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.

 Talys wrote:

 keezus wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.

There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.

This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs. Plague rats, too! They were nice, cheap, stupid decks for the everyday player. When MtG launched, it was ubercasual, the instructions were very simple (now look at the volume of errata, lol), and there were a bazillion cheap ways to make the game unplayable. Even some great, "I go, you die, ha ha!" combos with a good draw.

It actually took quite a while before there were such restrictions, officially

Didn't prevent us from going crazy buying truckloads of boosters, lol.

From the early days I seem to remember 60 card minimum deck size and 4 of the same limit in any deck (excluding land of course). That was it. Of course I did not play at the VERY beginning and they also had the common, rare, very rare blind distribution that did a lot to control "power builds". Of course my friend had card way before me so he had everythign he needed and I had nothing. That was part of what made me buy more. It was like the next pack would give me just what I wanted to beat him. Never seemed to work though so I got off that hampster wheel.

Herzlos wrote:
I think it's mostly inertia. They produced some innovative stuff in the 80's, and muscled out all of the competition and have been riding on that for a while.

It's a fallacy to think that being big or being around for a long time means they're doing anything right; it just means they've gotten away with it until now. The more I know about big companies the more I'm convinced that none of them have the faintest idea about what they are doing.

Being a guy who works with a lot of big companies, I can assure you that they seem like they often seem like don't know what they're doing, but they're often very good at doing one thing WAY better than small companies: making money. A lot of small companies are NOT focused enough on the bottom line, are well-loved, but disappear.

On the other hand, Games Workshop is at most a small big company, with most of its direct competitors tiny companies. In many ways, it operates more like a medium-sized business (which is not a bad thing).

What big companies typically lack is agility to respond quickly to market demands. What they usually excel at is distribution, efficiencies of scale, and breadth and depth of product. They are typically also more durable: when they run into trouble, they have more ways to get out of trouble than a small company (because they can raise/borrow money more easily).

A lot of people that work for large companies think they do really stupid things and that their executives are massively overpaid. Perhaps this is so, yet those same companies often make way more money than their employees can conceptualize, and keep employed thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of people. A lot of average folks commonly say that they don't like large companies for various reasons, but in fact spend a majority of their income, in some way, with such companies. You can't avoid it -- pharaceuticals, food, industrial products, fuel, electricity, housing materials, toiletries, etc.

What it comes down to at the end of the day for large companies is that advantages that they have outweigh the common objections to these companies that most people perceive.

Mostly, I'm not speaking about Games Workshop, by the way: just large companies in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Loborocket wrote:
From the early days I seem to remember 60 card minimum deck size and 4 of the same limit in any deck (excluding land of course). That was it. Of course I did not play at the VERY beginning and they also had the common, rare, very rare blind distribution that did a lot to control "power builds". Of course my friend had card way before me so he had everythign he needed and I had nothing. That was part of what made me buy more. It was like the next pack would give me just what I wanted to beat him. Never seemed to work though so I got off that hampster wheel.

The minimum number of cards in the original game release was 40. There were literally no other restrictions. It also had the cool rule that if a card contradicted the printed rules the text of the printed card took precedence... so faq you faq!!! hahaha.

I actually love the simplicity of the original rules

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/jc20

By the way, IIRC, the first card restrictions came out in their tournament format in 1994, with the game launching in 1993. That was also when they first banned cards, including artifact mana like Black Lotus, Mox stones, and Sol Ring (because reliably getting a djinn out on turn 1 and then cloning it with a doppleganger on turn 2 was obscene) -- and the "I win without you playing" cards like Time Walk/Ancestral Recall combos. Could be off on the dates by a year or so, though.

 Talys wrote:

 keezus wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.

There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.

This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs.

No. Fireballs reduces the potency of the deck significantly. You only need 7 lightning bolts to win. You get 3 draws, 10 cards - at 1/4 lands statistics suggest 2-3 of the 10 will be lands and the player will draw the 7th lightning bolt on turn 4.

