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.

 Toofast wrote:


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.

Yes, the change in question being taking a step back and turning a possibly differently oriented game into the old, familiar thing that their customers have come to expect and require on a monthly basis. What a service to the world of GW gaming...

 CoreCommander wrote:

Yes, the change in question being taking a step back and turning a possibly differently oriented game into the old, familiar thing that their customers have come to expect and require on a monthly basis. What a service to the world of GW gaming...

How is giving more options to play a "step back"? I don't understand that conclusion.

If you want to play the actual AoS, you will still be able to do so. You just have two others ways to play for those who want to try different things. You will never be forced to use them.

About the "monthly basis", well...it's weekly, now, and already here for quite some time, actually.

Well I'm still of the opinion that the points are still not then main issue with the game so much as the lack of structure to the game. I mean I have always been more of a fluff player but I also know that my way of playing the game is very much in the minority. That overall seems to have been the problem, GW thought more people would enjoy that type of game, the narrative fun game where playing with a handicap is part of the fun.

I mean if they introduced something to the effect of 0-3 Heroes, 0-2 Monsters, 0-2 Warmachines Max 10 Warscrolls per army, max 30 wounds per scroll. You know, a way for people to build and plan an army right from the get go we probably wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

 Toofast wrote:
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.

Actually, this is the second time. The first time being the 6th edition Dark Elf Army book...although even then it didn't help all that much.

 Sarouan wrote:


How is giving more options to play a "step back"? I don't understand that conclusion.

If you want to play the actual AoS, you will still be able to do so. You just have two others ways to play for those who want to try different things. You will never be forced to use them.

It has been discussed already at length that this new option could lead to a prevalent gaming habit of meeting for 2k points and rolling on the 6 mission table. When it becomes prevalent it will drive what players expect with new releases and with GW actually listening we will end with something entirely different form what we thought AoS would be ( which in the context of a living game with malleable rules, if one views AoS as such, may not matter at all). There is also the possibility that, due to the game's rules, stapling points to it may not work as well as players entering it for balance (which isn't said anywhere in GW's announcement) may come to expect. Pain, self flagellation, anguish and much suffering may erupt worldwide and the civilization as we know it will be drown in the blood and bile of the innocent.

About the "monthly basis", well...it's weekly, now, and already here for quite some time, actually.

The "monthly fix" would be the new unit expected to be used against other faction's new units with the appropriate sweet point cost. Should the point cost not meet the demand of customers the model will not be bought. It is an additional statistic that will always be compared to all the other things the model can do and henceforth drive the sale for that model. Does it sound familiar?

Dammit now I'm remotely interested.

Always remember that GW's key motive is to increase sales.

GW clearly think there are a lot of people who so far have avoided AoS because it didn't have points. These people are likely to buy the new book, buy armies, and play with points. They are unlikely to play without points, because if they were interested in doing that they would have started months ago.

All the people who started AoS before now obviously are happy to play without points? So why should they change their minds now?

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Well I'm still of the opinion that the points are still not then main issue with the game so much as the lack of structure to the game.

Except, people want to play with the big, expensive centerpiece models... That is unbound.

All the people who started AoS before now obviously are happy to play without points? So why should they change their minds now?

Great question. I'll give my view point. They aren't really changing their mind. However what has always existed in my community is a desire to get everyone playing the same game the same way.

Event organizers are going to largely be doing things the tournament way. Because all events are the tournament way, that becomes the community default.

A lot of folks can only play once a month or so due to family, work, college, etc. They are going to pick that one day a month carefully and will likely pick the event that has the most people to play against. That's natural.

Its like a snowball rolling downhill.

So the current AOS players aren't changing their mind, rather they want to maximize their gaming experience with the biggest events / collection of players which will be the point system.

If people would be willing to rotate freely and do events one way or another and switch it up it wouldn't be a problem, but thats never how its' run here.

I've made it a point to run narrative events for the past fifteen years or so, and its been successful but takes a LOT of work to get people wiling to do those type of events, and our attendance fluctuates depending on how tournament crazy our region is currently in (right now the tournament arc has deepened and we are in tournament mode for the next couple years). There is a lot of argument and people taking things personally when they get penalized for bringing a min/max army to a narrative event or having to use a scenario thats not one of the core six tournament scenarios and is not perfectly balanced.

