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.

This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.

I don't think that people forcing others to use points are idiots. I think thats just gamer culture and that yes by introducing an official point system, GW has largely killed off narrative and open play because few will want to touch that. I base my opinion off of the past twenty years of experience.

I can only speak for my own personal world but I know here if you want to play without points OR using something other than their new core-6 battle line variations (once the handbook is released) you'll have to fight mighty hard to get someone to agree to that.

 Crimson wrote:
I love how the naysayer argument is:
1) The point system is terrible and will ruin the game.
2) Everyone will want to use this terrible point system and force us to do so too.

This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.

I've been witness to two gaming groups growing apart and one of the reasons was 40k's and Fantasy's point issues. This is not to say anything else other than points can be an issue with people that take their games seriously (seriously as wasting valuable time on a game at the very least). As for the second claim - I listened to Heelenhammer's podcast and gathered that there will be 6 standard scenarios in the book. I fully expect these to become the new norm in AoS playing worldwide. Also, just to make it clear - I'm not a naysayer in the sense that I will bash the new point structure, but I intend to fully ignore it and atleast for a time shield the two guys I play with here. Both are very new to gaming and I fully intend to protect their hopefully growing interest from the influence of 40k and point tackled AoS. I have other games with points that I will present to them in the future, but AoS remains pointless for the foreseeable future. I don't think things will remain as blissful at the clubs I used to visit in my old town.

Points for PUGs, use that to figure out who the local douchecanoes are, then everyone can move on to narrative campaigns!

Ive wanted a reason to do lizardmen for a long time. First they blew up the old world, which made me take a wait and see approach. Then, they released AoS and the fantasy community here completely died. Most people tried AoS a few times, hated it and either stopped showing up or switched to another game (typically one that didn't involve GW fantasy miniatures). Knowing my meta, the return of points will see a return in players. We aren't all a bunch of WAAC guys that try to break the game, but some semblance of balance is definitely important to us. If I have some people to play against, I'll give AoS with points a try.

 auticus wrote:

This only makes sense if you assume that most gamers are utter idiots.

I don't think that people forcing others to use points are idiots. I think thats just gamer culture and that yes by introducing an official point system, GW has largely killed off narrative and open play because few will want to touch that. I base my opinion off of the past twenty years of experience.

I can only speak for my own personal world but I know here if you want to play without points OR using something other than their new core-6 battle line variations (once the handbook is released) you'll have to fight mighty hard to get someone to agree to that.

Which only happens because vast majority of people prefer to use points. Which they wouldn't if points were a terrible idea.

 Crimson wrote:

Which only happens because vast majority of people prefer to use points. Which they wouldn't if points were a terrible idea.

People *expect* some form of composition system because that's what *every* major game system has told them they have to use for the last decade.
From X-Wing to WFB to WMH to FoW and beyond, people have been conditioned to think composition is a fundamental part of game design. Like a car isn't possible without wheels.
As AoS has ably demonstrated, to some people the idea of a game without points is horrifying. It's an abomination because it's not even similar to anything they've encountered before. Removing codified composition from the game results in an Ork shoota;
Those who don't believe it can work, hey presto, it doesn't. Those who believe it can work, it does.
Even a terrible points system is sufficient for people to see 'fairness' in a game.
With the announcement of matched play a pretty common sight is now the poster/tweeter saying "Time to give AoS a try" or similar.
That's great, I like AoS, I believe it's a good, fun system and the more the merrier.
But it is mind boggling to me.that these people are now showing an interest simply because of 'official' points. It's the same game. The minis are the same. The fluff is the same. Christ, there have been at least half a dozen 'proper' fanmade comps since release that could have been tried if they were curious but points were holding them off.

The concern of Auticus, Manchu, myself and others is that people will suddenly see AoS as a 'valid' system purely because of points, and won't be interested in playing any other way. Plenty of people have been firing their shootas and having a whale of a time prior to this, and enjoying playing without points. We would like to keep our shootas, and if you give it a proper go, you'll want one too.

My fantasy group was devastated by AoS and the prospect adding points has allowed me to coax them back into being interested. So for me at least this is a good thing.

They simply couldn't get over why they would ever take Clan rats over storm vermin, or Chaos Warriors over Chosen. Some semblance of points will likely give them some choice here.