T1 - land, bolt
T2 - land, bolt, bolt
T3 - land (if applicable), bolt, bolt, (bolt, if applicable)
T4 - bolt, (bolt if necessary)

MTG went from the path of "too free form" to a "formalized" format. Age of Sigmar is doing the opposite by throwing away the structure of WHFB and replacing it with "anything goes".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I actually love the simplicity of the original rules

In Mark Rosewater's article (http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/259), it was also noted the original rules were unplayable after some self reflection. This does not bode well for AoS's free form structure.

 keezus wrote:
No. Fireballs reduces the potency of the deck significantly. You only need 7 lightning bolts to win. You get 3 draws, 10 cards - at 1/4 lands statistics suggest 2-3 of the 10 will be lands and the player will draw the 7th lightning bolt on turn 4.

T1 - land, bolt
T2 - land, bolt, bolt
T3 - land (if applicable), bolt, bolt, (bolt, if applicable)
T4 - bolt, (bolt if necessary)

This assumes you're using traditional land. If you're using 100% artifact mana, you'll drop all your lands in turn 1 and empty the lightning bolts out of your hand.

Can we take MTG tactics to another thread or bring it back to the discussion somehow?

 keezus wrote:
MTG went from the path of "too free form" to a "formalized" format. Age of Sigmar is doing the opposite by throwing away the structure of WHFB and replacing it with "anything goes".

Instead of imagining Age of Sigmar as Warhammer Fantasy 9.0, think of it as Age of Sigmar 1.0. It's a whole new game -- I think it's so unrecognizable from WHFB in every respect that WHFB is just an inspirational predecessor product.

The only thing that's carried over, really, are models. And even so, it's probably just during a transition period that a lot of old models stick around; putting aside End Times models, which were no doubt designed with AoS in mind, in a few years, a lot of those kits will probably be quite different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Can we take MTG tactics to another thread or bring it back to the discussion somehow?

Sure thing I think we got carried away with nostalgia!

Though I would like to point out that as a parallel to AoS, version 1.0 being very free-form is a similarity between them (but only if you see AoS as a brand new game).

Now that I really think about it, I think Games Workshop has really screwed the pooch on the AoS ruleset. If they are going to add balance through future releases, they need to state this RIGHT AWAY. Companies don't have the luxury of time like they used to. In MTG, it took a little while for the degenerate decks to arise, but now with the internet, and those predisposed to creating degenerate lists/tatics working together... this process is going to occur in the first three months and has the potential to heavily skew gameplay (and alienate customers) between now and whatever miracle update GW has in the works.

I was looking at the AoS models on GW's site and noticed they changed the names of many races and thought maybe it was due to IP reasons, so they can copyright/trademark more.

Thing is, there are other companies using the name Aelf already, 2 that come to mind are Mierce Miniatures and Red Box Games (although RBG extends it as Aelfar).

I thought they had changed the names for legal reasons?

What disappoints me about Age of Sigmar is how much WH/40K there still is in it.

 keezus wrote:
Now that I really think about it, I think Games Workshop has really screwed the pooch on the AoS ruleset. If they are going to add balance through future releases, they need to state this RIGHT AWAY. Companies don't have the luxury of time like they used to. In MTG, it took a little while for the degenerate decks to arise, but now with the internet, and those predisposed to creating degenerate lists/tatics working together... this process is going to occur in the first three months and has the potential to heavily skew gameplay (and alienate customers) between now and whatever miracle update GW has in the works.

The Internet is truly the reason that exploitable lists are so common, sadly. Mind you, in MtG, we were building many of the high exploit decks within.... weeks of the game's release.

The theory in having fun is not terribly different, though. If you're playing someone uncompetitive, you need to use a more uncompetitive "list" in order to keep the two sides at approximate parity, and regulating that is up to the players.

That's actually STILL the way it is today, if you're playing with people who have no desire to build a competitive deck or miniature army, and just want to "play what they want to play". I know a few people like that, and they're pretty fun to play 40k with; I imagine they'd be quite a bit of fun to play Age of Sigmar with, even though they'll never build a "winning list" -- they'll just field the models they bought because they thought they'd look good together, without any regard for the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What disappoints me about Age of Sigmar is how much WH/40K there still is in it.

