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.

I found this interesting post on the British Old School Gaming Tumblr:

What if I told you that in WD215 (November 1997) Nigel Stillman published a Warhammer scenario that he’d designed that would ignore points values (pick whichever models you like) where the object was for one side to cross the table rather than defeat the enemy, where scoring is done by models slain and not points values, and where one side could win and end the game immediately via something called “Sudden Death”?

You’d probably think “fething Hell Coop, that sounds just like some modern developments from 2015, and must have been an important ur-document in the development of these modern developments”.

And I’d probably agree with you.

(A chance find this - I was reading the WDs that deal with Gorkamorka as that’s my new British Old School Gaming obsession. WD214 was the GoMo launch issue. I actually had WD215 BITD but didn’t remember this scenario.


Of course really this scenario isn’t unusual, it dates from the first of the Fat Bloke issues of WD and is similar to the sort of scenarios that had been played in wargames since the days of Featherstone. It just struck me as fascinatingly similar to the approach of AoS. Everything old is new again.)

Interesting... I would have to say that everything being released has several years of planning, writing, modeling, and execution behind it.

I figured AOS started around the inception of 8th, looks like it was way before that!

Allegedly AoS was started around 2011 and the models have been done for several years and laying in wait. There are even pictures of some of the AoS terrain in older books.

Wargamers have been playing scenarios without points values since the early 1800s.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wargamers have been playing scenarios without points values since the early 1800s.

The first wargame had no points values. I am pretty sure wargames having points values is actually a later development. Judging by some wargame books I have from the 1970s/80s points values weren't hugely common back then either as most of them relied on scenarios or recreating real battles.

I'd just like to point out that that scenario is for a game with points implemented and then presents a guideline for ignoring those points for those who want it. Requiring much less effort on the part of the players than telling them to build a points system.
That is the right way to do this.

Ha! Great find! I probably have this issue tucked away somewhere still.

Reading Nigel Stillman's fluff is still as painful as ever though D;

I hate to be that guy, but there is a reason points came about. Balance, or a attempt at it. Flame away.

Table wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but there is a reason points came about. Balance, or a attempt at it. Flame away.

is balance necessary for having fun?

It partly depends what you call balance.

In many historical games the scenario will give unequal forces but the victory conditions will be easier for the weaker side, or maybe they will be defending and have an advantage of terrain or time, that offsets their lack of numbers.

So this type of scenario is balanced in a different way to equality of forces, and certainly it is fun to play unequal forces because it gives both sides a different set of tactical challenges.

Perfect balance, meaning equality of forces, therefore isn't necessary. On the whole, though, people don't like to play games where they are practically guaranteed to lose before starting, because the forces are so unfair. From that angle, balance is necessary for having fun.

The great sad argument about Warhammer and AoS, is that 40K and WHFB for years offered balance through points values to enable players to create fair match-ups, but it did not work because clearly there were units that were too cheap or expensive, and entire armies that were notably more or less powerful.

The argument became that points values never work, so AoS is a triumph because it abandons the illusion of fairness through points and substitutes a kind of gentleman's agreement for players not to play with abusive armies.

The key problem with this argument is that points values do work in games where the designers have worked them out properly. It's just that GW never bothered to do so.

However, as noted above, points values are not the only way to balance a game.

GW don't really seem to have aimed to balance AoS in any way, and left it to the players to do it if they want.

I think Killkrazy's post says everything I was intending to say.

 bitethythumb wrote:

Table wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but there is a reason points came about. Balance, or a attempt at it. Flame away.

is balance necessary for having fun?

Absolutely not.

Actually I've got several articles in old WD's with this type of thing in them. Mainly I see narrative campaigns where the forces are deliberately unbalanced, but the objectives are skewed in a way that favours the weaker side.

It takes a lot longer to set up a good narrative game (and I mean GOOD, like with back story, appropriate terrain and table set up,scenario, plot twists etc), but it's well worth it as far as a solid afternoon's fun is concerned.

It's one of the existential things I like about AoS's lack of points. If you don't only care 100% about winning you can take some really interesting lists and not have to worry about fitting each unit exactly into the right allotment of points.

 bitethythumb wrote:

Table wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but there is a reason points came about. Balance, or a attempt at it. Flame away.

is balance necessary for having fun?

If you want to have a competition and not just run around going pew pew, then yes. No sport works without a scoring or draft or weight class system.

