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.

A serious if odd looking question. When those saying points are what are needed for a 'balanced game' what are they meaning? In my experience points do little to provide a balanced game.

There are about 6 or 7 local players I semi regularly play this sort of game with, and a large difference in skill across that group. If we came with X point each then the chance of a 'balanced game' is almost zero. If I go to a GW event (as I have in the past) I hit the same problem. If I want a good close game (i.e. balanced) then knowing your opponent and adjusting accordingly is a must, be that extra troops or some extra scenario condition. E.g. In my last game of Maurice (points based game) I switched from defender to attacker, even though he was supposed to be the attacker, as I know the guy I was playing is far more comfortable playing defense than attack and I'd get a more balanced and better game as a result. Over 5 years of playing Federation Commander in points based games I won about 95% of all games, the best and most exciting games tended to be campaign games where I was fighting at a big disadvantage.

That is why any game with points are so often flawed, who exactly are you pointing for? Who is the mythical 'average' or 'good tourney' player to use as our reference point (which ever is your standard for pointing)? I've had this argument in other games where some unit is considered OP or UP by some but not (or even opposite) by others. In most cases it is down to experience etc, Do you point around the top tourney players opinions, cos they are somehow seen to know what they are on about or around the majority cos, well they are the majority. Both sets of players will see things differently.

Star fleet battles is older than warhammer by a long way, and uses points, and yet the tourney scene doesn't use the normal ships as they are not 'balanced'. They came up with a very limited selection of ships without using points just for tourney use. Of course all these years later still debate whether X ship needs Y extra component etc.

The primary use of points as far as I can tell is to provide a way for competitive (as in tourney style) players to choose two armies that are supposedly equal when played between two equal players, then play in a tourney for the purpose of 'winning' the tourney and showing off your supposed skill. The idea being that having ruled out 'unequal' armies it must be your skill that got you the win. That, however, is not the same as having a 'balanced game' as far as I can tell.


Any game with force multipliers is a mare to point. What would we point skaven troops at, the units get stronger the more models there are, and stronger in the presence of other units like the heroes. The Heroes in themselves are not awesome, but when combined with other stuff are a lot better. Do you have some complex combination matrix or come up with a 1 size fits all value. Games without force multipliers are a lot easier, KOW is like that (or was the last time I played it) where even wizards were largely just fancy missile troops. It also why I thought it was a bit bland. Don't get me wrong I like KOW and would play it over WarHammer, but it felt like it was missing something to make it stand out from just an historical wargame. it was AOS that made me realize that I miss the synergy between say a wizard and boosting units etc. AOS has that in spades.

The two things I liked about AOS as soon as I read it was the lack of points and the lack of comp. I knew the points would be controversial, even among those I play with. As for comp, the whole army list thing is one of the reasons I stopped playing warhammer, I'm a gamer not a min collector. I like playing with minis, but dislike being expected to spend money and time buying, making and painting all those masses of minis that I don't really care much for, hence I never played it as much as I wanted (back when I was interested). I can enjoy getting/making/painting the minis I do really like (which are invariably the old special and rares) so a game that starts with that premise is awesome IMO - buy and play with the stuff you want, no more buying boxes of boring troops. Whilst I'd play with some formal 'balancing' system if someone really insisted I can't see me ever going back to a comp system that requires I have certain minis.

I look for a more general feel of balance. I don't need precision balance, and I think precision balance is quite frankly impossible to achieve.

I just want a general feel of balance to exist.

Part of tournament warhammer is to create a list that is as unbalanced as you can legally produce, so yes points by themselves are very poor at achieving balance.

 Vash108 wrote:
I had heard people are going by total wound count for models before. Did that ever pan out to anything resembling balance?

It is good as a starting point. It gives you a 'feel' of how the forces will match up. However, be prepared to adjust if elites or hordes start popping up, adjusting down and up respectively. If someone puts 30 1-Wound peasants on the table, 15 2-wound knights are going to be a bit much. But ten will probably be fine.

I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.

In other words, points only work for the players in that broad middle part of the bell curve, being roughly average and neither exceptional nor terrible. I think most people would agree with that. However, I think I disagree with how board that tip of the bell curve is, and I think it applies to a LOT fewer people than it would seem, and the people who it doesn't apply to simply go play something else. Points are a self fulfilling prophecy. They are good at one thing, so only the people who like that one thing stick around.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.

In other words, points only work for the players in that broad middle part of the bell curve, being roughly average and neither exceptional nor terrible. I think most people would agree with that. However, I think I disagree with how board that tip of the bell curve is, and I think it applies to a LOT fewer people than it would seem, and the people who it doesn't apply to simply go play something else. Points are a self fulfilling prophecy. They are good at one thing, so only the people who like that one thing stick around.

No, I don't agree with that. what points give me as a player is a framework to pick up a game. One of the biggest strengths of GW games was they were universal. If I was out of town I can play a pickup game or travel to enter a tourney. It's points that give that. I stopped playing tourneys years ago, but I can no longer just grab a pickup game and have any idea how it will turn out.

I think AoS is playable, but it's more like an RPG now, it takes a lot of time with just one player to find a middle ground that works. It's not really a pickup or casual game anymore, nor does it work with tournaments.

There's a very thin margin of players the game appeals too, and for those players it's really a great game.

I also disagree with the idea that points appeal to a very small margin of gamers, if that were true I would have seen games with no points. Even with imbalanced and thematic fights like from the generals compendium points were still used. (rules like the attacker gets more points, or his units recycle, campeign play allows one side to have 250 more points then another, etc.)

I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)

puree wrote:
A serious if odd looking question. When those saying points are what are needed for a 'balanced game' what are they meaning? In my experience points do little to provide a balanced game.

They're not perfect, but no single mechanism can be either. However, what they do, particularly in conjunction with some sort of army construction framework (like the old FoC in 40k or Fantasy's Lords/Heros/Core/Special/Rare) is effectively give players a rough baseline that can act basically as a neutral 3rd party, a "GM in a Box", that allows players to build armies with some sort of coherence and structure, and help ensure at least a minimum level of sanity with respect to a balance gap and that players are fielding armies of a roughly similar scale. This greatly enhances the functionality of a game for pickup play and organized events like leagues or tournaments, in that it vastly cuts down on the negotiation and possible butthurt before each game without needing a 3rd party GM present at every game.

They're obviously not perfect, and very plainly often have major problems with execution and implementation, but there's a reason that points systems are a universal mechanic for tabletop wargames.

Yes, there are nebulous areas and vagueness associated with points systems, a lot of it is "feel", but they do broadly give at least some comparable level of value even if they don't encapsulate every possible dimension of capability.

I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)

Its not a new idea for sure - I started in the 80s in historicals and there were no points. You typically had game masters write scenarios and those would dictate to you what you took. Then I got into battle tech and there were no points, though people started using tonnage as an equalizer, though it was a poor equalizer.