Yeah, there are strange 40k carry-overs (like charge), which don't *bother* me, but puzzle me as to why they'd bring it into a brand new game.

 Talys wrote:


Yeah, there are strange 40k carry-overs (like charge), which don't *bother* me, but puzzle me as to why they'd bring it into a brand new game.

Because they lack imagination and creativity. They ported space marines into fantasy, why not the rules as well?

 Talys wrote:
[Instead of imagining Age of Sigmar as Warhammer Fantasy 9.0, think of it as Age of Sigmar 1.0. It's a whole new game -- I think it's so unrecognizable from WHFB in every respect that WHFB is just an inspirational predecessor product.

The only thing that's carried over, really, are models. And even so, it's probably just during a transition period that a lot of old models stick around; putting aside End Times models, which were no doubt designed with AoS in mind, in a few years, a lot of those kits will probably be quite different.

I have a problem with this argument, in that while AoS may be in its first edition - and if it survives, we'll see AoS 2nd Ed in 4-5 years. It's coming from a company with 30+ years of experience and a combined 15 editions from its two flagship games. So it's tough to say that we should be looking at AoS as something akin to Rogue Trader or WHFB 1st Ed, especially when AoS is so heavily influenced by GW's current rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Release a nigh-perfectly balanced ruleset that incorporates competitive player feedback to give everyone the best ruleset you could imagine?

That's pretty much the opposite of what GW wants.

I'm no GW apologist, but Sportsmachine's hypercompetitive scene and repetitive format is hardly a paragon of the perfect game environment, so, no, I don't think you really need to pose it as "PP good; GW baad".

(edit, double-post problems)

Nobody was saying you have to like it, but the similarities between the implementation of AoS and how PP approach their games are quite striking.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Release a nigh-perfectly balanced ruleset that incorporates competitive player feedback to give everyone the best ruleset you could imagine?

That's pretty much the opposite of what GW wants.

I'm no GW apologist, but Sportsmachine's hypercompetitive scene and repetitive format is hardly a paragon of the perfect game environment, so, no, I don't think you really need to pose it as "PP good; GW baad".

(edit, double-post problems)

Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough.
PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments.
GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.

So, yes. PP good. GW bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Nobody was saying you have to like it, but the similarities between the implementation of AoS and how PP approach their games are quite striking.

Outside of the use of cards, I'm not seeing it.

 infinite_array wrote:
I have a problem with this argument, in that while AoS may be in its first edition - and if it survives, we'll see AoS 2nd Ed in 4-5 years. It's coming from a company with 30+ years of experience and a combined 15 editions from its two flagship games. So it's tough to say that we should be looking at AoS as something akin to Rogue Trader or WHFB 1st Ed, especially when AoS is so heavily influenced by GW's current rules.

I doubt it will be 4-5 years before 2e People complain, after all, that GW's rules are invalidated in less than 2 years, forcing to buy new models, new books, and all that.

Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.

More than anything else, I think this is the biggest issue that people who don't like AoS have with the game (and in fairness, a feature that some who like AoS really like about it). Some of us (including me) are skeptical to varying degrees about whether there exist enough people like this exist to make AoS The Next Big Thing. However, we all tend to look at products through the lens of what we want to see in a product, rather than what other people might want to see in it.

As an example, I can't imagine that the entire North American miniature/collectible industry is only worth $125 million a year (a rounding error in the next Marvel movie), while Hello Kitty sales figures globally are estimated at something like $5 billion annually. How can a dumb white cat with a pink bow tie generate THAT much money?!

Then again, the wife of my best friend has spent more money on Hello Kitty stuff than I have on 40k. So, go figure.

I think the PP arms-race type meta is pretty taxing and can drive players away from the system. Its what burnt me out of WM/H. The local meta shifted towards tournament prep which meant that you were facing Tier-1 net lists day in and day out. While its possible to step up and bring the thunder yourself, I found it not very fun as stress at work had gone through the roof and I was looking for a less stressful gaming experience.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough.
PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments.
GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.