Thats the thing though even with points often you'll say "why do i ever take this over that"

That never goes away. That pretty much summarizes every edition of 40k and whfb for the past couple of decades, an entire list of things where you say "why would i ever take this instead of that?"

In that regard, it sounds like it just has to do with the incompetence of the GW staff making the game. It always reminds me of the anecdote about determining point costs for Chaplains and Librarians- the writers noticed that a lot of the staff used Chaplains a lot, so decided to nerf them a bit while buffing the Librarians (who weren't as frequently used). Problem was the Librarians were already good, and staff were just using Chaplains because they thought they were cool.

If GW can't manage to put some thought into how units should be costed- Ogryns, Sisters Repentia, Flashgitz, etc etc- if they can't find the motivation to balance armies beyond those which are preferred by the staff members themselves, then things will never get better.

I am at least hopeful the shock to the system AOS sales have (probably) been, coupled with the noted drop in units sold for 40k, will help GW wake up to the fact that people want *some* semblance of balance, and things to be costed appropriately beyond "well, the unit seemed cool to us." Perhaps the support they've gotten outside of their walls will help send them in the right direction.

I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound. With the point system coming out you will see the light infantry making a return as some players will take a "boots on the ground" approach rather than taking x wounds of the best models they have.

ninepaces wrote:
I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound.

That's pretty sad. They've been institutionalized in their minds.





GW really failed to prepare the market for their new product. I can't recall a product before where so many of the most passionate posters were essentially posting non sequiturs.

"Try these carrots. They're different and you might like them."

Seagull Gamer: " But carrots are terrible French Fries! How can they be Fries if they aren't fried."

"They're carrots. Fries are made from potatoes."

SG: "Look stupid, carrots can't be better French Fries than fried carrots."

ninepaces wrote:
I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound.

What makes it funnier is that misunderstanding is a direct result of comp systems being prevalent. People have spent a loooong time pushing against those constraints, to hunger for the elite units.
Take away comp, that behaviour/perception still applies, like opening a shaken can of soda.

What a lot of people actually found is that the reverse is true. 'Crappy' units started getting more game time because they were no longer 'inefficient'. Due to the changes to the combat system you don't have the gulf between -say- goblins and a BT that you used to.

Agreed with RoperPG on that one.

When we did play with points I found myself not taking a unit I liked using because the points didn't equate for me.

So after the games with the comp pack I told my group I didn't like it because I was dropping units that were fun to play. Because the points were twigging something in my brain to crunch more; to ask "what is that stat value of that?"; to disregard whether it'd be fun to have them on the board.

AoS made me realise that my mentality towards a game is impacted by points.

So we went back to vanilla AoS (w/ base measuring) and haven't looked back since.

From the snippets I've heard of Matched Play I am not optimistic. Thankfully, I do like every slither of info about the Narrative Play.

So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.

Almost all scenarios do away with the Sudden Death rule, so I don't think that's it.

 Spinner wrote:
So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.

Sudden Death is rarely used as the vast majority of scenarios override it.

The photos (evidence) you're seeing online is likely from events/tournaments with comp packs where it is beneficial to take bigger models. It was clear from the SCGT, for example, that bigger models were more cost effective in points.

I run a blob of Plague Monks as they'll cool to use. Same with Pink Horrors if I fancy a Chaos horde.

My friend rotates through his whole old Dwarf army with different units each game.

That said, the Destruction force I'm working on will be more bigger models. And that's simply because they look cooler.

 Spinner wrote:
So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.

My mate has a forest goblin army purely for AoS. 6 trolls, two arachnoroks, converted warmachines, but everything else is green guys on foot or spiders.

Right, yes, I understand everyone ignores Sudden Death because it's pretty silly and the scenarios tend to drop it (even GW knows it!), but it was part of the original four-page rules, which seems to argue that from a design standpoint, there's a push for more 'elite' models and a nudge away from horde armies.

It's not just pictures; I haven't even heard of anyone really running a horde-type Age of Sigmar army, except for the occasional summoning spam list. Actually, most of the Age of Sigmar pictures I've seen are MongooseMatt's campaign battle reports. Whatever else I might think of the game, those things are absolute gaming eye candy and he's clearly having a blast, can't fault anything there .

