Holding out hope for a point system ?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kilkrazy**

endur wrote:
I played miniatures since the 80's. Even with a points system, I never saw a balanced game.

After setup, we usually knew who was going to win based on terrain and unit choice.

Some of that was paper-scissors-rock ("You brought a knife to a gun fight?"), but some of it was the fact that all point systems are merely an attempt at balancing and can't be perfect.

I'm sure there will be a points system sooner or later. There are several fan made systems already. There is also the Chaos Warband Path to Glory system that has a system for chaos armies.

You have had a deprived childhood. I've been playing since the 80s too, and I've seen tons of balanced games, with or without points.

Back on topic, whether points are good or not, and whether GW can do points well or not, it definitely looks like GW have no intention of putting points into AoS.

If you want a points system for the game, it's best to look into the various fan creations.

**Kilkrazy**

As said above, 40K accounts for a huge proportion of GW's annual sales and these have been declining faster since 2012 than the decline since 2010 which were the watershed years for WHFB and 40K.

Personally I think AoS probably is doing OK. It at least has allowed GW to cut a massive load of old books and they are starting to eliminate armies too (Tomb Kings) while launching smaller, more expensive new kits such as Varanguards.

**Kilkrazy**

I'm sure however badly AoS might be doing -- and I think it's probably doing okay -- GW will go on with it for two years. (Another 16 months from now, really, as it launched in July last year.)

Even if AoS was a disaster it would take a year to be sure it can't be turned around, and another year to build up a replacement game.

**Kilkrazy**

Well, that's just a rumour, and also it's not really relevant to the issue of a points system.

To me, while I think the game would have been better with some kind of simple combat value indication on the war scrolls, I don't think this is necessary if you treat the game as a fast-play skirmish where you aren't all that worried about balance of the sides.

AoS clearly is not intended as a serious tournament game. It seems unlikely that GW could ever attract serious tournament players just by adding a points system.

**Kilkrazy**

WHFB was generally regarded as a more tactically complex game than 40K, thanks to rules like flanking bonuses and psychology.

The fundamental problem was that for decades, GW promoted both WHFB and 40K as tournament level games, with various tournament circuits. But they hd constantly changing rules, and a balance system that was so crocked, that the best way to get an advantage was to find the newest and best sploits in building a list.

That's not a format of gaming I personally am interested in, but a lot of people are, and to be fair, it's not an invalid way of playing a game. At any rate, GW, wittingly or not, put a lot of time and effort into boosting it up.

Then they pulled the rug out from under. It's not surprising that these players are angry.

I still don't believe AoS will ever get a points system. I just don't see it being a game that GW want to promote as a tournament system.

**Kilkrazy**

Playing the game and playing the meta game is a semantic distinction. The fact is that in competition 40K especially, game results are strongly biased by army selection. This has been clear for years.

**Kilkrazy**

Playtesting; a tedious chore that you do so GW doesn't have to.

**Kilkrazy**

Points were introduced in historicals for the purpose of running fair tournaments. They are backed up by army lists, so players don't have too much flexibility in choice of troop types.

Other historical games usually take known orders of battle, or use die roll tables to generate armies that reflect the original historical make-up.

DBA gives you a standard size army, 12 units plus a camp, but it's not designed as an accurate simulation.

**Kilkrazy**

There are lots of ways to set up historical battles. A GM is one. Points are pretty popular especially for tournament rules but they always come with restrictive army lists, to avoid the min-max problem you noted.

Other systems are to use pre-determined tables to roll up a realistic army, or to use an original OrBat.

**Kilkrazy**

As regards humans and the laws of physics, in any game units obey the laws of the rules.

One block of elite infantry is largely the same as another block of elite infantry because the rules define them as fairly equal units, elite and infantry having meanings that are defined by the rules. This is easy to relate to actual historical fact because historical rules try to emulate the real world.

However in SF/fantasy, the second elite infantry unit might have a rule that makes them invisible in certain conditions, and let's them move twice as fast when invisible. You can't easily eyeball the effect of these rules from their appearance or stats, without working through the chain of logic and algorithms that governs the unit's combat performance.

All the more reason, therefore, why a fantasy game needs some kind of way of judging the relative strength of units.

**Kilkrazy**

GW obviously have alienated a significant number of former fantasy fans with AoS.

Clearly it isn't going to become the kind of game that can replace WHFB the way that WHFB was played. There isn't going to be an official points system.

If your enjoyment of the game relies on an official points system, it's time to find a different game to play. There are various good alternatives, including Kings of War, Hordes of The Things, and Dragon Rampant.