I'm actually not a big fan of No Quarter. I buy the occasional issue if there are features of models I like, but the amount of model photography is quite small, even compared to old monthly WDs. I *really* miss the old monthly WDs... WAY better than the current weekly format. The ONLY thing good about the weekly format is that it's synced with their product releases, and probably a majority of people don't care about this because they don't go to the hobby store *every week*, unless they game there.

I think that you summed up why I don't mind GW as a company, by the way. We disagree on whether the rules are good/bad -- because I find 40k lots of fun, and even AoS reasonably fun, while WMH was just "ok" (whether or not the rules are technically excellent) -- but I simply don't care about player communication and support for tournaments. If I cared about these things, I'm sure I would prefer PP as a company.

It comes down for me...

GW: Fun game. Lots of nice models. Tons of new stuff all the time. Big vehicles & scenery kits!
PP: Ok-ish game. Moderate number of nice models. Trickle of new stuff. Very few vehicles, use other scenery.

OTOH, I am happy both companies exist. I wouldn't want either to disappear.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 keezus wrote:
I think the PP arms-race type meta is pretty taxing and can drive players away from the system. Its what burnt me out of WM/H. The local meta shifted towards tournament prep which meant that you were facing Tier-1 net lists day in and day out. While its possible to step up and bring the thunder yourself, I found it not very fun as stress at work had gone through the roof and I was looking for a less stressful gaming experience.

It's just the same thing that 40k went through.

At the end of the day, PP has to make money, and that means either selling you more WMH stuff, getting more players (and this gets increasingly hard to do with time), or coming out with something brand new (which isn't that easy to do). Of course, there's always the old fall-back... if your group is happy with what they have, they should stick with it instead of moving with the game. If you hunted around, you'd probably find a WMH gaming group that didn't move "forward" as quickly -- I know a few in my area that have done that, for exactly the reasons you've described

 Talys wrote:

Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.

Any chance of posting a link or just sharing a transcript? I'd like to see that.

As a comparable example to AoS, Black Powder was originally released with the same intention - no points value (actually a very, very rough points value), with the idea that players would either use historical scenarios to create games or make their own.

Warlord very quickly turned around on this position, and their further releases - army lists for BP, and points values and army lists for Pike & Shotte, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action - might be an indication that while the omission of points values might work for smaller, niche games, it's more difficult for games that look to appeal to a larger margain of players to deny these parts of the game to their players.

And I think we can agree that GW has a very large population of players that they'd like to appeal to.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Nobody was saying you have to like it, but the similarities between the implementation of AoS and how PP approach their games are quite striking.

Outside of the use of cards, I'm not seeing it.

Switching to round bases. CCG like unit "combos." Free (or mostly free) access to the rules. Scenario orientated victory conditions/objectives. Smaller starting game size. I'm sure rules compendiums that are an optional purchase but useful reference are in our near future too.

I'm not saying they're doing it exactly the same (and I'm not saying they're doing it well!) but it feels to me like someone has looked at how Warmachine has grown and Fantasy hasn't and decided to ape it.

Just, as already mentioned, they've tried to copy it without really understanding it.

No points values worked really well for Inquisitor.

No, no wait, it did not.

 mechanicalhorizon wrote:
I was looking at the AoS models on GW's site and noticed they changed the names of many races and thought maybe it was due to IP reasons, so they can copyright/trademark more.

Thing is, there are other companies using the name Aelf already, 2 that come to mind are Mierce Miniatures and Red Box Games (although RBG extends it as Aelfar).

I thought they had changed the names for legal reasons?

I forsee a big deal coming about this, If Mierce Miniatures decides to do to GW what GW likes to do to everyone else, then GW may, in fact, have to eat humble pie and change the name *again*

 MWHistorian wrote:

Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough.
PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments.
GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.

So, yes. PP good. GW bad.