We shall see how it goes though. My prediction is that once the points are released, getting narrative games of AOS in my area will be a challenge unless by narrative we mean there's a story but you are taking the optimal builds again and disregarding a good chunk of the game and scenarios (which technically that is correct, you can play narratively with min/max armies, the narrative is that everyone commands super elite efficient armies. they don't usually correlate to any of the novels but the story can be written anyway you want so its also narrative)

Yes every game is narrative. The tabling is a story of a decesive victory of a superior force.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

via Lady Atia
https://war-of-sigmar.herokuapp.com/bloggings/720
- GW is working with tournament organizers to get the stuff right
- There will be points
- There will be unit categories similiar to 40k, Leaders, Battle Line Units, Behemoths and Warmachines (working titles).
- You build your army similiar to 40k now, so you have Battalions and some kind of FoC, depeneding on the points size of your army
- Core Rules + FAQ's stay the same.
- Books are not invalidated
- All warscrolls get points, even Tombkings/Squattonia
- Basically it's Unbound, Story Mode and Tournament Mode

- Open play is basically Unbound or Apocalypse, including rules for multi player battles

- Narrative Play will give you campaign rules similiar to FW's Imperial Armour/HH Campaigns

What do you think so far?

Edit :
- 5 Campaign in the book with a story arc for each. (path to glory included)
- 22 batte plan (small to very big)
- Must have book
- Rules for multiplayer games
- people from the podcast playtested the game.
- 2000 points = 2.5hours battle

There are force restrictions. Good.

 auticus wrote:

However what has always existed in my community is a desire to get everyone playing the same game the same way.

That's an interesting thing to say, and actually it's not specific to AoS. The same thing happens for others games as well; that's why it's important to agree with your opponent first about what you want to play.

The thing is, you don't know if these new players going into AoS won't agree to play narrative games with you. You assume it will not be possible, certainly from a past experience - but then, if there are three modes, that means there is the possibility to shift from one to the other. So, why not giving it a try and see what will be the answer? You may be surprised, I think.

In the end, if it means more players for AoS - and thus, better sales for GW that will then keep on supporting the game -, wouldn't it be better in the end? Players who are fine to play without points would certainly still be there (except those who will quit because point system are coming back as an option - that would be quite a dumb reason to quit, IMHO, but well). So I don't think it won't be possible to play "unbound" like you were doing it until now.

True, in 40k, Unbound isn't that played in the open. But then 40k went differently; showing unbound as an option while points system was still firmly at the basis. Here, AoS is doing the opposite; Unbound was the basis before and now, points system is coming as an option.

So, why thinking it will be going the same way?

So, why thinking it will be going the same way?

Because in 20+ years of playing GW games, any mode other than competitive in my area has never really happened without a ton of effort and hurt feelings.

What this is doing (and you're right its a good thing overall it generates more sales) is that the competitive players are flooding back which as I explained above means the competitive events will be back as a normal occurrence and people want to play where the majority of people are playing when they have to choose either/or.

If for whatever reason narrative gaming is still being done on a fairly large scale and people are posting their narrative games on forums and I am able to not have to fight tooth and nail to get someone to do narrative format as opposed to min/max format, I will *gladly* reconsider my stance.

 auticus wrote:
which as I explained above means the competitive events will be back as a normal occurrence

Competitive events, even with AoS as it was already, were already a normal occurrence, though. They were just all using their own points or points-like (wound count, etc) systems.

For GW to make one in light of the fact that that is already how the game was being played in many venues is just common sense, and if it brings more popularity for the game, that will be a very good thing!

 Sarouan wrote:


True, in 40k, Unbound isn't that played in the open. But then 40k went differently; showing unbound as an option while points system was still firmly at the basis. Here, AoS is doing the opposite; Unbound was the basis before and now, points system is coming as an option.

So, why thinking it will be going the same way?

I am afraid the same thing that happened in 40K will happen in AoS and AoS will become more toxic than it ever was because of the "play my way" or "this is how 40K should be played with no Unbound" It's one of the reasons why I never got into 6th edition because of peoples attitudes towards Unbound. I thought it was a great idea, but sadly Nerds and Geeks are set in their ways and can't change, and have to play their way.

I just really hope people don't try and play AoS as if it were 40K. While I don't play, can't find anyone in my town anymore, I like to collect. I just got back into AoS because of the nice small community we got here and the toxicity has died down. Now I hate to see it come back. I know, I know, I shouldn't let the internet toxicity effect me, but it ruined it for me. Just love how you guys have shown me the how good AoS can be.

Toxic? Jesus guys.

And it seems that it will be played like 40k with FOC and all.

I am truly happy about this announcement, yes, it can lead to people min-maxing and such but I think it will be good for the overall community.