I'm not saying that it's bad to want to use big models or killier troops, either personally or from a design standpoint. They do tend to look cool, although I'd argue that one or two big models surrounded by lots of little guys helps them look even cooler. I'm just pointing out that, as far as I can tell, there's plenty of units not being taken in Age of Sigmar that would have been commonplace in WFB, and not because they were overpowered. My personal theory is that it was a deliberate choice, given how focused GW is on 'cinematics' and with the addition of a Space Marine equivalent faction as the new power baseline.

RoperPG wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
So has anyone actually seen a goblin AoS army, then? Not one chock-full of trolls or Mangler squigs or something, but a horde of little green guys. Genuinely curious; it does seem to me that Age of Sigmar does push players toward more 'heroic' models. Not just because of people trying to balance by wounds, but by game design (Sudden Death!) and with the new releases. Are some things that didn't show up before getting taken? Yes, but conversely, I'm pretty sure there's others that don't really see playtime any more.

My mate has a forest goblin army purely for AoS. 6 trolls, two arachnoroks, converted warmachines, but everything else is green guys on foot or spiders.

I'd love to see pics if he'll let you, forest goblins were always my favorites and drooling over arachnarok paint jobs is a personal hobby of mine! How do games with them generally play out?

 ShaneTB wrote:
Agreed with RoperPG on that one.

When we did play with points I found myself not taking a unit I liked using because the points didn't equate for me.

So after the games with the comp pack I told my group I didn't like it because I was dropping units that were fun to play. Because the points were twigging something in my brain to crunch more; to ask "what is that stat value of that?"; to disregard whether it'd be fun to have them on the board.

I still can't understand why everyone equates points with absolute optimisation.

You can still take a fun, non-optimal list for fun. It may not be competitive against a min-maxing opponent but so what? Not everyone min-maxes. Most people play casual and narrative even with a points system.

When I first read the 3 ways to play announcement the first two wordsc that came through my mind were "Captain obvious".

You could play Open play on any previous warhammer edition. Actually that's the way I taught new players. Pick up a few units that looked more or less evenly matched and off we go. You could take the choosing an army section of any previous WHF book and there's a column about "balance" basically saying that points are optional and that you should field armies the way you feel like. Actually there were scenarios like that last stand one where the attacker destroyed units came again on the following turn and victory was awarded depending on how many turns the defender held.

You could play narrative. Either you made it, or through GW published supplements (like the end times books) or Mighty empires or whatever.

And, of course, you could play matched with the points system.

I felt they were addressing me like a 6-year old.

People take word as law. Look at 40k. They made open play official with a couple of paragraphs entitled Unbound in the last rulebook. The Internet was not pleased.

Look at Forgeworld and 40k...people still argue about whether FW units should be allowed because it doesn't say in the 40k rulebook "You can take Forgeworld units".

You may feel like a six year-old, but it would certainly appear that if a company does not directly state a method of play it is therefore unofficial.

Edit: To ensure nothing's lost in text, I agree with your above post. I originally played late 80s/early 90s GW games with complete disregard to points. I teach people the games with a complete disregard to points. That said, if we're using points I know my mindset changes. It's subtle. But it happens.

The book part is extremly dissapointing.

Still, maybe the fact that it was all done at once and tested for quite a time will yield an acceptable result.

RoperPG wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Which only happens because vast majority of people prefer to use points. Which they wouldn't if points were a terrible idea.

People *expect* some form of composition system because that's what *every* major game system has told them they have to use for the last decade.
From X-Wing to WFB to WMH to FoW and beyond, people have been conditioned to think composition is a fundamental part of game design.

Nice theory, I often see it around repeated as fact but it doesn't hold up at all imo. What if those are players who enjoy list building under strict limitations? The point system doesn't even need to be super balanced for that. What if the designers of those games, mostly seasoned gamers and very strong minds just decided it's better and their particular playerbase agrees? Maybe most people enjoy the sport aspect and fair competition like in real life where 8 year kids playing football instinctively know that you have to balance the teams? What if the choice is made consciously?

Who told them "they have to use composition" btw? GW ranted about unbalanced, narrative gaming and "balance-schmalance" since forever, they gave every unit in their WD batreps a fancy name ffs. They push and promote narrative gaming hard for at least 2 and a half editions of 40k along with unbound but hardly anyone changed the playstyle, dirty brainwashed kids just waiting to be freed from their misery by AoS apparently.

