meta" has seemingly become the only thing that matters when it comes to what units you buy and which armies you field. It's really hurt my motivation to work on my army, because I know that some of my personal favourites will barely see the tabletop because they're not "competitive", and thus practically unusable if I want to have more than just a chance to force a draw.
WarbossDakka described it pretty well in one of my other threads:
It really is an awkward circumstance, which I agree is frustrating. But I think with the new points system you can't play AoS like how we're used to playing it - with what we like. Unfortunately that's what points were made to do - restrict. It is a shame, but it is just a new era for AoS that we must get around.
So yeah, I can get behind the idea of 'Matched Play shouldn't be default'. Maybe I'll change my mind once I've gotten some more games under my belt and found some lists I like playing, but sometimes I really wonder how things would be if Matched Play hadn't come along. But I'm not going to demonize Matched Play-enthusiasts for it either, as they have as much right to have fun as I do
The one thing about points systems I find problematic is their tendency towards granularity. It makes it fairly hard to take what you want when you're buying things in large chunks and you find yourself needing to min-max out of the simple necessity of being 2 points over.
To that end, I've grown fond of systems of classification like how Power Weapons all cost the same but have unique advantages and disadvantages or best of all Guild Ball's design of a FOC with all the options "costing" the same. That doesn't work everwhere, but in general I like less points granularity overall.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I'll say a lot of games would probably benefit from more support of smaller point levels and communities would probably benefit from being more open to smaller point games. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but a lot of it comes down to scenarios being really crucial for most game systems to really function for long and most scenarios not scaling well. I'd probably be very healthy for more communities to embrace things like WM/H's new Rumble format to help welcome players not ready for the competitive standard.
Really, it comes down to players having faith in the game itself. A big reason points are popular is it gives players a reason to believe someone put in some effort to ensure they'll have a positive experience with the game. Alternate, narrative and beginner formats are becoming more and more vital to the hobby, but historically players have not been given reason to trust these formats will actually be as fun in practice as they appear in theory. I think that's something that really needs to change.
What I never understood was people saying no one will bring 10 nagashes ext ext. Yet one of many strats I seen in 40k is wraith knight spam at least 5 I think. The rest is just making them pay core tax.
Then with space marines I see their knights being spammed I think it was 3 in one game. Then there is tau spamming their super Giants.
When someone brings 10 Nagashes the others bring 10 bloodthrister a before you know it the game is a battle of the super heavies.
A strong player bases will try and out do each other Hell I alone could bring 7 blood thristers and skarbrand.
Also I have a question. People tell me this all the time but it does not make sense
Player A and B play a game player B barly wins.
Player A: decides to buy a box of sigmarines for his next game and can use them instantly
Player B: who barly won needs to agree to let you use them. If he believes that gives you an advantage he gets a little annoyed unbalanced.
Player A: wins the next game
Player B feels that he lost because player A kept adding units til he won, now he feels cheated and adds new units aswell.
So this either starts a buying race or feelings that they are being cheated. No matter who wins one loses.
Also for those trying a new game think of it this way.
10 guys in shiny gold armour, another with a banner and one riding a dragon monster.
The other gets 10 skaven a hero and a lord.
Seems fair both get 12 , when the skaven loses in the first turn he is either going to quit say how bs unbalanced the game is or switch to another army.
So the skaven player will need to decide do I keep adding more skaven til it seems fair? The the sigmarine player needs to decide hey is it fair for 20 rats to fight my 10 sigmarines with thunder hammers? It is toxic to new players who do not play in a shop and play at home.
Most people I know play from home, where most things can be talked out or quit. But if 2 people pick up the game understand nothing it is toxic. If checkers came with no rules maybe black would decide since he went first he should get an extra piece or red the same thought.
Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.
Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.
If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).
Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.
My idea AOS type thing would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:
* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that * Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls) * Add a monster * Add a hero
and so on, slowly build up that way, which seems a lot better than trying to fit everything into points that are usually very rough due to not having rules for under-strength units (while without points, you can do under-strengthed at no drawbacks if you want). It honestly does not seem like as much of an anathema as it gets made out to be. Maybe because I'm creative and talkative? I don't know. It doesn't seem hard to do, especially since AOS games take a lot less time than 40k to play.
Wayniac wrote: Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.
Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.
If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).
Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.
My idea AOS type thign would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:
* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that
* Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls)
* Add a monster
* Add a hero
and so on, slowly build up that way.