It takes a lot longer to set up a good narrative game (and I mean GOOD, like with back story, appropriate terrain and table set up,scenario, plot twists etc), but it's well worth it as far as a solid afternoon's fun is concerned

How many out of all the people gaming around the world are actualy intertested in all those things? One in a 100, maybe less. Same with terrain building. Most people want to place their x-wings, jacks or space marines and have a good game. And even if someone did somehow want to be interested in something outside of gaming, the the GW narrative is horrible. The stories make no sense at all, in warmahordes there are at least working economies and stuff makes sense even with magic. In WFB or w40k everyone should be dead, because the food production wouldn't be able to support the populations they have.

People living in this supposedly more enlightened age can't get their head around playing without points values. How did ultra-competitive Warhammer players have a chance of coping with this nearly 20 years ago?

"WHAT?? You mean my carefully-crafted army of ridiculous rule-bending domination might face something even cheesier? Come, my friends! To the proto-forums of the world wide web! We must bitch and complain until the GW stops taking us seriously! WE BREAK GAMES, HEED OUR CRY!"

NoPoet, posts like that really aren't going to help with the adoption of AoS... I'm not ultra-competitive by any stretch, but I like building armies, and feel like GW really mailed it in on this one. Ymmv... but no need to lambast folks who don't like it.

The recent AoS weekend event in Nottingham showed that the lack of restrictions in army selection did not prevent some people from deploying what might be called cheesy or beardy forces.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The recent AoS weekend event in Nottingham showed that the lack of restrictions in army selection did not prevent some people from deploying what might be called cheesy or beardy forces.

I personally don't think a game that doesn't institute a balance (constraint) system is a great game for a competition. Parsing NoPoet, if you have a serious competition, the people who want to win it most are going to try to bend the rules til they break the game; this is what "true gamers" do. It's that way for like, every single game.

However, I don't think that a competition is something necessary to have fun, because I have lots of fun playing wargames, rarely with "equal points" in a points based game (for various reasons), and I'm pretty sure I know more people who are interested in non-competitive play over competitive play.

Also, keep in mind that "casual" and "non-competitive" aren't necessarily the same thing. I'd say that there's nothing casual about a pair of gamers who take a couple of hours to design a scenario and construct an interesting game table, even if they're interested in storyline, narrative, campaign play, or whatever. Likewise, there's nothing particularly deep or serious about someone who just plays a netlist at a competitive event.

I'd finish by saying that a constraint system begs for the units to be chosen to work the game mechanics, and are actually an impediment to a lot of the non-competitive games, because players get stuck in their mind that no, they don't want to play this inferior battleforce (because it's worth less points) when really, there's nothing inferior about it at all.

 RiTides wrote:
I like building armies, and feel like GW really mailed it in on this one.

If I'm quite honest, my #1 criticism of AoS is that I can't spend hundreds of hours on Excel mathhammering armies that are designed to break the game. Even though I rarely (never) field this kind of stuff, I find it fascinating to build theoretical paper armies. It's FUN, just like figuring out ways to make invincible Land Raider convoys. Discovering one, and maybe just playing it once (or playing it against myself), is just freakishly satisfying. Or even showing a buddy, and going, "hey check this out, LOL!"

The thing is, I don't think it's any fun playing silly combos that are massively overpowered. Just... thinking them up gives me some strange, nerdish delight.

Really, not much different for me on the computer for MMORPG/RTS/TBS/FPS/etc.. I don't want to use exploits to advance my character or ranking (I refuse to!) -- but I absolutely LOVE finding loopholes in the game that break the game.

RiTides wrote:NoPoet, posts like that really aren't going to help with the adoption of AoS... I'm not ultra-competitive by any stretch, but I like building armies, and feel like GW really mailed it in on this one. Ymmv... but no need to lambast folks who don't like it.

While I agree with your sentiments on NoPoet's delivery (ironic coming from me, I know), I can't help but find it funny that your default frame of mind is to question his effect AoS' adoption as if it were the players duty to proselytize on its behalf. Most people made their mind up about AoS before they even saw the leaked rules, and its most vocal opponents are same recurring cast of contrarians from every thread related to Games Workshop or its products. As far as an "discussion" about AoS has gone, its been a farcical demonstration of fallacy and self-centered thinking.

No game is right for every player, purpose, and setting. The way AoS in particular is written makes it very clear that their priority was not settings where precise, structured balance is a key concern. If that bothers someone, and they don't like the idea of using a community comp system, then AoS probably isn't the game for them. There's nothing wrong with that, and no one who likes AoS should be upset that there are people who don't because that's how life works.

The problem is that people you describe us as "lambasting" are just as responsible for the combative atmosphere as those who have argued back.