I'm really tired of the mentality that somehow if one doesn't enjoy PP it's because they don't know enough or like GW too much. I read no quarter until I felt it was no longer worth it to keep involved. While that stuff exists, I've never seen it in action.

Yes, PP has solid rules and tournaments. But, I hate their smug attitude and aggressive moderation, and find GW's poor communication less offensive than PP's unpleasant style. I also find almost no one ever plays anything but basic caster kill, and generally don't like the player attitude they've fostered.

GW isn't great, but PP is far from perfect. There be many other companies about that I like far better than either of the current big fish.

 infinite_array wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.

Any chance of posting a link or just sharing a transcript? I'd like to see that.

As a comparable example to AoS, Black Powder was originally released with the same intention - no points value (actually a very, very rough points value), with the idea that players would either use historical scenarios to create games or make their own.

Warlord very quickly turned around on this position, and their further releases - army lists for BP, and points values and army lists for Pike & Shotte, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action - might be an indication that while the omission of points values might work for smaller, niche games, it's more difficult for games that look to appeal to a larger margain of players to deny these parts of the game to their players.

And I think we can agree that GW has a very large population of players that they'd like to appeal to.

I'm sorry -- it was linked in that 300-page N&R thread, I think, in the 100's. I have no idea how to find it, unfortunately.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Try reading No Quater. It's what WD used to be. Its full of hobby articles such as conversions, making scenery and narrative based missions. If its repetitive then you're just not trying hard enough.
PP. Good rules design. Good communication with players. Good support for tournaments.
GW. Bad rules design. Horrible communication with players. No support for tournaments.

So, yes. PP good. GW bad.

I'm really tired of the mentality that somehow if one doesn't enjoy PP it's because they don't know enough or like GW too much. I read no quarter until I felt it was no longer worth it to keep involved. While that stuff exists, I've never seen it in action.

Yes, PP has solid rules and tournaments. But, I hate their smug attitude and aggressive moderation, and find GW's poor communication less offensive than PP's unpleasant style. I also find almost no one ever plays anything but basic caster kill, and generally don't like the player attitude they've fostered.

GW isn't great, but PP is far from perfect. There be many other companies about that I like far better than either of the current big fish.

Sounds more like a problem with your local meta.
I've never found PP to be anything but pleasant. On the forums PP staff and creators often talk about and explain changes or additions as well as rules and fluff.
Edit. And No Quarter has all the things you asked for. If your local meta doesn't use them, then that's their problem.

Yeah.. PP players are no different to GW players. Some are fluffy, some are fair, others just suck balls. That's humanity in a nutshell.

 Azreal13 wrote:



Switching to round bases. CCG like unit "combos." Free (or mostly free) access to the rules. Scenario orientated victory conditions/objectives. Smaller starting game size. I'm sure rules compendiums that are an optional purchase but useful reference are in our near future too.

I'm not saying they're doing it exactly the same (and I'm not saying they're doing it well!) but it feels to me like someone has looked at how Warmachine has grown and Fantasy hasn't and decided to ape it.

Just, as already mentioned, they've tried to copy it without really understanding it.

"Switching to round bases" - like their other game already has...not sure how that is aping PP
"CCG like unit "combos" - You mean units boosting other units in some way shape or form to make them more effective? Yeah, GW hasn't been doing that for years (even without psychic powers) in 40k and to a lesser extent fantasy
"Free (or mostly free) access to the rules" - Show me where PP's rules are completely free? Or all their unit entries are free? Sounds like GW is actually taking more of a page from CMoN than PP if they are copying anyone.
"Scenario oriented victory conditions" - Something that already exists in the games the company has produced.
"Smaller starting game size" - How is this a PP thing? GW did "true skirmish" way back and then went to mass battle. GW didn't invent it but don't act like PP did.

I don't think GW is copying PP. I think the things you claim are copying are things they've pretty much done off an on over the 30+ years they've been producing games (outside of free rules, that one is completely new). Again, not that they invented it just that it's been something they've been doing for a while. And that they just designed a system they best feel will sell models and make it easy to make purchases.