I think it is the human factor tho. With out guidelines people see only ways to make themselves stronger. Like in heroes of the storm the new hero samuro had 68% win rate. A lot of samuro player said I am just good learn to play better. The people who thought he was over powered felt cheated. So it came down to change him or cause a rift, people would rather quit then deal with something they think is cheap. The other would rather quit then change from what's working.
Wayniac wrote: Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.
Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.
If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).
Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.
My idea AOS type thing would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:
* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that
* Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls)
* Add a monster
* Add a hero
and so on, slowly build up that way, which seems a lot better than trying to fit everything into points that are usually very rough due to not having rules for under-strength units (while without points, you can do under-strengthed at no drawbacks if you want). It honestly does not seem like as much of an anathema as it gets made out to be. Maybe because I'm creative and talkative? I don't know. It doesn't seem hard to do, especially since AOS games take a lot less time than 40k to play.
Sounds good on paper, but totally breaks down when your community is composed of a handful of people who show up every day, a handful who show up once a week and a handful who show up sporadically. Scheduling some sort of escalating army size becomes a logistical nightmare and all but the core regulars will move on to other games. I've found that most of what White Dwarf suggests only works when you're dealing with a small group of relatively close people who meet on a regular schedule. Rarely practical for store based gaming communities.
Wayniac wrote: Reasonably, you would agree to a limit and then adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule. So it would be something more structured than the default "lay out whatever you want" but not as rigid as "build a 2k point army using only these things", but somewhere in between.
Problem is that requires communication and agreement. For example, in the days pre-GHB I saw something supposedly official from GW about "guidelines" that was like a few heroes, up to 12 warscrolls (a bit much IMHO) and the like.
If people are reasonable and not trying to game the system, I don't see an issue with imposing limits like "Let's both bring 2-3 heroes and about 6 warscrolls each" and then tailor it as necessary for a scenario (e.g. maybe Player A's force has ambushed Player B's, so Player B gets to take 8 warscrolls but 3 of them need to be in reserve until Turn 3 as reinforcements).
Basically it requires the players to look at things and say, in your last example, "10 skaven are a lot weaker than 10 guys in gold armor, so you can take 20 instead and two of these giant ratmen too". problem seems to be that people don't want to do that, to make thematic things and do more than just bland pick to X points.
That still leaves having to learn what is balanced and what isn't against what, through what could easily prove to be tedious trial and error though. Some built-in way of measuring a units relative strength will usually make it easier to get into the game, though it unfortunately also invites min-maxing.
My idea AOS type thing would be how they are doing the 4 Warlords in White Dwarf:
* Start with a Start Collecting box, play some games with just that
* Add a unit (IIRC the most added was 10 Blightkings, so up to two warscrolls)
* Add a monster
* Add a hero
and so on, slowly build up that way, which seems a lot better than trying to fit everything into points that are usually very rough due to not having rules for under-strength units (while without points, you can do under-strengthed at no drawbacks if you want). It honestly does not seem like as much of an anathema as it gets made out to be. Maybe because I'm creative and talkative? I don't know. It doesn't seem hard to do, especially since AOS games take a lot less time than 40k to play.
I'd argue that being understrength is a drawback in itself
Choosing a couple of warscrolls and a couple of heroes can work just fine. I played lots of Open play like that. It's alright for a game and if you just want to throw dice.
It's not as fun as building a list though.
List building is fun and exciting. Putting together a strategy with that list and trying to pull it off on the table is nail biting and rewarding. Matched play has me cooking up lists while I am at work - inspires me to add and collect more models - lets me engage in fun debates around different tactics.
But yeah, open play is alright if you just want to roll some dice.
Bottle wrote: Choosing a couple of warscrolls and a couple of heroes can work just fine. I played lots of Open play like that. It's alright for a game and if you just want to throw dice.
It's not as fun as building a list though.
List building is fun and exciting. Putting together a strategy with that list and trying to pull it off on the table is nail biting and rewarding. Matched play has me cooking up lists while I am at work - inspires me to add and collect more models - lets me engage in fun debates around different tactics.
But yeah, open play is alright if you just want to roll some dice.
I don't at all disagree, but I find too often that list building leads to pure min/maxing, because you have a safety net to deflect any complaints (i.e. my list is legal/the rules let me take this/etc.) which you don't necessarily have in open play not because you can't do it, but because it's implied you aren't going to game the system because the army construction rules are extremely basic.
Also I feel list building has its place, but not in every game/all the time. I love building lists in Warmachine, for example, but despise it in 40k (and it's eh in AOS because it's simplified) because it often feels like ending up blatantly min/maxing, almost subconsciously.