**Kilkrazy**

Cost of living is very high in the UK.

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/financial-planning/pocket-money-averaging-5-75-a-week/

Cheapest units you can buy for AoS are probably the individual special character clam shells, which are £9 and up. (Seraphons start at £15.)

**Kilkrazy**

The cost of units is a bit off the topic, though.

**Kilkrazy**

I don't think AoS is intended to be a 'desperately serious' kind of game. Fans certainly see it as a game in which the point is to enjoy taking part rather than specifically to win.

It's got a rough balance inherently, as most units are fairly similar in stats if taken in the basic format. For example 10 Skinks have 10 wounds and 10 shots, which compensates for having lower To Hit and To Save than a unit of 6 Sigmarines with 6 wounds and 6 H2H attacks.

I don't really see why people would want to play AoS as a tournament game.

GW of course see it as a way to promote books and kits.

**Kilkrazy**

Why play a game just because it's from GW? AoS is only the replacement in the sense that GW canned one fantasy game and published another one.

People should change to a system that actually is designed for tournament play. AoS clearly is not it.

**Kilkrazy**

I think a lot fo GW fans were introduced to wargames by GW games and haven't played anything else.

**Kilkrazy**

VeteranNoob wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Why play a game just because it's from GW? AoS is only the replacement in the sense that GW canned one fantasy game and published another one.

People should change to a system that actually is designed for tournament play. AoS clearly is not it.

Off the top of my head because we have the models, an established gaming group (from local to international for events and online communities ) and yes, part of that's what we are used to so willing to try.

You don't have to use GW figures only with GW rules. I should try HOTT, Dragon Rampant or Kings of War instead, or just carry on with WHFB 8th edition.

AoS isn't WHFB. It's absolutely fair to criticise it for unambitious design, clunky mechanics and so on, but to criticise it for not being WHFB is bordering on the irrational.

**Kilkrazy**

WRG Ancients specifically was written for running tournaments, and for decades was the go to game for any Ancient/Mediaeval mass battle you might have wanted to play., tournament, friendly, casual or simulation.

WHFB was not written specifically for tournaments, but GW gave it the same kind of points system and army lists as WRG uses, and then ran a lot of tournaments over several decades with the rules.

Therefore it can be said that WHFB was and was not a tournament game. But what does it matter? AoS is the topic of the thread, and AoS is meant as an intro level skirmish game, not for tournaments at all.

**Kilkrazy**

The interesting thing is that 40K's base rules on movement and combat are very similar to AoS.

**Kilkrazy**

thekingofkings wrote:
definately the corporate culture at GW is seriously bad, but 40k overall is doing well still, on average, Australia is not unique in seeing GW go down, you guys are likely just as much victims of the currency problem.

Total annual sales by GW are significantly down from 10 years ago. It's true that GW dropped all the SGs and bitz, (because they weren't selling enough) but the bulk of the decline must have come from the three core games.

Since LoTR had already experienced a very serious decline between 2003 and 2006, it seems like that the declines between 2007 and 2015 must have come mainly from WHFB and 40K. As the population is not declining, surely this shows that GW are losing players, attracting fewer new starters, and selling less active players?

**Kilkrazy**

thekingofkings wrote:
Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
thekingofkings wrote:
Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
So 40k is the main tourney game? Not WFB?

...
...

Not any more, you don't. £££

I have seen nothing to indicate encouraging casual play by not having points, this is a huge myth of AoS that you can just "bring whatever" you cant,. you have to bring the warscrolls and whats on them. and GW runs 40k tourneys at their stores, so yeah that does make it a tourney game, or they wouldnt do that.

Sure, that's true if you're playing pick-up games, but among a group of pals there's no reason not to invent new units by combining aspects from different war scrolls to reflect the awesome new non-GW models you've built.

For instance, if I invented a new Human army based on Mediaeval Burma, I would take the Stegadon war scroll as the starting point for a Burmese war elephant, remove the Engine of the Gods and the special rules,, and add more missile shots based on archers from the Brettonian war scrolls..

**Kilkrazy**

It depends on the game and your depth of involvement.

Ancients includes about 300 different armies, while ACW only has two. A lot of ancients players own several different armies.

If you play naval of any era, you are a small minority, so you need to build at least two opposing fleets to be sure of being able to set up games. (Hence for WW2 naval I have British, German, Italian, US and Japanese fleets.)

**Kilkrazy**

That is part of the fun of skirmish games. It's much easier to make a great setup with terrain and several different forces, or collect forces for a number of different games..