I didn't play with any form of points until the mid 90s.

auticus wrote:

I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)

Its not a new idea for sure - I started in the 80s in historicals and there were no points. You typically had game masters write scenarios and those would dictate to you what you took. Then I got into battle tech and there were no points, though people started using tonnage as an equalizer, though it was a poor equalizer.

BattleTech eventually did have points ("Combat Values" and "Battle Values"), but they also had lots of scenarios that very explicitly spelled out precisely what forces would be present (e.g. player One has an Atlas, two Urbanmech's, a Crusader, and lance of Bushwackers, player Two has a Kodiak, two Mad Cats, a Puma and an Adder). I think that's what's being missed, is that most of these other games that don't have points values typically very clearly spell out exactly what forces to use, as opposed to AoS which just says "take whatever".

auticus wrote:

I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)

Its not a new idea for sure - I started in the 80s in historicals and there were no points. You typically had game masters write scenarios and those would dictate to you what you took. Then I got into battle tech and there were no points, though people started using tonnage as an equalizer, though it was a poor equalizer.

I didn't play with any form of points until the mid 90s.

I forgot about battletech, we would balance with light, two med and a heavy.

and even the rogue trader days of GW were loose on points, there was just too much of a spread in cost.

I just feel that despite flaws, points allow for casual and pickup games to have a frame of reference. now when I go out of town it is a crapshoot. does the local club use "known" house rules or one of the top ten comp lists? do they only play in a deep campaign? do they just RAW and hope for the best?

In WHFB points made it work like a restaurant chain. from coast to coast the menu was the same. now its like a specialty restaurant thats different in each club/area/region. I'm not saying one is better then the other, but casual, fun pick up games against new opponents is not really accessible with AoS. Its a much more "hardcore" RPG style game that takes many games within a group or same opponents to make it work on any level.

I work a lot and can only play once a month or so, so that really adds to any decision to collect and play AoS.

pox wrote:
There's a very thin margin of players the game appeals too, and for those players it's really a great game.

I agree with everything here except "very thin". Wargaming is a VERY small community of less than a dozen popular games (less than a half dozen?) that are so similar. And each wargaming basically cannibalizes players from other games rather than bringing in new players (possible exception: X-Wing Miniatures). The typical path to wargaming for most people, from what I've seen, is that they start with 40k until GW pisses them off, then moves to Warmachine/Infinity/KoW/Whatever. In other words, it is a very inbred community filled with largely the same types of players from the same socioeconomic background, with similar likes and dislikes.

So yeah, I'd say that of the players that are currently into wargaming, AoS may appeal to a rather small subset, but of the set of potential players, I think AoS could be MORE appealing than point systems.

I also disagree with the idea that points appeal to a very small margin of gamers, if that were true I would have seen games with no points. Even with imbalanced and thematic fights like from the generals compendium points were still used. (rules like the attacker gets more points, or his units recycle, campeign play allows one side to have 250 more points then another, etc.)

I've played wargames for 20 years now and I've never played a game that didn't have points or army structure of some sort, so I would say it's fair to assume this is a new idea. (or old idea from what I hear from the historical gamers.)

Personally, I came to miniatures from a complicated background. I started with video games and collectible card games (no points). I got into Warmachine (points) a long time ago from a comic book convention. Once my kids were born and I couldn't dedicate time to the hobby, I put Warmachine on the backburner, but still played miniature heavy games like Descent (scenarios), BattleLore (scenarios), Monsterpocalypse (one monster, 15 units, up to 12 buildings), and Dust Tactics (only one with points). So while I was aware that points existed, the large majority of the miniature-type games I played were scenario based or featured army composition rules that didn't use points (like BattleLore's Call to Arms expansion). I do not find points to be a comfortable standard at all.

I think points are added to games when the games develop a competitive tournament scene though. Wings of War didn't have points, but X-Wing Miniatures is a remake of Wings of War that adds points. Descent and Descent 2E don't have points, but when the remake in Imperial Assault added a skirmish mode, it added points. BattleLore didn't have points, but BattleLore 2E does. You might look at this as an example of how popular point systems are, but in all three of these cases, the games became more collectible as well.

I guess what my point was is that I have a lot of time to paint and model, but my game time is limited. After many AoS games, the limiting factor of not being able to "pick up and play" may be what kills it for me. If there is no "offical" structure to play the game then this has to be negotiated, and so far my experience is that is both time-consuming and not enjoyable.

I am a casual gamer, I don't need to win, I don't like tournaments, but without any cohesive structure I can't just grab my gear on Saturday and head to the shop.

One of our local guys now calls it the rules phase of the game, it's what comes before deployment. plus the lack of points means it is just a mental exercise, there is no "winning," hence the idea that its more like playing inquisitor but without a GM.

Wether they are good or bad points makes that easier. Even CCG have balancing factors and deck building requirements.

 pox wrote:
I guess what my point was is that I have a lot of time to paint and model, but my game time is limited. After many AoS games, the limiting factor of not being able to "pick up and play" may be what kills it for me. If there is no "offical" structure to play the game then this has to be negotiated, and so far my experience is that is both time-consuming and not enjoyable.

I am a casual gamer, I don't need to win, I don't like tournaments, but without any cohesive structure I can't just grab my gear on Saturday and head to the shop.

One of our local guys now calls it the rules phase of the game, it's what comes before deployment. plus the lack of points means it is just a mental exercise, there is no "winning," hence the idea that its more like playing inquisitor but without a GM.

Wether they are good or bad points makes that easier. Even CCG have balancing factors and deck building requirements.

Exactly. There's always some form of "resource management".

With Magic, typically you have to have a deck of 60 cards minimum, and no more than 4 of any one card (aside from Lands) and various other restrictions typically as well. Even wwith video games, you usually have more direct resource management for strategy games, an infantryman may be 50 credits, a battle tank 800 credits, etc. Points are basically another "resource" in that sense that provides structure to the game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

With Magic, typically you have to have a deck of 60 cards minimum, and no more than 4 of any one card (aside from Lands) and various other restrictions typically as well. Even wwith video games, you usually have more direct resource management for strategy games, an infantryman may be 50 credits, a battle tank 800 credits, etc. Points are basically another "resource" in that sense that provides structure to the game.

And AoS has wounds, warscrolls, keywords, models, battalions, realm rules, and scenarios. It's just that there isn't ONE final resource that all other resources bow down to. If you want to limit it by one (or more) resource, you can - you aren't beholden to one way of doing things. If you want to say, bring 10 warscrolls at minimum population (no more than one monster + one hero), 100 or less models, player with fewest wounds get +1 to initiative rolls, plan on these 4 scenarios with these 3 Time of War rules, you can. You can put together a game structure in seconds, and generally speaking, most of the games will be close enough in power that it will be a fun game.