Btw fantasy/sf games, if for nothing else, really need composition just because the units are made up, to avoid the initial fethed up games where people don't know the units. Everybody knows what is most likely to happen when 3 Shermans go for a Tiger on the open field, at least before Brad Pit comes riding a Firefly bouncing off stielhandgranaten with his face and taking names. Can't say the same about fantasy units, it's just arrogant GW forcing players to go through the initial hurdles because their vision of gaming is oh so superior. With points you have a choice, without points you had a choice to write it all yourself or wait months for a decent balance system. It's AoS where people were told "they have to" by full of themselves know it all gaming hipsters and thankfuly it changes now.

As AoS has ably demonstrated, to some people the idea of a game without points is horrifying. It's an abomination because it's not even similar to anything they've encountered before.

Not similar to anything they've encountered before, does Space Hulk have point cost now or what. How many video games have last stand scenarios.

Everybody knows how a scenario driven gaming looks like, quit making things up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShaneTB wrote:
People take word as law. Look at 40k. They made open play official with a couple of paragraphs entitled Unbound in the last rulebook. The Internet was not pleased.

Maybe it just shows that majority of the playerbase wants srategic, point based gaming, especialy when there is little tactical depth in 40k. Just like fantasy guys did.

But hey let's kill the playstyle and teach them.

Everybody knows you can do unbound and those who wanted to already did.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 ShaneTB wrote:
Agreed with RoperPG on that one.

When we did play with points I found myself not taking a unit I liked using because the points didn't equate for me.

So after the games with the comp pack I told my group I didn't like it because I was dropping units that were fun to play. Because the points were twigging something in my brain to crunch more; to ask "what is that stat value of that?"; to disregard whether it'd be fun to have them on the board.

I still can't understand why everyone equates points with absolute optimisation.

You can still take a fun, non-optimal list for fun. It may not be competitive against a min-maxing opponent but so what? Not everyone min-maxes. Most people play casual and narrative even with a points system.

When I first read the 3 ways to play announcement the first two wordsc that came through my mind were "Captain obvious".

You could play Open play on any previous warhammer edition. Actually that's the way I taught new players. Pick up a few units that looked more or less evenly matched and off we go. You could take the choosing an army section of any previous WHF book and there's a column about "balance" basically saying that points are optional and that you should field armies the way you feel like. Actually there were scenarios like that last stand one where the attacker destroyed units came again on the following turn and victory was awarded depending on how many turns the defender held.

You could play narrative. Either you made it, or through GW published supplements (like the end times books) or Mighty empires or whatever.

And, of course, you could play matched with the points system.

I felt they were addressing me like a 6-year old.

This.

Everyone I know who plays competitively also plays scenario based, unbalanced games. I fielded mixed armies in both 40k 5th edition and whfb 7th.

Points actualy help narrative games because writing a scenario you have a tool to check how unbalanced the game is.

It makes no difference to my point if people enjoyed list building or not. I used to, up to the point where i realised it had killed my interest in playing (which predated even the rumours for end times, so I'm not trying to justify my enjoyment of AoS that way).
Even then I was gobsmacked that AoS had no comp because well, how do you play without it? I've been gaming for nearly 30 years and this was a completely new idea to me.
People expect points values because composition is pretty much synonymous with table top wargaming to the vast majority of gamers, especially those who got into the hobby from the late 90's onward.

Stockholm syndrome has been used to describe people who like AoS because "MUH GW" but the fixation on points and the reaction to their removal is actually a far better example.

Also, Space Hulk? Really? One-off standalone boxed game with fixed force options in fixed scenarios. No regular event/tournament format I'm aware of. You're really reaching there. Come on.

I'm not annoyed that GW are adding points to AoS. If it gets more people playing, great. My concern is that it will become seen as the standard format because, y'know, balance an' that.
Which is why I'm hoping the narrative campaign stuff is beyond good so that people have pause to think what sort of game they want to play.

ninepaces wrote:
I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound. With the point system coming out you will see the light infantry making a return as some players will take a "boots on the ground" approach rather than taking x wounds of the best models they have.

i might be misinterpretaing here but my experience has absolutely not been only best units per wound, rather what we like to field. The best part about AoS for me has been games where stuff i never see on the tables or some cool models rarely used in 8th, not even for events, but pick up games as well. Models people said, love them but they suck.