 Swastakowey wrote:
I know YOU have seen my post a lot, however some kid in a few years time might not, or some browser who happens to look today might not. I would hate for them to see an echo chamber of positivity and think the game is worth starting. Especially at GW prices.

In which it is implied that the AoS subforum having productive positive discussion is misleading passing readers, who are apparently too stupid to make any sort of evaluations on how they'd like to spend their own money. Also apparently the game isn't worth starting because one person on the internet thinks so, and this provides justification for incessantly posting that AoS is bad.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
As for examples well maybe that's because only simple and basic things are mentioned (still tactics though ofc), I was called arrogant in one of such threads (and I probably was heh) but I mainly post like that because it's strikingly obvious for me and have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that there's even a discussion.

In which it is implied that the poster is so obviously correct that he can't understand how anyone is stupid enough to not understand an argument which he insists is correct because he understands it as being obvious. Which is double entertaining if you follow the chain of posts in the thread back to see the context of the argument is based on a blatant straw man about whether AoS or WHFB is more tactical. Even funnier is that neither side in the argument has yet to provide any actual proof for their claims.

 MWHistorian wrote:
In a filthy casual and I love Warmachine and dislike AOS. Nothing that has been stated as a positive for AOS is unique to it and can be applied to almost every other game.
Its a game for people that don't want to think. I happen to enjoy thinking about my games.

Definitely, not ad hominem.

You even ignored the context of NoPoet's post:

Makumba wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

Table wrote:
I hate to be that guy, but there is a reason points came about. Balance, or a attempt at it. Flame away.

is balance necessary for having fun?

If you want to have a competition and not just run around going pew pew, then yes. No sport works without a scoring or draft or weight class system.

It takes a lot longer to set up a good narrative game (and I mean GOOD, like with back story, appropriate terrain and table set up,scenario, plot twists etc), but it's well worth it as far as a solid afternoon's fun is concerned

How many out of all the people gaming around the world are actualy intertested in all those things? One in a 100, maybe less. Same with terrain building. Most people want to place their x-wings, jacks or space marines and have a good game. And even if someone did somehow want to be interested in something outside of gaming, the the GW narrative is horrible. The stories make no sense at all, in warmahordes there are at least working economies and stuff makes sense even with magic. In WFB or w40k everyone should be dead, because the food production wouldn't be able to support the populations they have.

Which was a response to someone implying that AoS games are akin to two children running around smacking their Buzz Lightyear action figures together, and how apparently we are some social oddity that the rest of society has left behind.

I'm not trying to misrepresent anything because I'm fully aware that there are AoS fans firing shots back (I made some very blunt insinuations myself). The thing is though, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, it's super tiring to see plenty of good threads be derailed by essentially "stop liking what I don't like" arguments. I mean, I don't like WMH or Infinity so instead of constantly complaining that I don't like the aesthetics of the models or wish the rules had X,Y, or Z, I just don't read their news or post about it. I respect that those games have their own vision for what the game is and their set of fans to go with it.

Yet apparently there are quite a few people who refuse to respect that fact that AoS is doing its own thing and there are people who want that in their game. Sorry, I don't mean to take it out on you, but it's frustrating that the subforums for other games are essentially nothing but productive discussion while we have to label threads as being "for optimists only".

Kilkrazy wrote:The recent AoS weekend event in Nottingham showed that the lack of restrictions in army selection did not prevent some people from deploying what might be called cheesy or beardy forces.

I don't remember anyone saying that AoS would cut down on cheese (its very possible that someone did and I didn't see/don't remember), more that it removes the typical excuses for cheese that get dragged out in casual games. Specifically the, "but it fits the points limit so its not my fault" defense which some people would use to deflect criticism for using tourny lists in casual play. Plus with no force order requirements it makes it easier to spot the most egregious examples such as the guy who only fields power units like flamers/glottkin.

Its not the reason I personally like the removal of points, but that was the impression I got from reading a lot of the posts on the subject.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I know YOU have seen my post a lot, however some kid in a few years time might not, or some browser who happens to look today might not. I would hate for them to see an echo chamber of positivity and think the game is worth starting. Especially at GW prices.

In which it is implied that the AoS subforum having productive positive discussion is misleading passing readers, who are apparently too stupid to make any sort of evaluations on how they'd like to spend their own money. Also apparently the game isn't worth starting because one person on the internet thinks so, and this provides justification for incessantly posting that AoS is bad.

Oh well. I'll echo chamber it some that I've actually played AoS way more than I thought I would (being primarily a 40k player). It's just more fun than I thought it would be, reading at the paper rules. I find myself actually in the mood to play it, putting it one step past "casual time filler", which is what I thought it would be. And my wife likes it, so that opens up all sorts of opportunities.