And it should be said, scenarios are the base standard by which the army building is done. AoS isn't a giant mosh pit in the middle unless you make it so. A lot of the scenarios are quite varied and will greatly affect what a balanced army will look like. Again, Age of Sigmar is not a competition, player to player, army to army, to see who is the best. It is about creating experiences where the players compete against each other, objective to objective, goal to goal.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

With Magic, typically you have to have a deck of 60 cards minimum, and no more than 4 of any one card (aside from Lands) and various other restrictions typically as well. Even wwith video games, you usually have more direct resource management for strategy games, an infantryman may be 50 credits, a battle tank 800 credits, etc. Points are basically another "resource" in that sense that provides structure to the game.

And AoS has wounds, warscrolls, keywords, models, battalions, realm rules, and scenarios.

Most of which don't provide anything near the same structure. Wounds are just a model characteristic, their use as any sort of balance mechanism is worthless. Warscrolls are just unit stats, much like the card text on a Magic card. AoS's scenario's usually offer very little in the way of structure beyond "the player with the least models gets X". These aren't really the same thing.

It's just that there isn't ONE final resource that all other resources bow down to. If you want to limit it by one (or more) resource, you can - you aren't beholden to one way of doing things. If you want to say, bring 10 warscrolls at minimum population (no more than one monster + one hero), 100 or less models, player with fewest wounds get +1 to initiative rolls, plan on these 4 scenarios with these 3 Time of War rules, you can. You can put together a game structure in seconds, and generally speaking, most of the games will be close enough in power that it will be a fun game.

Even with that, that allows for *way* more variability in power level than there should be, and has far more things to explicitly keep track of than the old "2500pts, standard force allocation" did.

10 warscrolls with 100 or less models could mean 90 Chaos Knights vs 95 Goblins. There's no inherent "weight" to any of these factors, 10 warscrolls and 100 models could be 100 Ogres, 100 Chaos Knights, or 100 Goblins.

There's basically nothing in any of this that accounts for the fact that a Chaos Knight is dramatically superior to a Goblin.

And it should be said, scenarios are the base standard by which the army building is done. AoS isn't a giant mosh pit in the middle unless you make it so. A lot of the scenarios are quite varied and will greatly affect what a balanced army will look like. Again, Age of Sigmar is not a competition, player to player, army to army, to see who is the best. It is about creating experiences where the players compete against each other, objective to objective, goal to goal.

And where this falls down is that it provides very little information for that. Most games that typically have gone this route will specify what forces are present. If you look at something like BattleTech, old Rogue Trader/original fantasy stuff, or Historicals, they'll very clearly lay out in detail exactly what forces will be present, whereas AoS for the most part just says "bring what you want, whoever has more wounds or less models gets X bonus" or something.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other.

I think you are being deliberately misleading in your argument.

In warmachine, points do work. You cannot simply make the claim you make without factoring in the synergy-based gameplay and the other structural components around which the game is built and balanced (active duty roster, 2 or 3 list events, steamroller, scenarios, the assassination win condition etc). You can’t base an argument on ‘random armies’ when the game isn’t based around that. Which is precisely the red herring you are trying to present here. In other words, you are being dishonest. Points are simply the starting point. Your statement falls apart quite readily under any serious scrutiny.

Points work by pricing the relative value of the pieces. These can be determined via stats, availabilities and other constant factors. Which can be measured within the framework of the game. How you use them is the variable you are trying to ascribe directly to points to prove they don’t work. When clearly, it is far more complicated than you’d like it to be. And let’s be fair here – sometimes designers get it wrong, this can leads to imbalance. Like any tool, you can use it wrong. But this is just as true for a game where points are not used and ‘just eyeball it’ is the metric for assigning balance. And in both cases, if there are problems – you suffer for a while, you acknowledge the issue, and then deal with it, via errata or redesign etc.

As to your point, I have very rarely found myself unable to do anything with my armies in warmachine. It’s a very rare unit that is utterly unfieldable or is so utterly worthless as to be wthout value. Thanks to PP’s very clever use of soft counters (generally speaking, most things are capable of killing most other things) and hard counters, along with dual win conditions (scenario and assassination) means I have very, very rarely found myself completely out of a game. Often, when I’ve lost, and I look back on the game after, I can point to one or two areas where if I’d done x instead of y, it would have been a completely different story, rather than 'it was my army!'.

Skill should be a thing. if one player uses his army better, then frankly, he deserves to win. Otherwise you are dealing with a situation akin to snakes and ladders, where experience counts for nothing.

And it’s quite disheartening for someone who has played for years to have a fifty-fifty chance lose to a noob- it makes all that time and effort count for nothing. This basically gives no value to the concepts of ‘improvement’ and makes ‘getting better’ pointless. I am a long distance runner. I do marathons ‘for fun’. And if all that time and all that effort I put in, and all my experience I’ve earned counted for nothing in terms of my ability to do what I do, then the whole thing is utterly pointless. Wargames are no different. In other words, long term value is reduced and eliminated by eliminating skill as a feature. No thanks.

 Sqorgar wrote:

But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.

So in other words, once you’ve learned the game, and know what you are doing with your pieces, you have a fighting chance. To be fair, the ‘eyeballing things’ approach you champion is just as prone to error, bias, confusion, mismanagement and abuse. And while rewarding, it often requires a lot of work, organisation and foresight to get it right. Matt here talks a good talk, but he is a professional games designer for example. This is what he does. Remember that.

 Sqorgar wrote:

In other words, points only work for the players in that broad middle part of the bell curve, being roughly average and neither exceptional nor terrible. I think most people would agree with that. However, I think I disagree with how board that tip of the bell curve is, and I think it applies to a LOT fewer people than it would seem, and the people who it doesn't apply to simply go play something else.

Or else the learn how to play. You know, they improve, they learn how things work, they build on their experiences. And then when that match up comes again, they hold their own.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Points are a self fulfilling prophecy. They are good at one thing, so only the people who like that one thing stick around.

Here you go again. Misleading arguments backed up by a confirmation bias. Points are a very useful structural tool. They allow you to assign value to units, and whatever else. But you can’t use them exclusively. In the same way, you can’t build a house with only a hammer. Now, replace ‘points’ with other structural tools like ‘unit caps’, ‘scenario objectives’, ‘ terrain layouts’ etc and its just as true a statement. The simple fact is, no one tool provides balance all on its own. The biased. narrow and skewed narrative that you are constantly pushing – ‘points are bad,m’kay; they don’t work – eyeballing things is better just because’, along with your constant dismissive and condescending jabs towards people who want, or prefer something different along with your refusal to accept anything of value from that very same different point of view is just as destructive and just as naïve to the hobby and our community as the extreme end of argument on the other side – that points are an infallible be-all and end-all. And its not the first time I’ve called you out on this.