Having the knowledge that I can post up I am looking for a game and at what points level I think will be able to make it the pick up game people are saying that it can't be. It can help newer players who might not have have a collection as large and diverse as you plan out their purchases with the knowledge that they need to build up to a certain level to start with and can change their list to suit their tastes. This is a problem I run into Malifaux a lot, when I first got into the game I bought about 100 models and went nuts. Playing at my local store though, I had more ways to counter other factions than the other guy. The game was still fun though, even though I had certain counters, the balancing mechanism of Soulstones made it not be a complete blow out.

I understand people fear of points becoming the standard way to play, but I have to ask, when/if you go out to play Age of Sigmar at your local store how do you address playing a game against a stranger?

"Hey, howsabout you don't be a douche and we just just slap some crap on the table and hope we get it kind of right."

Do you just see what they place and keep going (an option not everybody has)?. I know in my community, Age of Sigmar started out great until some of the older players brought in their 10k points of whatever and when the scenario they are playing gets rid of one of the few defences that a newer player has, why would they ever want to not only play that that location again (not helping the community grow and gain exposure to get more people to play) but want to play a game that it seems punishes you for not already having had an army or punishes you for starting a new one.

At least with a points system, I know what I will have to have ready for the one day I have to play games and if I have enough ready, have a few lists ready for what the local scene plays at. Sure you will get that neck beard who spent the last month doing all of the math in his head as to the best model per point ratio yada yada yada. But you are going to get that regardless in most games, most groups have that one person. So it's not like it's really changing much.

Like I said, I am pumped. Because of this news I pulled out my High Elves again today and began the process of stripping and rebasing them to repaint.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
I am truly happy about this announcement, yes, it can lead to people min-maxing and such but I think it will be good for the overall community.

Having the knowledge that I can post up I am looking for a game and at what points level I think will be able to make it the pick up game people are saying that it can't be. It can help newer players who might not have have a collection as large and diverse as you plan out their purchases with the knowledge that they need to build up to a certain level to start with and can change their list to suit their tastes. This is a problem I run into Malifaux a lot, when I first got into the game I bought about 100 models and went nuts. Playing at my local store though, I had more ways to counter other factions than the other guy. The game was still fun though, even though I had certain counters, the balancing mechanism of Soulstones made it not be a complete blow out.

I understand people fear of points becoming the standard way to play, but I have to ask, when/if you go out to play Age of Sigmar at your local store how do you address playing a game against a stranger?

"Hey, howsabout you don't be a douche and we just just slap some crap on the table and hope we get it kind of right."

Do you just see what they place and keep going (an option not everybody has)?. I know in my community, Age of Sigmar started out great until some of the older players brought in their 10k points of whatever and when the scenario they are playing gets rid of one of the few defences that a newer player has, why would they ever want to not only play that that location again (not helping the community grow and gain exposure to get more people to play) but want to play a game that it seems punishes you for not already having had an army or punishes you for starting a new one.

At least with a points system, I know what I will have to have ready for the one day I have to play games and if I have enough ready, have a few lists ready for what the local scene plays at. Sure you will get that neck beard who spent the last month doing all of the math in his head as to the best model per point ratio yada yada yada. But you are going to get that regardless in most games, most groups have that one person. So it's not like it's really changing much.

Like I said, I am pumped. Because of this news I pulled out my High Elves again today and began the process of stripping and rebasing them to repaint.

I think the answer is that the people who are worried about the points system don't play in stores. In Europe most gaming is done at clubs or at home, there aren't many stores to play at (the UK is an exception obviously).

It's also easier if you aren't playing to win.

Yes, I don't go out of my way to field the most competitive list most of the time. But even playing a game, there are two or more people trying to win. I tone things down against newer players and try different things that I normally wouldn't against that faction/army, but just by putting our models on the table, my opponent(s) and I have come into an agreement that one of us WILL win because we are competing in a friendly game.

I honestly don't get why you wouldn't play to win, it doesn't mean that you have to play a win at all costs game. I am excited that points will give us a baseline to compete in a friendly matter. I do my best to provide a fun friendly game, because I have noticed a change in the attitudes of people I play. But, I am not going to hand my opponent the game either. I will try charges that I might normally not, cast a different spell, take a different shot. We are both still trying to win while having laughs and a good time though. Sorry for the rant!

You can play to win without having to field the most cost effective / optimal force all the time.

Thats for me the biggest issue to resolve. Points, while good overall I agree, will contribute to an internet meta returning to fantasy, which I know is just the way things are, but thats kind of where the butthurt flows from

I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.

 auticus wrote:
You can play to win without having to field the most cost effective / optimal force all the time.