AoS actually got me to build my first ever fantasy themed army for ANY game (I don't count PP as really "fantasy", more steampunk-scifi-fantasy). I'll openly admit that I absolutely love Space Marines and all of their variants, and really identify and prefer to play that "shining knights and angelic superhumans" more than anything other type of force. Diablo's Tyrael is my idea of a hero, World of Warcraft Paladins are my ideas of "grunts", and OTT Orcs, giant Demons, and taking down giant robots is my thing. So aesthetically and mechanically, the game was just a good fit for me.

I've talked about price many times before, and sure, a lot of people don't like what I say. But I'll say it again. $300 for a game and hobby that I really like, that I'll potentially spend hundreds of hours on -- to me, that's not expensive. Most things I enjoy doing that I spend hundreds of hours on cost that or more.

Jack Flask wrote:
I'm not trying to misrepresent anything because I'm fully aware that there are AoS fans firing shots back (I made some very blunt insinuations myself). The thing is though, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, it's super tiring to see plenty of good threads be derailed by essentially "stop liking what I don't like" arguments. I mean, I don't like WMH or Infinity so instead of constantly complaining that I don't like the aesthetics of the models or wish the rules had X,Y, or Z, I just don't read their news or post about it. I respect that those games have their own vision for what the game is and their set of fans to go with it.

Yet apparently there are quite a few people who refuse to respect that fact that AoS is doing its own thing and there are people who want that in their game. Sorry, I don't mean to take it out on you, but it's frustrating that the subforums for other games are essentially nothing but productive discussion while we have to label threads as being "for optimists only".

I chalk this up to people either being obsessively angry at Games Workshop or gamers who are afraid that a sort of game that they don't like will actually become popular as people give it a chance.

I can't identify with the former, because I like spending my time doing things I like and championing products I enjoy rather than taking a negative approach -- at least, beyond a very short period. I mean, there's products that have pissed me off, but I get over it (like BF4 lol).

I pretty much agree with you: I dislike WMH quite a lot as a game, and although I buy a lot of their models, I think some of them are just junk. Yet I don't go to PP forums and post over and over the reasons I don't like it, nor about the models that I bought and ultimately tossed into the horrible black void of, "I'll never paint it", because upon closer inspection, it just wasn't up to snuff. I don't like X-Wing because there aren't painted miniatures and terrain. But I'm happy for people who like these games and certainly don't repeatedly post in their forms all the reasons not to like them.

In the long run, there will be people who play AoS, and AoS will have a fanbase. Whether it's big enough for GW to support for another 20-30 years, who knows. Maybe it'll fizzle and die, and GW will turf it and piss off some more people. Or maybe it will evolve with more competitive-friendly rules, or perhaps it will just be really successful. Either way, I'm absolutely certain that a whole lot of this generation of AoS starter boxes will sell in its product's lifespan.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wargamers have been playing scenarios without points values since the early 1800s.

Its official: AoS has been in development for over 200 years.

GW recycles stuff from the past a lot. I'd be surprised if anything resembling AoS in its current form (and intended as a replacement for WHFB) was in the works any earlier than 2012 at the earliest.

Have some of the concepts been done before? Absolutely. The vast majority of GW's original rules writing is 10/150/20/25 years old, the last decade has been re-hashes of that older material, but I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that AoS, as is, was really intended to be its own game system from anything more than a couple of years ago.

Jack Flask wrote:


...

Kilkrazy wrote:The recent AoS weekend event in Nottingham showed that the lack of restrictions in army selection did not prevent some people from deploying what might be called cheesy or beardy forces.

I don't remember anyone saying that AoS would cut down on cheese (its very possible that someone did and I didn't see/don't remember), more that it removes the typical excuses for cheese that get dragged out in casual games. Specifically the, "but it fits the points limit so its not my fault" defense which some people would use to deflect criticism for using tourny lists in casual play. Plus with no force order requirements it makes it easier to spot the most egregious examples such as the guy who only fields power units like flamers/glottkin.

Its not the reason I personally like the removal of points, but that was the impression I got from reading a lot of the posts on the subject.

Yes, that was the argument, that the points system facilitated the use of cheesy lists by creating a false impression of fairness and validated the cheesemonger who could say he was simply playing by the rules.

Thus the absence of points in AoS would have the opposite effect, however it hasn't.

My own view, expressed at the time, is that a non-balanced system can be gamed if people want to game it.

To be clear, most of the people at the AoS Weekend apparently did not bring cheesy armies, so obviously people did not want to game the system all that much. However, that is largely true in 40K as well.