Tbh, I not fussed for points with or without. The only important thing for me is total unbound is a must.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.

Yummy! I see your favourite food is red herring.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even with that, that allows for *way* more variability in power level than there should be...

Should be? Based on what metric? Can you not think of two units from a game with points system with similar points but "way" more variability in power level? I mean, in Warmachine, the difference between a character jack that you can only field one of and a normal run of the mill jack with less functionality might be one point.

10 warscrolls with 100 or less models could mean 90 Chaos Knights vs 95 Goblins. There's no inherent "weight" to any of these factors, 10 warscrolls and 100 models could be 100 Ogres, 100 Chaos Knights, or 100 Goblins.

There's basically nothing in any of this that accounts for the fact that a Chaos Knight is dramatically superior to a Goblin.

Well, let's look at this. You wouldn't want to create a unit of 20 Chaos Knights because they get no bonuses for larger units and the unit cohesion rules and melee-only range would make it difficult to maneuver and be as effective as they could. So if you have 10 units of 10 figures, you'd have the most effective army of 100 Chaos Warriors - and you'd use up all ten of your available warscroll slots.

Goblins, if geared for ranged, can be a pretty good ranged unit. At 40+ models, they get +2 to hit, which means they have a 16" range, hit on 3+, wound on 5+. Since models don't block line of sight to its own unit, having a large number of models in a unit does not adversely affect it. So if you had two units or 40 goblins, you'd have an insane threat range and ability to inflict damage, and you've only used up two warscrolls. The remaining twenty models can be heroes, monsters, wizards, or meat shields to protect the archers. With a Goblin Shaman casting Sneaky Stabbin, they get a bonus to wound rolls and rend. So diversifying can really make a difference.

Geared for melee, even with the bonuses, the Goblins really only have reach on the Chaos Warriors, meaning they'd get more models into melee range, but Chaos Warriors roll three attacks and have three wounds, so they are essentially worth three melee Goblins. But Goblin Warboss's command ability adds 1 to bravery and 1 to attack count for all melee weapons. With proper maneuvering, you could potentially surround a unit of Chaos Warriors, getting all 40 hits in with reach, hitting twice each, with stats equivalent to the ensorcelled weapons. So while the Goblins are not equal, stat for stat, to Chaos Warriors, when taken with Goblin units that support them, they become situationally pretty good.

I get what you are saying and that is, given some limitation, being able to spam great units is going to be a lot better than fielding a group of middling units. But I think that's unfair because the synergies matter the most, so you are going to want to diversify your warscrolls to maximize your options rather than spam a single type of unit, and in doing so, just by virtue of there being minimum requirements for a warscroll, you are going to fill up that 100 models with a bunch of different models, some great, some good, some situationally amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Yummy! I see your favourite food is red herring.

I don't think you are using that idiom correctly.

 Bottle wrote:
Tbh, I not fussed for points with or without. The only important thing for me is total unbound is a must.

Here here, I heartily concur. It's the one thing going for AoS, there's been so many times I've made a themed list and not had the proper unit types to represent what I need. Need to add your version of a magic war beast like Saint Celestant? Use demon prince rules! Have an idea for goblins riding a war elephant? use a thundertusk or stonehorn as a counts-as.

Want to make a dwarven golem themed list? use whatever monstrous creature rules match the model concept!

It's especially good in AoS, as model synergy rules typically only affect units within the same force.I really like playing unbound in 40K, and even there the lack of scoring units helps the balance.

I made some wargame rules up about 40 years ago after being taken to some show and seeing all these awesome wargames being played on big tables. At the time, like many boys in the UK, airfix soldiers and models were a major part of my life and suddenly I was presented with the spectacle of watching all these grown men playing with proper rules (they even painted all those figures, wow!). I went home and wrote down what I could remember of the rules I was hearing and made the rest up. There were no points. Wellington and Napoleon didn't arrange a 2000pt battle, and neither did wargamers back then.

Not long later I found an airfix wargame rule book in the school library and then more sophisticated rule sets in other libraries. I don't remember (maybe wrongly) those having points either. It was never an issue, we either agreed to sort of re-create a specific battle, or to just slap down your 15mm French vs my Spanish etc. The rules tended to cover how you played not what forces you played with. Even as kids we could agree when someone was using far more than the other and make some adjustment (e.g. you have the better force so I get to defend the river), or just accept the challenge. Then you start finding that many historical games use army lists if you want a proper historical feel. As kids that tended to get ignored as we didn't have the dosh to be buying all the units for a list based army (and wanted to buy what we liked most anyway) so you played with what you had.

My first game I actually remember with points was either warhammer or D&D battlesystem as they came out, I don't remember which. I was heavily into RPG by then so fantasy plus wargame seemed awesome sauce. Naturally a lot of time was spent by us teenagers breaking the point system. But hardly ever playing games using points (again, no one had the figures to actually be worrying about that, if we were lucky and every one could bring a unit or 2 then the whole game club could maybe get a decent battle in).

On the one hand I can understand the desire to have some sort of balancing system built in to a game for random pick up games, on the other if I don't have the experience to see whether I need to adjust my AOS game for a balanced game then I will be in the same boat with a point system. The points will never account for player ability never mind be that accurate anyway in a system that has interactions that can only be seen when we see what each player has to field. Equally if I have the experience to know what adjustments to make to get a balanced game that uses points then I don't need the points in the first place. I also struggle with the idea that grown ups can't quickly work out what looks like a good game and get on with it. If the discussion goes on longer than you'd think is good then it is likely you'd rather not play that person anyway even in a points based game.

Hanging around GW shops over the years I still see that in terms of true newcomers to the game not a lot has changed since I was young. Despite the complaints about GW prices kids seem to have far more figures than we ever did, but they still just seem to play with what they have (often more than 1 person per side to help beef up the forces) and probably not even a remotely 'legal' army. Having a collection to actually worry about points and army lists and the like is still in future for them. AOS is perfect for that type of game. At some point they start to get into the whole points thing, but I don't believe that is because the have an inherent desire for such a system but just because that was the (warhammer) rules for armies. I don't believe that youngsters have changed so much since I was one that they need a point system. Discussing and agreeing the game you are about to play, a cool reason as to why and what forces there are and some victory condition, as we had to do when I was young, will probably do more to get new young players into a game than a rather souless mechanical point system. As for the time it takes to discuss I expect it will be less time for those teens I see who are using points. By the time they are that stage of pointing their games at least one of them will often then have to sit down and redesign his force as the other kid has less points in his bag, or they never had a list ready to go. I've certainly seen people spend what seemed like longer pointing forces than playing the game they just agreed to have on a table that has freed up. Slapping their figures down and discussing on the fly would probably be a lot quicker, whilst offering a chance to build some immersion into the game you are about to play.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think balance really only works with players of similar skill. Take Warmachine. The points don't work, like, at all. Two random armies of equal points have almost zero chance of being perfectly balanced against each other. But once you've played a few (hundred) games and start learning how the game works, then you know how to manipulate those points to create the best armies possible. And between two equal points armies created to be the best possible, balance can be achieved.