Plan to keep playing like that. No idea what matched play Will look like but excited to see. I get the feeling it's a way of play I'll use only at tournaments. If that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

ninepaces wrote:
I don't understand what people are saying about "some units will now never see play". As it currently stands, the lack of points mean the only units that are ever used are the strongest models per wound. With the point system coming out you will see the light infantry making a return as some players will take a "boots on the ground" approach rather than taking x wounds of the best models they have.

i might be misinterpretaing here but my experience has absolutely not been only best units per wound, rather what we like to field. The best part about AoS for me has been games where stuff i never see on the tables or some cool models rarely used in 8th, not even for events, but pick up games as well. And I don't just mean once in a while. Like the majority of my games so far, and games around me as wel. Models people said, love them but they suck.

Plan to keep playing like that. No idea what matched play Will look like but excited to see. I get the feeling it's a way of play I'll use only at tournaments. If that.

RoperPG wrote:
It makes no difference to my point if people enjoyed list building or not. I used to, up to the point where i realised it had killed my interest in playing (which predated even the rumours for end times, so I'm not trying to justify my enjoyment of AoS that way).
Even then I was gobsmacked that AoS had no comp because well, how do you play without it? I've been gaming for nearly 30 years and this was a completely new idea to me.
People expect points values because composition is pretty much synonymous with table top wargaming to the vast majority of gamers, especially those who got into the hobby from the late 90's onward.

Stockholm syndrome has been used to describe people who like AoS because "MUH GW" but the fixation on points and the reaction to their removal is actually a far better example.

Also, Space Hulk? Really? One-off standalone boxed game with fixed force options in fixed scenarios. No regular event/tournament format I'm aware of. You're really reaching there. Come on.

I'm not annoyed that GW are adding points to AoS. If it gets more people playing, great. My concern is that it will become seen as the standard format because, y'know, balance an' that.
Which is why I'm hoping the narrative campaign stuff is beyond good so that people have pause to think what sort of game they want to play.

It's the opposite for me. I like narrative gaming, it's fun once in a while but a proper pitched battle sends shivers down my spine, I love it and imagine a lot of people do as well.. I am not invested in the stories enough for "let's see what happens" games, to stay interesting in the long run. WW2 I always play unbalanced and scenario based for example, seems natural just like pitched and "balanced" for whfb.

Space Hulk is just a one example of a scenario driven game that is unbalanced with difficulty varrying from mission to mission. A a lot of people played it, it's not an alien concept.

It's ironic that GW has been the biggest recruiter to tabletop games for years, using games with points systems. Since they started to dilute the points balance with power creep, power leap, formations and unbound both WHFB and 40K got less popular.

Then GW come out with a completely non-points-balanced game, AoS, and it turns out not to be very popular, so they introduce points and everyone who does like the current game is annoyed.

Points will work okay in AoS if GW build in some force restrictions, like percentage allocations to different keywords and high cost units and so on. Many even some standard formations for different armies.

It's impossible to have a remotely balanced game with or without points if you let players choose and use whatever they like. The current AoS model of balance by negotiation and consent is a socially driven non-points force restriction system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's ironic that GW has been the biggest recruiter to tabletop games for years, using games with points systems. Since they started to dilute the points balance with power creep, power leap, formations and unbound both WHFB and 40K got less popular.

Then GW come out with a completely non-points-balanced game, AoS, and it turns out not to be very popular, so they introduce points and everyone who does like the current game is annoyed.

The series of shots in the feet mentioned here should have opened GW's eyes a few years ago, but that's off-topic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Points will work okay in AoS if GW build in some force restrictions, like percentage allocations to different keywords and high cost units and so on. Many even some standard formations for different armies.

It's impossible to have a remotely balanced game with or without points if you let players choose and use whatever they like. The current AoS model of balance by negotiation and consent is a socially driven non-points force restriction system.

I couldn't agree more and that's what's annoying the players - they want to be able to keep using whatever they want however they want, which is just fine as this is the spirit of AoS.

I get the feeling that the publishing of this BRB will be doing the true damage to the existing AoS communities, not the introductions of points as a whole.

Anecdotally my Khorne army is as follows:

Always take due to the fluff of the army - Slaughterpriest, 2x20 bloodreavers, 1x5 blood warriors, 10 blood warriors

Optionals - Khorne Lord, Bloodsecrator, Bloodstoker, 3/6xMiighty Skullcrushers, 5xskulltakers, Khorgorath

Once every now and then - Bloodthirster

We use the deployment method of determining armies

Edit - this was addressed to the all AOS armies are elite point. Didn't refresh page and convo had moved on!