Thats for me the biggest issue to resolve. Points, while good overall I agree, will contribute to an internet meta returning to fantasy, which I know is just the way things are, but thats kind of where the butthurt flows from

Oh I get it, it is tough but with or without points we have run into "that guy" during all the games I play, promote how you would like to play and build your own group at your store. Shoot, once people have seen how much fun we are having, we have gotten more people to try out wacky ideas, create their dream armies and have a fairly balanced game. Giving both sides a decent chance at victory.

Many games that work well casually have a "meta" that can be safely ignored by casual players. Two of the games I play (X-wing and Warmachine) have this to an extreme.

Doesn't affect me one bit as I "fly casual" with my friends or play casual-machine. Do I know the unit / list I'm taking isn't viable in a tournament? Yep... and I take it anyway, and my local group calibrates accordingly. If someone's taking an OTT list folks just ask them to tone it down a bit.

This will make it way easier to get folks interested in playing AoS, and easier to build towards a "list / army" than currently. I think it will be a huge boost for the health and adoption of the game. I'm excited about it because it means they'll be much more likely to be able to justify making sweet new monster kits like the Maw Krusha, which I can pick up and convert for whatever I like as per my usual. I imagine you'll see a bunch of conversions of these models to 40K, too, which given how cool the Ironjawz are is also welcome!

Yes I prefer cutthroat gaming (not into it for wins and glory but mental work) but if I meet a guy who hates it to the point he can't play it, I will accept his terms and look for other things to enjoy in the game. Hell I'd play Age of Sigmar with model count if someone asked me to, never happened though heh.

 Toofast wrote:
I certainly don't approach anything I do with the intent of losing.

I mean, it's the concept of a game, ie "a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck."

God forbid you actually *want* to win (whether the game is fluffy, competitive, or just Mouse Trap).

To me there is a difference between, "I want to win by playing better than the other side," and, "I want to win (partly) by having a better side." The second thing depends on list building if you take the view that building a powerful list is an inherent part of the game.

I'm not going to say that is wrong. For one thing, all generals in history try to make their side the stronger, though of course it's rare that generals get to build the army they want.

I will say that it creates problems when the game concept is fair balance, the points tell you all codexes/army books/war scroll compendia are created equal, and they are not.

I like there to be strategy in list building. To me a good points system is one that has a wide variety of strong builds for every faction/race, allowing the player to theme their army or base it around certain synergies. Tweaking your list and working out how it could be stronger is a fun part of the hobby too.

If there was a theoretical points system that gave players an equal chance no matter what they picked, I actually think it would be boring. On the other end of the spectrum a points system that only allowed a handful of strong builds (creating obvious choices) - removes the strategy too and makes for a bad points system.

There was a very good variety of builds at SCGT (the winning list being a Spider Grot themed force with some big Ogor monsters too), so I have high hopes for the points from GW as they have been working hand in hand with the SCGT guys over the past few months and will continue to do so.

When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

Davor wrote:
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

Only in a bad points system though. In a good points system they would be costed appropriately so that there could be a build that incorporated them - or the difference between a "strong" army and a "weak" army would not be as large meaning that good tactics could overcome the minor disadvantage of taking them.

Have hope, my friend! :-)

(Plus - the Genestealers could come out for the "open" and "narrative" games too)!

 Bottle wrote:

Davor wrote:
When we talk about points, is all I think about is how Genestealers sit on the shelves. I mean minis people love but will not use them because "they are not worth it". That is what I love about the appeal of AoS. Use what you want.

Everything is desirable. Everything is usable. Once you start putting in points and restricitions, a lot of minis will be sitting on the shelf/boxes and never to be used again.

Only in a bad points system though. In a good points system they would be costed appropriately so that there could be a build that incorporated them - or the difference between a "strong" army and a "weak" army would not be as large meaning that good tactics could overcome the minor disadvantage of taking them.

Have hope, my friend! :-)

(Plus - the Genestealers could come out for the "open" and "narrative" games too)!

You've completely missed his (no pun intended) point.

Once you start putting points into play, the game becomes mathy.

A big reason for 40k (and Fantasy) point costs being what they are is that there is a fair amount of fluff in them. There is no reason for example that terminators cost twice (or thrice) as much as marines, but they "have to be expensive" because they are elite and rare. Same with elven infantry back in 6th Edition. Goblins with shields were more or less equal to high elf spearmen, as neither didn't really any damage in melee, but because elves were elite and rare, they were over double the cost. No surprise that everyone played only with cavalry.