Yummy! I see your favourite food is red herring.

I don't think you are using that idiom correctly.

If you say so. What you put above is a textbook red herring

Deadnight wrote:

In warmachine, points do work.

Ha ha ha... oh wait, you're serious?

You cannot simply make the claim you make without factoring in the synergy-based gameplay and the other structural components around which the game is built and balanced (active duty roster, 2 or 3 list events, steamroller, scenarios, the assassination win condition etc). You can’t base an argument on ‘random armies’ when the game isn’t based around that. Which is precisely the red herring you are trying to present here. In other words, you are being dishonest. Points are simply the starting point. Your statement falls apart quite readily under any serious scrutiny.

Then what do points represent? Couldn't you just as easily replace them with "pick a warcaster, two warjacks, two units, and two solos", and wouldn't it be just as "balanced", if points are just a base line starting point for the real balancing? And isn't that what AoS kinda does?

Points work by pricing the relative value of the pieces.

Except they don't because the actual value of each model CHANGES depending on what the other models in the game are. A unit of Mechanithralls are generally kind of sucky, and their points reflect that, but when paired with a Necrosurgeon (can resurrect them) and Terminus (gives them tough), they become significantly better. Like play a 15 point game with Terminus, three groups of mechanithralls, and two necrosurgeons - unless you design your team to specifically counter this combination of units, there's a high likelihood that you will be curbstomped when all your units are engaged and can't move against 26 units that are tough to kill and come back from the dead.

So the points are less important than the synergies, and you have to design your armies around the synergies you will face. There's a thread in the PP forums right now where someone suggested that if people could only bring one list to tournaments, would people bring more general purpose armies. Last I checked, the general consensus is that it would just lead to nothing but skew lists as people rolled the dice, knowing that most of the time, they'll win against a balanced army and if they were lucky, they wouldn't be paired up against the one or two skew lists that could counter them. How does that sound like a balanced game to you? A game in which bringing a balanced list will likely prevent you from winning.

Here you go again. Misleading arguments backed up by a confirmation bias. Points are a very useful structural tool. They allow you to assign value to units, and whatever else. But you can’t use them exclusively. In the same way, you can’t build a house with only a hammer. Now, replace ‘points’ with other structural tools like ‘unit caps’, ‘scenario objectives’, ‘ terrain layouts’ etc and its just as true a statement. The simple fact is, no one tool provides balance all on its own.

Okay, if no one tool provides balance, then missing one tool shouldn't be a deal breaker. AoS has terrain layouts, scenario objectives, and can have unit caps using multiple different measures. If it has everything else, why then is missing points such a big issue?

The biased. narrow and skewed narrative that you are constantly pushing – ‘points are bad,m’kay; they don’t work – eyeballing things is better just because’, along with your constant dismissive and condescending jabs towards people who want, or prefer something different along with your refusal to accept anything of value from that very same different point of view is just as destructive and just as naïve to the hobby and our community as the extreme end of argument on the other side – that points are an infallible be-all and end-all. And its not the first time I’ve called you out on this.

I don't say that points are bad. I'm pointing out that points don't do what you think they do, and in the rare cases where they do, they aren't terribly effective at it. I don't mind points at all, but the difference is, I don't mind NOT points either. So if something doesn't have points, then it doesn't suffer from the issues that only point systems add to a game, and maybe that's not a terrible thing after all.

I admit that I rather dislike WMH's point system as I feel it fails spectacularly to capture the nature of the game, and I think it is one of the leading reasons behind the fact that newbie WMH players have to put in dozens of games, almost all of them losing, before they "git gud" enough to play the game. There's nothing tactically complicated about WMH, but you NEED to know the synergies you are playing with and against, and the best way to employ them or counter them, to have a chance of winning. And that's not reflected at all in WMH's point system. It could be, but it isn't.

Age of Sigmar is similar in that unit quality can change drastically depending on various factors, so if people want to use Warmachine as a baseline by which to put a point system on the game, I'm against it. I'd rather have no points than a point system which drastically misrepresents the game. I don't have a problem with point systems in general, but I do have a problem with bad ones.

Besides, I think not having a point system is a bit freeing in how players can approach the game. I think it is refreshing to not base the entirety of a game around a single value. It's like being at the beach. You might really like bethonged buttockes, but when they wear a sarong, maybe you notice that their bosoms are pleasing to the eye as well.

puree wrote:
*snip*

Excellent point, sir. Have an exalt.

I like how AOS does it - it states that the players are responsible for making a balanced game.

In 40k, instead of justifying the scatterbike list against the imperial guard theme list because of = points - the players could arbitrarily decide that the IG player should have an army double the size - without it feel like they were taking a handicap due to 'half the points'.

 Sqorgar wrote:

pox wrote:
There's a very thin margin of players the game appeals too, and for those players it's really a great game.

I agree with everything here except "very thin". Wargaming is a VERY small community of less than a dozen popular games (less than a half dozen?) that are so similar. And each wargaming basically cannibalizes players from other games rather than bringing in new players (possible exception: X-Wing Miniatures). The typical path to wargaming for most people, from what I've seen, is that they start with 40k until GW pisses them off, then moves to Warmachine/Infinity/KoW/Whatever. In other words, it is a very inbred community filled with largely the same types of players from the same socioeconomic background, with similar likes and dislikes.
...
....

Teh HoBBBy (as opposed to The HHHobby) is a narrow community of fewer than a dozen games. Teh HoBBBy is, as you say, people who started playing 40K and then moved on.

However this ignores the very large community of historical players, which is much older, has a wide base of support, and bleeds over into non-historical games of various types.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

puree wrote:
*snip*

Excellent point, sir. Have an exalt.

Yes, a very nice post! Made me reminisce about my childhood and playing 2nd Edition 40k. We just used to bring whatever back then too. I used to have a set of the Imperial Guard Praetorians all fully painted that I would take everywhere including to our "Warhammer birthday parties" which were 2nd Edition style mega battles, my Imperial Guard were usually horribly out gunned haha, but it didn't bother me - I still had lots of fun, and more importantly my army was better painted than everyone else. (Which is still the most important consideration today).

I didn't start using points and playing "real" 40k until 3rd edition. I found the CAD fun, but I was so disheartened to find my entire Praetorian army was just a single troop choice I gave up with them and collected Space Marines instead. My Space Marine army used to get beaten by my brother's Iron Warriors week in week out though. We both had 1,500 point armies and there was nothing I could do to address the balance. The models were so expensive before I had even a part time job that restructuring my army to optimize it just wasn't an option and 40k got packed away for a good number of years.