Personally I just can't get into Warmachine/Hordes. Part of it is the local scene. Part of it is the models (looks and materials). And part of it is I just don't have the time to play a game that changes that often at a competitive level (and I'd want to be competitive if I play WM/H). Rules are good from what I hear and people enjoy it but it's not for me. Granted not all GW games are for me either as I just didn't play 8th Fantasy but do play 40k fairly regularly and like the look of AoS. Trick is finding games that I can play locally with others without buying and painting 2-3 armies myself

 MWHistorian wrote:
And No Quarter has all the things you asked for. If your local meta doesn't use them, then that's their problem.

I... didn't ask for anything. And I've played in three metas in two states, all of which have had some problem of exclusivity or bad attitudes, such as assuming girls don't know what games are and one lovely veteran player refusing to shake my hand after he lost because he was frustrated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:

outside of free rules, that one is completely new

Apocalypse formations, specialist games rules and expansions, WD armies (like kroot mercs) were all things GW hosted on their site at one point or another... back when the company had a little more common sense. Guess they wanted to push AoS hard enough that they went back on their attempt to squeeze every cent out of players (at least for a little).

 Talys wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Someone posted an article written in like... the 90s where one of the principle game designers (I forget who) was arguing that points are an unnecessary part of (and a burden to) successful wargaming, and in many way, Age of Sigmar seeks to accomplish that vision. Whether it's successful or not depends on whether there's a large enough demographic that would prefer a point-free game where armies are agreed on cooperatively pre-game, rather than arrived at using a point system remains to be seen.

Any chance of posting a link or just sharing a transcript? I'd like to see that.

As a comparable example to AoS, Black Powder was originally released with the same intention - no points value (actually a very, very rough points value), with the idea that players would either use historical scenarios to create games or make their own.

Warlord very quickly turned around on this position, and their further releases - army lists for BP, and points values and army lists for Pike & Shotte, Hail Caesar, and Bolt Action - might be an indication that while the omission of points values might work for smaller, niche games, it's more difficult for games that look to appeal to a larger margain of players to deny these parts of the game to their players.

And I think we can agree that GW has a very large population of players that they'd like to appeal to.

I'm sorry -- it was linked in that 300-page N&R thread, I think, in the 100's. I have no idea how to find it, unfortunately.

I can imagine Rick Priestly saying something like this.

RT was meant to be RPG lite. with a GM controlling things with the players bound by a scenario. Rick was also happiest when espousing narrative forging for gaming.

Depending how you look at it GW have stuck by this approach, from scaling back during 2nd ed and stripping right back for 3rd edition 40k release all the way through 4 5 6 to 7 where virtually anything goes.
Points values for 40k probably worked best when a GM or the players could decide what to include and could scale encounters up or down accordingly.
IMO from 2nd ed the points costs within a game system designed for narrative scenario based play started to show the strain. The design studio has had to fight two opposing views for 20 odd years.

AoS is probably unique in that commercial factors, rather than a studio decision, forced the move away from points costs. Gw is a model making and selling company after all. The only limits are now on customer credit cards and overdrafts.

You can be sure that work has been undertaken to move 40k further in this direction too.

 Mr. Burning wrote:


I can imagine Rick Priestly saying something like this.

RT was meant to be RPG lite. with a GM controlling things with the players bound by a scenario. Rick was also happiest when espousing narrative forging for gaming.

Depending how you look at it GW have stuck by this approach, from scaling back during 2nd ed and stripping right back for 3rd edition 40k release all the way through 4 5 6 to 7 where virtually anything goes.
Points values for 40k probably worked best when a GM or the players could decide what to include and could scale encounters up or down accordingly.
IMO from 2nd ed the points costs within a game system designed for narrative scenario based play started to show the strain. The design studio has had to fight two opposing views for 20 odd years.

AoS is probably unique in that commercial factors, rather than a studio decision, forced the move away from points costs. Gw is a model making and selling company after all. The only limits are now on customer credit cards and overdrafts.

You can be sure that work has been undertaken to move 40k further in this direction too.

Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.

Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.