 Kilkrazy wrote:


Then GW come out with a completely non-points-balanced game, AoS, and it turns out not to be very popular, so they introduce points and everyone who does like the current game is annoyed.

I think one of the reasons is polarization of the players community.

For some time now, AoS players had to fend of against critics of the game rules and attacks from people who really dislike the design behind. However, a defense that you saw quite commonly was the counter-attack against "competitive players" and accusing points system to be the true roots of all evils - thus GW getting rid of it was the right thing to do. Over and over.

Of course the people who were in favour of that defense would be annoyed. They surely can feel GW is admitting they were wrong from the very beginning and everything they tried to defend was wrong as well. Even if that's not the case.

At least, it's just my humble opinion on the subject. Certainly not the truth, maybe a part of it.

Most of this sad debate is that we all are players in the end and we kinda have the same purpose; we're playing to have fun, in our own way sure, but still. Trying to fight against each other isn't worth it, IMHO still

What I find quite ironic is that GW is, in fact, giving more tools so that players can play AoS the way they want it. They will still need the agreement of their "opponent" - which was always the case for any game, anyway -, but in the end the way AoS players now used to enjoy the game will not change.

What will change is that other players, with other ways to play, will come. It's not competition in that case; it's richness of diversity.

Like all changes, fear come first in mind. It's natural, but I think the events after this won't be that cataclysmic as we may feel right now.

You make a really good point. It sure puts the long time AoS defenders in an awkward position when they've spent the last 6 months talking about how amazing a lack of points is, then sales are so bad GW has to go back and add points because that was the number one complaint. I also think the people worried that points will ruin AoS are missing the forest for the trees.

For the last 20 years, GW has taken the attitude of "You will buy what we tell you to buy, we make models not rules, nobody cares about rules anyway, our customers are mostly collectors." For the first time I can remember, GW has listened to customer complaints and made a huge, fundamental change to one of their two main products as a reaction to customer feedback. If that wasnt enough, they got together with the organizers of the largest fantasy tournament in the world to come up with the most fair and balanced point system possible.

Right now I'm not even all that concerned about points in AoS one way or the other. My biggest takeaway is that GW has finally realized the error of their ways and are doing something to fix it before it gets any worse. As much as I've blasted GW on forums, facebook and IRL, I have to give them credit where it's due. I'm sure it wasn't easy to backtrack on 20 years of not giving a feth about rules or customer demand, but I'm glad they have.

 Toofast wrote:
My biggest takeaway is that GW has finally realized the error of their ways and are doing something to fix it before it gets any worse.

I don't think that's it. The fact there will be "three modes to play" is plainly saying what it says; that's three ways to play AoS, with some differences sure but, in the end, with the same models in the same universe. The main design behind AoS is still there; it's just giving more tools for players to play it like they want how they want.

The mistake may have been in the message received by players - that playing competitive is a sin/not a "good way to play" and that point system was the basis of this "Evil".

I believe that the important part here is giving an official common basis. Players will be free to change the parts they don't like/use other rules, sure, but this is important because it gives more tools to find something fitting to each player.

Basically, it's extending the base of the community of players. And that's really important for the future of the game. If all players just play each in their side, with few visible ways to promote the game and show it's living, it will eventually fade and die. Giving a common basis for three different modes is one of the best messages GW could send to its loyal base - including those who were lost with the exclusive "no point system" play style.

It's much more constructive than saying "competitive players are the evil - we don't need them". Saying "all play styles are fine - just grab the one suiting you and play" is way more efficient on the long term. Instead of alienating a part of your community of players, you just invite them to enjoy the game like they want how they want.

I read the blog of Matt about this subject, and his opinion about it is quite showing. Playing competitive and liking point system doesn't mean you go to tournaments; there are players who just like to play that way and don't only go in tournaments for that. It's just their playstyle, how they always play and how they like it. Saying GW should say points system mode is for competitive tournaments only is, to me, a bad move; it's like saying campaign mode should be used by background loving players only and must be limited to play between friends. That's not true; you may make an event gathering unknow players from all sides of the country that would be basically a huge campaign for one or two days. The same is for "competitive players" who want to play with points systems: they're not limited to one way to "express" their playstyle.

Tournaments are mere events to gather players who want to play their favorite games together. That's their main purpose. They may have a theme/favored playstyle, of course, but it's not the generalisation of "competition at all costs".