These experiences are probably what has shaped my open approach to balance. You post brought lots of memories back.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Rihgu wrote:


In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.

My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.

One might counter with the point that an entire army of nothing but Slayers never really had much of a basis in fluff to begin with, much like the forces of the Tomb Kings have never been portrayed as just a bunch of giant statue things.

Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.

I disagree. I don't have books in front of me but in the Tomb Kings Army Book it tells of a Dwarven treasure hunting/exploratory force in Khemri. They are attacked by Tomb Kings and lose their leader, so the majority of them take the Slayer Oath right then and there and march to their doom as a single a force.

Now, for normal circumstances, no - a Slayer army is not fluffy... unless the fluff for your army is that it is an army of Slayers. My army fluff happens to have always been that the majority of them have taken a Slayer Oath and are trying to track down a specific entity which caused them to take the oath. There is precedence for this sort of gathering in the fluff, as there is precedence in the fluff for armies consisting of almost nothing but statuary marching upon the enemies of insane Necrotects.

These are exceptional cases, sure, but our armies are exceptional armies. My little brother and I are very much about the "Your Dudes" component of the hobby.

My objection has nothing to do with wanting to make an army out of all 'special' and 'rare' units without any 'core' from the 8th ed army building system, it is that the way the rules are supposed to work I can put down 15 archers, my opponent 15 spearmen, me another 15 archers, him 10 riflemen, me 10 light cav, him 10 heavy cav. I have my whole army on the field, that is all I bought, all I painted, and I love the theme of it. Except he then puts down 20 greatswords, a cannon and a griffin. He's doing nothing wrong, and he just wants to play his 'army' like I just want to play mine, but the way the game is set up I seem top be expected to have pheonix guard and a dragon to put down to match him.

I see. I didn't mean to make an army from Special or Rare or Hero units. I was giving examples of themes of armies I have personal experience with that happen to involve a lack of core. Then again, any theme that relied on core would be easy to achieve under 8e rules.

I know it's only an example, but I would like to point out that the additional 20 Greatswords, and cannon wouldn't make too much of a difference. Your army would still likely win, except you don't have anything to tackle the heavy cavalry or griffin. But that isn't the point, I guess. What if the opponent drops 3 units of Greatswords, 4 cannons, and 2 griffins after you've finished setting up? Sounds like a miscommunication of the intent of the game, like if my little brother set down his 3 Warsphinxes and I lined up 10 cannons and a line of Ironbreakers 4 ranks deep across the field.
That's not a satisfactory retort, I know.Sorry about that. There's not really anywhere else we can go with this line of discussion (that hasn't already been repeated a million times. I could say your opponent is being a dink, then you say your opponent was just putting down the army he wanted to play, and we go back and forth. Forever.), so... thanks for clarifying your position for me!

Deadnight wrote:

And it’s quite disheartening for someone who has played for years to have a fifty-fifty chance lose to a noob- it makes all that time and effort count for nothing. This basically gives no value to the concepts of ‘improvement’ and makes ‘getting better’ pointless. I am a long distance runner. I do marathons ‘for fun’. And if all that time and all that effort I put in, and all my experience I’ve earned counted for nothing in terms of my ability to do what I do, then the whole thing is utterly pointless. Wargames are no different. In other words, long term value is reduced and eliminated by eliminating skill as a feature. No thanks.

I find this attitude a bit disheartening, and probably why I struggle to grasp the whole points thing so much outside of tourneys. This is what I expect to hear in a tourney, not as a general statement. Maybe that is what you meant, but it is not clear. I want to play against people who are playing for the sake of playing a tense, close, dare I say it 'balanced' game, not those who want to show their 'skill' with a stomping big win in a one sided game.

Sure he who uses his army better wins, but that does not mean you have to have a greater then 50% win chance against a 'lesser' player. Skill is just as well measured by how much an advantage you can give the other guy and still win (Golf style), such that you start a game thinking this is a 50/50 as you stare at the noob across the table, and it will come down to who uses his army best. Your 'army' being a battalion his a division for example. If the noob says he wants to play with forces designed for equal players then sure, but that is him wanting that. To go into games wanting a massive win chance is pretty poor IMO. Are you wanting to be Blackadder at MButo gorge or Davout at Auerstedt.

As I said above, there is one board game that is simply my favorite game and I'm good at that game, no one locally is ever likely to beat me in even point games. I only know a small handful of people worldwide who have a good chance of beating me and one person I've yet to beat (there may well be others I haven't met of course). With the exception of one excellent tournament game by far and away my best games have been local games without points coming out of campaigns, where I will take on much larger forces and hope my skill in that game will carry me through. Some I lose some I win (in so far as win/lose is concept in a long term campaign) but they are far better, more exciting and closer fought for everyone involved. Everyone locally knows that I'm way ahead of them in that particular game, I don't need to prove anything by having a 99% win rate showing my skill.

It may be hard with a noob to judge ability, is he a good gamer generally?, just new to this game? etc. But in games like AOS/WarHammer I'd at least offer to play with some disadvantage so that we can both have a closer game. He will learn just as much if not a lot more seeing how it all works in such a game rather than getting tabled swiftly. If I lose then so what, it was game and I can have a rematch against someone who hopefully a bit more knowledgeable about rules and interactions now.

puree wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

And it’s quite disheartening for someone who has played for years to have a fifty-fifty chance lose to a noob- it makes all that time and effort count for nothing. This basically gives no value to the concepts of ‘improvement’ and makes ‘getting better’ pointless. I am a long distance runner. I do marathons ‘for fun’. And if all that time and all that effort I put in, and all my experience I’ve earned counted for nothing in terms of my ability to do what I do, then the whole thing is utterly pointless. Wargames are no different. In other words, long term value is reduced and eliminated by eliminating skill as a feature. No thanks.

I find this attitude a bit disheartening, and probably why I struggle to grasp the whole points thing so much outside of tourneys. This is what I expect to hear in a tourney, not as a general statement. Maybe that is what you meant, but it is not clear. I want to play against people who are playing for the sake of playing a tense, close, dare I say it 'balanced' game, not those who want to show their 'skill' with a stomping big win in a one sided game.

Bear in mind, some groups play competitively outside of tournaments. Nothing wrong with that. I've done it, and will continue to do it. (And for the record, I play a number of war games - mainly historicals, WMH and infinity, but more importantly - at least for me - I play my wargames in a variety of different ways with a variety of different people. I like tournament play, but I am not exclusively a tournament player. I like home brew scenarios, games that last whole weekends, and chucking the rulebook out the window, and diy gaming. I like casual play. No one style dominates for me. Nor should it.)