**Kilkrazy**

MongooseMatt wrote:
Brutus_Apex wrote:
Personally, I hate the fact that you can make armies out of whatever you want now.

If I looked across the table at some mish mash army made up of skaven, tomb kings and high elves I think i would just forfeit the game.

But that is not the point - the freeing up of restrictions allows you to make characterful armies with a free range of choice. It is _not_ supposed to be used to create a mish-mash...

Don't destroy my dream!

I've just written up two great scenarios.

In one, a Grand Alliance of the High Elves, Orks and Dwarves lays siege to the Fyre Slayers' stronghold of Fort Nnoxx, in order to recover the stores of Ur-gold needed to restabilise the Realms' economy.

The other is a bandit scenario. A motley crew of Seraphon, Vampires and Treekin ambush an Ogre convoy for supplies. Unknown to the bandits, the Ogres' cargo is mostly live halflings intended for the pot. Unknown to the Ogres, the halflings are in fact an elite special forces combat team with the mission to let themselves be taken to the Ogres' hidden camp, and attack it from the inside.

**Kilkrazy**

I think a big fight between all the big monsters might be rather good fun.

Or maybe monsters on one side and hordes of pleb troops on the other. Something like this: The Seraphons are beaming down several Stegadons with their Skink crews and support units, but a transporter malfunction leads to the Steggies going combat mad and failing to recognise their crews.

The monster player can move the Steggies and use their natural attacks, but can't use the shooting attacks by the crews.

The crews must try to shoot enemy Stegadons because if they hit their own it will turn on them.

**Kilkrazy**

40K of course combines points, army lists (i.e. the codexes) and allies and Unbound, so you can do nearly anything you want officially. That's part of the reason it has been declining in popularity. The game actually stops working properly when you can use allies to cover for the designed limitations of your own codex.

This would not be a problem in AoS, because apart from the lack of points, there is less difference between armies than in 40K.

**Kilkrazy**

We all say that DakkaDakka is a minority opinion of all wargamers but it's clear that as many people loathe AoS as love it. Perhaps the sample on DakkaDakka is not unrepresentative of the wider wargame world. Perhaps AoS actually hasn't been too successful and that shows in sales, and maybe GW really think an official points system will help.

This would be a remarkable U turn not least because where does it leave everyone who likes AoS because it doesn't have points.

**Kilkrazy**

^^ That's what I mean about the possibility that bring in points will actually annoy as many people as it satisfies.

It's pretty obvious that if there is a points system it will have to consist basically of points values for each war scroll. It then makes good sense to publish revised war scrolls with the points values on them.

To create and sell two separate lines of books, one with points, one without, seems like a complicated and confusing way to do business.

**Kilkrazy**

It is only speculation on my part, based on the fact that WHFB and 40K went into obvious decline after GW stopped the "organised play" events they had been doing between the mid-1980s and the late 2000s.

**Kilkrazy**

Sqorgar wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
It is only speculation on my part, based on the fact that WHFB and 40K went into obvious decline after GW stopped the "organised play" events they had been doing between the mid-1980s and the late 2000s.
I don't know. That could be a case of confirmation bias on your part. GW has made a LOT of mistakes in the last few years, like their absurd online store policy, continuous price hikes, or killing specialists games, which have made it more difficult for new players to find a way into the game, and for old players to continue to find and afford the game. There's also been a drastic uptick in competition due to 3D printers and Kickstarter (not to mention FFG's Star Wars miniature games). So if there is a drop in GW fandom, and I don't doubt there has been, I don't think you can just single out the lack of organized play and say, "There! That's the straw which broke the camel's back!"

In fact, if you look at the efforts they've made recently towards restoring faith, AoS being a simpler game to get into, attending trade shows, sales on their online store, start collecting boxes, restoring specialist games, new paint-and-play entry level products, even opening a facebook account to communicate with customers, GW has been making serious attempts at making up for past mistakes (fix the online policy). Organized play is just another one to add on to the list, and it wasn't even the first one. I'd also remind people not to put too much into this organized play effort because it won't be as extensive or all encompassing as they probably are expecting. The products themselves are still moving in a direction away from tournament level skirmishes.

I'm not saying the decline of those games was caused only by lack of tournaments. I strongly believe that doubling the price of rulebooks was the worst mistake, and second was fething up all the rules. But I do think that the canning of tournaments played a part, and GW recognise that, and that is why they are bringing them back. (If the rumour is true.) It'as all part of the strategy to reverse many things they did in the past 10 years that were unpopular, which you note in your post.