It's not like matched play has eliminated the communication aspect either. Note how one of the first questions/statements that comes up in every list building thread is how competitive the list is supposed to be. I know I have said 'sorry but this stuff just isn't good for competitive' as much as I have said 'this list is too much for a casual setting'. I don't think anyone is trying to say that matched play is even close to balanced.
Bottle wrote: Choosing a couple of warscrolls and a couple of heroes can work just fine. I played lots of Open play like that. It's alright for a game and if you just want to throw dice.
It's not as fun as building a list though.
List building is fun and exciting. Putting together a strategy with that list and trying to pull it off on the table is nail biting and rewarding. Matched play has me cooking up lists while I am at work - inspires me to add and collect more models - lets me engage in fun debates around different tactics.
But yeah, open play is alright if you just want to roll some dice.
I don't at all disagree, but I find too often that list building leads to pure min/maxing, because you have a safety net to deflect any complaints (i.e. my list is legal/the rules let me take this/etc.) which you don't necessarily have in open play not because you can't do it, but because it's implied you aren't going to game the system because the army construction rules are extremely basic.
Also I feel list building has its place, but not in every game/all the time. I love building lists in Warmachine, for example, but despise it in 40k (and it's eh in AOS because it's simplified) because it often feels like ending up blatantly min/maxing, almost subconsciously.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say I have never ever ever played a matched play game and thought about my opponent "you're a jerk for taking that list". Maybe I am lucky in that I have never played pure Skryrefyre or Kunnin Ruk yet - I did play against Beastclaw Raider Monsters recently in a tournament, on table 1, and it was actually the best game of AoS I have ever played.
Sometimes I get smashed, (well more than often at tournaments), but I just see it as a challenge and something to work on. It makes the game exciting to me learning how to use my army better with each game.
I am personally of the mindset that there are no bad units in AoS (well, except maybe Saurus Knights ) but only units that are good and bad at different things. Still it is very possible to take a bad combination of units in AoS, but that's the fun in generalship and army building in my opinion. Plus, building a bad combination of units is going to handicap you in Matched or Open play both because it's due to the game mechanics rather than points or model count so however you choose to set up the game you are going to be at a disadvantage unless you outright tell your opponent that your army is weaker than the sum of its parts - but then if they tone back their own list in response to that and you beat them, isn't that going to be the most hollow victory you've ever tasted? :-)
Matched Play is a good tool to write a list before going at your shop/club/tournament if you don't know against who you'll be playing. It gives a common basis from the start, certainly not perfect, sure, but useful when you don't know your opponent.
Open Play works best with your friends and gaming circle...and when you don't mind talking with people before playing or when you aren't hurried by a specific time schedule. It actually doesn't need a GM, just to have people agreeing with each other (and yes, it happens even with strangers). The mechanic is different and that is mostly why it upsets people used with so many years to play with points. But the mechanic does work.
Narrative Play (funny it is often forgotten!) is certainly the one that matched the most GW's old way to play games, at that time when they still wrote scenarios for roleplaying games or specific battles with specific armies. It asks for preparation (you can improvise those, but you can do much more wonderful things when you take time to get those ready) but, to me, that's the play that I remember the most. Maybe because they are there to tell a specific story and ask you to involve something from yourself (time, painting specific models, and so on), thus when the reward finally comes and you enjoy these games, it is a really sweet memory.
No one is better than the other. GW's wise move was giving us choice. And choice we have. Trying to restrict these choices in an artificial way, one way or the other, is to me the really wrong move. From some players unable to accept people can have fun in another way than theirs.
I don't at all disagree, but I find too often that list building leads to pure min/maxing, because you have a safety net to deflect any complaints (i.e. my list is legal/the rules let me take this/etc.) which you don't necessarily have in open play not because you can't do it, but because it's implied you aren't going to game the system because the army construction rules are extremely basic.
Also I feel list building has its place, but not in every game/all the time. I love building lists in Warmachine, for example, but despise it in 40k (and it's eh in AOS because it's simplified) because it often feels like ending up blatantly min/maxing, almost subconsciously.
Min/Maxing is just a byproduct of doing anything on a predefined budget. It's no different than ringing up $11.50 at the market when all you've got is a ten in your pocket. Realistically its a bit worse, since you're not getting any change if you just put something back. The less granular the system, the easier it is to swap things around, but the more the designer needs to create diverse options rather than rely on points to make something slightly less powerful, but ultimately redundant worthwhile. The more granular a system gets, the more players will have to take out something they want to play because it leaves them with an awkward remainder that can only be filled with a different pairing of units. X-Wing, particularly early on, its an example of a game with frustrating build requirements where you're essentially trying to find 3 models with different double digit point values that somehow add up to 100.