I want to feel that if I play better than the other guy, I should come out ahead. Thst doesn't necessarily translate to a 'stomping big win'.

puree wrote:

Sure he who uses his army better wins, but that does not mean you have to have a greater then 50% win chance against a 'lesser' player. Skill is just as well measured by how much an advantage you can give the other guy and still win (Golf style), such that you start a game thinking this is a 50/50 as you stare at the noob across the table, and it will come down to who uses his army best. Your 'army' being a battalion his a division for example. If the noob says he wants to play with forces designed for equal players then sure, but that is him wanting that. To go into games wanting a massive win chance is pretty poor IMO. Are you wanting to be Blackadder at MButo gorge or Davout at

What makes you think I don't do that? Page 5 states quite the opposite. Not noobstalking. It promotes self improvement and taking on the big dog - there's the challenge. When it comes to newer players, I am quite happy to pull back on the ruthlessometer and pull some of my punches. That said - I think it is disrespectful not to treat them as an equal, and as an equal it means respecting them enough to 'have a go' and try to beat them. to me, it's poor form to either crush them, or simply hand them the win - id be insulted if that was me in their shoes - in my mind, victory (even in toy soldiers) should be earned. Thst said, even if they lose, my mantra is that they should have a genuinely enjoyable game, learn from it etc. I've been playing this hobby for ten years. Whether I'm a 'veteran' or not, I don't rightly know a but I feel it's our duty to teach and bring up the next generations as well, and not just go looking for easy scalps.

puree wrote:

It may be hard with a noob to judge ability, is he a good gamer generally?, just new to this game? etc. But in games like AOS/WarHammer I'd at least offer to play with some disadvantage so that we can both have a closer game. He will learn just as much if not a lot more seeing how it all works in such a game rather than getting tabled swiftly. If I lose then so what, it was game and I can have a rematch against someone who hopefully a bit more knowledgeable about rules and interactions now.

Or at the very least, 'talk them through what I'm doing, and why'. Don't think I don't do these things too puree.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

In warmachine, points do work.

Ha ha ha... oh wait, you're serious?

Remember what I was saying about condascending and snide comments to those that disagree with you. How about you not laughing at the other side when they disagree with you. eh? It doesn't make you look good.

 Sqorgar wrote:

You cannot simply make the claim you make without factoring in the synergy-based gameplay and the other structural components around which the game is built and balanced (active duty roster, 2 or 3 list events, steamroller, scenarios, the assassination win condition etc). You can’t base an argument on ‘random armies’ when the game isn’t based around that. Which is precisely the red herring you are trying to present here. In other words, you are being dishonest. Points are simply the starting point. Your statement falls apart quite readily under any serious scrutiny.

Then what do points represent? Couldn't you just as easily replace them with "pick a warcaster, two warjacks, two units, and two solos", and wouldn't it be just as "balanced", if points are just a base line starting point for the real balancing? And isn't that what AoS kinda does?

What do they represent? In game value. Simples.

Could they replace it with what you suggest? Well, if all warcasters, units, warjacks and solos were the same, then maybe. Otherwise you'd have to have some kind of a metric by which to measure their in game value. Points, maybe?

And by baseline, I mean one of the foundations. You can build on top of it, and add extra support. Just like how Matt talks about 'use wounds as a baseline, and work from there', structurally speaking, points Work in the same fashion.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Points work by pricing the relative value of the pieces.

Except they don't because the actual value of each model CHANGES depending on what the other models in the game are. A unit of Mechanithralls are generally kind of sucky, and their points reflect that, but when paired with a Necrosurgeon (can resurrect them) and Terminus (gives them tough), they become significantly better. Like play a 15 point game with Terminus, three groups of mechanithralls, and two necrosurgeons - unless you design your team to specifically counter this combination of units, there's a high likelihood that you will be curbstomped when all your units are engaged and can't move against 26 units that are tough to kill and come back from the dead.

And let's say I take feora or Caine... Or a control caster and make them irrelevant. Or use my second list. Or go for the assassination. Or not play at 15points where skews can be an issue (steamroller is 35/50 for a reason...) it Doesn't have to be a 'specific counter'. It's almost like you are deliberately being obtuse and dishonest, and deliberately ignoring all the other factors at play in order to justify and reinforce your predetermined conclusions.

Like I said, points are one of many different tools working together steamroller is balanced around 35 and 50pt games for a reason. Regarding those mcthralls - of course they're better when you spend extra on them. The necrosurgeon is in effect a 'get better' tax that you pay for. Seems reasonable, eh? And they don't come back when you kill him or wipe out the squads. Rfp is a thing too.

 Sqorgar wrote:

So the points are less important than the synergies, and you have to design your armies around the synergies you will face.

So then why were you trying to argue 'points don't work' as though it's the only aspect that matters when you just admit that there are other forces in play. It's almost like there are other features that work with the points system to produce a balanced game.

 Sqorgar wrote:

There's a thread in the PP forums right now where someone suggested that if people could only bring one list to tournaments, would people bring more general purpose armies. Last I checked, the general consensus is that it would just lead to nothing but skew lists as people rolled the dice, knowing that most of the time, they'll win against a balanced army and if they were lucky, they wouldn't be paired up against the one or two skew lists that could counter them. How does that sound like a balanced game to you? A game in which bringing a balanced list will likely prevent you from winning.

Gee - you've got me stumped. If only pp were clever enough to build in safeguards into Their games like sideboards, variable win conditions. and multiple lists for organised events that could mitigate these issues before they became a problem...

It's almost like in order to prove your point, you are trying to discredit a game that doesn't actually exist, and that privateer press don't actually promote or produce. Irrelevant.

Reading some of the suggestions on that thread just made me smile - it just reinforces the notion that the player base are generally not the best ones to turn to to fix things, considering how staggeringly bad some of the 'fixes' suggested were, but this same resource (eyeball it, and let the players build the game they want) is somehow at the same time the bees knees in creating balanced games in aos and other games that don't use points? Mate, get off it

I'd play against Matt. He seems like a terrific bloke. He's got some good ideas. But in general, and exceptions aside, I don't rate the rest of the playerbase all thst highly for that sort of thing.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Here you go again. Misleading arguments backed up by a confirmation bias. Points are a very useful structural tool. They allow you to assign value to units, and whatever else. But you can’t use them exclusively. In the same way, you can’t build a house with only a hammer. Now, replace ‘points’ with other structural tools like ‘unit caps’, ‘scenario objectives’, ‘ terrain layouts’ etc and its just as true a statement. The simple fact is, no one tool provides balance all on its own.

Okay, if no one tool provides balance, then missing one tool shouldn't be a deal breaker. AoS has terrain layouts, scenario objectives, and can have unit caps using multiple different measures. If it has everything else, why then is missing points such a big issue?

Amusingly, I actually have no issues with the design philosophy behind aos. I play that way with games like flames of war and infinity. I have no issues with the fact that aos is point-less. But I also acknowledge the limitations and hurdles of that whole style of play. My issue is how you dismiss the value of points entirely, and how you refuse to accept any value from the arguments of the other side. Not using points is ok, but you need to compensate accordingly, and you run the risk of introducing other, equally unpleasant and frustrating elements. Long story short. Points are a valuable tool when used right and when used as part of a set. You're foolish to dismiss it so readily.

Aos uses no one thing in its construction, and the ultimate metric is the very vague and prone-to-error 'just eyeball it'. Why do you ignore all the other aspects in the construction of point-based games and dishonestly zero in on one tool?

 Sqorgar wrote:

The biased. narrow and skewed narrative that you are constantly pushing – ‘points are bad,m’kay; they don’t work – eyeballing things is better just because’, along with your constant dismissive and condescending jabs towards people who want, or prefer something different along with your refusal to accept anything of value from that very same different point of view is just as destructive and just as naïve to the hobby and our community as the extreme end of argument on the other side – that points are an infallible be-all and end-all. And its not the first time I’ve called you out on this.

I don't say that points are bad. I'm pointing out that points don't do what you think they do, and in the rare cases where they do, they aren't terribly effective at it. I don't mind points at all, but the difference is, I don't mind NOT points either. So if something doesn't have points, then it doesn't suffer from the issues that only point systems add to a game, and maybe that's not a terrible thing after all.

That's pretty much saying 'points are bad, m'kay'. And as I've said, your arguments are dishonest and misleading, and refuse to acknowledge all the facts or any input outside your own skewed narrative.

And if something doesn't use points - fair enough. But let's be honest, all you are doing is swapping the constraints. You end up with a different series of hurdles to jump through And will quite likely 'suffer' in other areas. WMH and 40k don't necessarily 'suffer' from points - that's just being dramatic. they might suffer from points used poorly, in places (especially the latter). But overall, points are a sound idea. And you can build around them. Let's not pretend they're the only tool in the kit, or that your preferred 'eyeball it' is somehow magically better. At least in WMH's case, various other structural tools mitigate its faults to a very large degree.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I admit that I rather dislike WMH's point system as I feel it fails spectacularly to capture the nature of the game, and I think it is one of the leading reasons behind the fact that newbie WMH players have to put in dozens of games, almost all of them losing, before they "git gud" enough to play the game. There's nothing tactically complicated about WMH, but you NEED to know the synergies you are playing with and against, and the best way to employ them or counter them, to have a chance of winning. And that's not reflected at all in WMH's point system. It could be, but it isn't.

Good for you. I love WMH's point system and feel it works quite well.

And I like that steep learning curve. It's one of WMH's main selling points for me. In my experience, it means when you start winning your games, it's because you've earned it. And it goes without saying a you need to understand the moving parts before you can get good yourself. It's called learning the fundamentals.

WMH is a pretty straight forward game- that's part of its charm, and whilst it's not my favourite game in terms of mechanics,it's my go-to game for ease of play.

As for the synergies not bring reflected in the points costs - that's rather unfair. Buffing solos, ua's etc cost points, for example. And are often limited with low unit caps. As for the warcasters themselves, they bring their own unique strengths and weaknesses that ultimately balance out. Various abilities exist that can negative, remove or simply ignore spell casting and work around those synergies. And if all else fails, there is 'axe to face'. And if WMH does one thing right, it's the body count. If something is an issue, then kill it.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Besides, I think not having a point system is a bit freeing in how players can approach the game. I think it is refreshing to not base the entirety of a game around a single value. It's like being at the beach. You might really like bethonged buttockes, but when they wear a sarong, maybe you notice that their bosoms are pleasing to the eye as well.

That 'single value' has its uses. Aos isn't all that tournament or pug friendly without extensive work. Points and structured games offer a lot of value for pick up games, organised play and tournaments, especially where time constraints is a thing, and where being able to 'get on with it' is a better option than sitting and negotiating what kind of game of toy soldiers you want to play.

I certainly acknowledge the value in diy gaming. I quite enjoy it, but there is a time and a place for it. And it isn't always the best, or most appropriate option. I also disagree with it being 'freeing'. Sure, it's a sandbox now instead of organised play, but you e simply swapped one set of requirements for another - in this case, social contract, balance by community accord-and-exclusion, peer pressure, and all the hassles and pitfalls that can be involved there.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Even with that, that allows for *way* more variability in power level than there should be...

Should be? Based on what metric? Can you not think of two units from a game with points system with similar points but "way" more variability in power level? I mean, in Warmachine, the difference between a character jack that you can only field one of and a normal run of the mill jack with less functionality might be one point.

Because fundamentally they don't have any weight, none of these values reflect anything about a model's capabilities, about all they do is limit the scale.

10 warscrolls with 100 or less models could mean 90 Chaos Knights vs 95 Goblins. There's no inherent "weight" to any of these factors, 10 warscrolls and 100 models could be 100 Ogres, 100 Chaos Knights, or 100 Goblins.

There's basically nothing in any of this that accounts for the fact that a Chaos Knight is dramatically superior to a Goblin.

Well, let's look at this. You wouldn't want to create a unit of 20 Chaos Knights because they get no bonuses for larger units and the unit cohesion rules and melee-only range would make it difficult to maneuver and be as effective as they could. So if you have 10 units of 10 figures, you'd have the most effective army of 100 Chaos Warriors - and you'd use up all ten of your available warscroll slots.

Goblins, if geared for ranged, can be a pretty good ranged unit. At 40+ models, they get +2 to hit, which means they have a 16" range, hit on 3+, wound on 5+. Since models don't block line of sight to its own unit, having a large number of models in a unit does not adversely affect it. So if you had two units or 40 goblins, you'd have an insane threat range and ability to inflict damage, and you've only used up two warscrolls. The remaining twenty models can be heroes, monsters, wizards, or meat shields to protect the archers. With a Goblin Shaman casting Sneaky Stabbin, they get a bonus to wound rolls and rend. So diversifying can really make a difference.

Geared for melee, even with the bonuses, the Goblins really only have reach on the Chaos Warriors, meaning they'd get more models into melee range, but Chaos Warriors roll three attacks and have three wounds, so they are essentially worth three melee Goblins. But Goblin Warboss's command ability adds 1 to bravery and 1 to attack count for all melee weapons. With proper maneuvering, you could potentially surround a unit of Chaos Warriors, getting all 40 hits in with reach, hitting twice each, with stats equivalent to the ensorcelled weapons. So while the Goblins are not equal, stat for stat, to Chaos Warriors, when taken with Goblin units that support them, they become situationally pretty good.

I get what you are saying and that is, given some limitation, being able to spam great units is going to be a lot better than fielding a group of middling units. But I think that's unfair because the synergies matter the most, so you are going to want to diversify your warscrolls to maximize your options rather than spam a single type of unit, and in doing so, just by virtue of there being minimum requirements for a warscroll, you are going to fill up that 100 models with a bunch of different models, some great, some good, some situationally amazing.