Bottle wrote: I am personally of the mindset that there are no bad units in AoS (well, except maybe Saurus Knights ) but only units that are good and bad at different things.
First off I agree, with the exception of sabertusks which are bad. The listbuilding aspect you talked about, units in combination, is a very important factor. However, this issue is not so much in bad units/combinations but game-breakingly good ones. Skeleton chariots are heads-and-shoulders better than almost any other battleline, frostlord stonehorns beat the crap out of most things of equivalent cost, etc. And such things are compounded by combos that can make them even worse. Because of this, its very easy to find that an opponent's army may simply not be a reasonable matchup for yours--asking them to tone it back isn't about making victory easy/hollow but about making the game about skilled generalship rather than a one-sided affair. Obviously tournaments are a different beast though.
I can see that for sure, but I think that the overall balance of AoS is good enough that I don't mind being at a disadvantage from time to time as I know it swings the other way at times too.
Maybe I still need to play a total non-game to make me all jaded haha
I guess we are going a little off track. I think I wanted to say that from my experience the meta of AoS is healthy enough that min/maxing doesn't mean half your units choices are useless. Far from it - most things can be incorporated into an effective build (maybe not tournament winning, but tournament competing at least). Obviously if you want to take an army of all chaff you're not going to win many games, but a bit of chaff certainly has its place alongside your choppy and your tanky units.
There's nothing wrong with discussion. There's something wrong with balance negotiations. That kind of discussion adds nothing to the game experience, it just wastes time I could be spending on chatting about the new Star Wars movie or trading painting tricks or whatever. Nothing of value would be lost if GW balanced the game properly in the first place.
But why does that need to bleed into everything else?
Because every form of gaming is better when the game is balanced and players can quickly agree on the basic format of the game, build their army lists, and have an enjoyable game. Nothing at all is gained, under any circumstances, by removing balance.
The biggest downside for me for Matched Play is that it goes back to the "Come back when you have a 2000 point army" approach, which AOS was meant to get away from (by encouraging you to buy a new unit for your next game and being able to field it immediately), which I've always found to be a problem when the "community" is unwilling to play lower points or accommodate new players; no newbie wants to be told they can't play their first game until they spend a few hundred dollars on an army.
This has nothing to do with matched play. The people who only want to play 2000 point games are going to continue doing that in the absence of points. They like big games and will be reluctant to play anything with fewer than that many models, whether or not those models are quantified by point costs. Removing points doesn't change the financial burden at all, you still have to spend hundreds of dollars to have a chance of winning against the guy who insists on bringing 200 models every game.
I think GW had the right idea with wanting to get away from points, just they grossly underestimated the reaction of the wannabe tryhards who feel points mean things are fair.
And this is what I mean about the community being a toxic mess. It's clear that "casual at all costs" players don't hate points because they're bad for the game, they hate points because removing points is a symbolic statement to people they don't like about how they aren't welcome in the community anymore. The more you talk about "wannabe tryhards" the more you demonstrate that your primary goal is establishing your clique and looking down on everyone else.
Why are some people acting like points and narrative play are separate entities?
There's no such thing as narrative play unless the players make it narrative and there's nothing inherent in a game having a points system which prevents narratives from being constructed.
For example, lets say I designed a scenario where players had to activate devices scattered around the map in order to open a tomb in the centre which holds a relic of unimaginable power. This could be the final game of a campaign in which the players have fought their way from all corners of the country, trying to stall their opponents at each step, in order to reach this battle.
Obviously this game will be most fun if each player has an equal chance of winning. From a narrative standpoint it would be rubbish and a huge anti-climax if the campaign ended with one player completely crushing all the others due to having a much more powerful army. So we obviously want the players forces to be equally balanced against each other in order to ensure that this battle goes right down to the wire in a nail-biting conclusion. A well designed points system makes that a lot easier to accomplish, especially when it is involving more than two players at once.
Just wanted to say excellent posts / points Bottle! And things don't have to be set, that's why there are options . But as Peregrine points out, it never helps to paint folks who want to play differently in such a negative light - there's room for several styles of play, and that's one of the biggest appeals of the game, I think!
) but only units that are good and bad at different things. Still it is very possible to take a bad combination of units in