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.

Just read this, found it interesting - figured some here might like it!

https://guyhaley.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/age-of-sigmar/

The comments are pretty much as you'd expect...

But AoS is the game that Guy's been waiting for for years - he's the sort of person who shouts "Waaagh" whether the rules call for it or not...

He likes it and has given points to say why.

Some of his points are fair opinions, though given he is a GW writer no-one would expect him to say he hates the game.

Some of his points though are simply wrong or illogical. That doesn't detract from his personal enjoyment, but it does weaken his argument.

Wepbage is unavailable.

What points were wrong or illogical?

For example, he says the loose clumps of troops look like the armies we see in fantasy films.

Check out battle LoTR films and see how many block formations are used.

He says that it's not a skirmish game, it's designed for large battles. For one thing, a game in which one figure represents one man is the definition of skirmish. For another, the movement and fighting by individual figure rather than by blocks makes the game mechanically much slower when played with large numbers of figures.

Does it matter if the game is skirmish or mass battle? Not as far as players' enjoyment goes, so long as they end up playing a game that actually is what they are looking for.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

He says that it's not a skirmish game, it's designed for large battles. For one thing, a game in which one figure represents one man is the definition of skirmish.

Technically, the models don't represent individual men, but rather an amorphous unit. You can attack one dude in the front and have a different dude in the back get removed from the table. Similarly, individual models do not have individual stats, but share stats with the other models in the unit. It's not individual (skirmish) scale. It's unit (tactical) scale - just like WHFB.

Does it matter if the game is skirmish or mass battle?

Skirmish games tend to have more individuality to the models, both in what they are capable of and what they represent. It's the difference between, "Man, Ted, the Butcher of Piggies, sole survivor of the Butt Massacre, failed his save and died!" to "Man, I lost five orcs! It's cool. I've got like three more." I would think that some people would have a preference towards one or the other, unless their interest in miniature games was purely mechanical.

The rules are easy to learn, quick to reference, and free. When taken with the warscrolls, battleplans et al, the game is not that much simpler than old Warhammer. By abandoning “top-down” rules design and shifting the detail out of the rules and onto the warscrolls, it allows greater variation.

The bare bones rules are free, sure. But then it becomes a DLC fest full of scenarios and rules locked behind pay walls if you want the "full experience". $58 books and $2 scenarios add up.

As for the simplicity of it, some would argue that's a negative. What if I want to customize my vampire lord to have a Blood Dragon theme? Or Von Carstein, Lahmian, etc.? Nope, I'm stuck with a vampire lord armed with a spirit-possessed sword. But I have the option to mount him on a nightmare of abyssal terror! Yay me! Too generic is just as bad as overly-complex.

No longer are units restricted into overly formal, somewhat absurd Napoleonic-era blocks of troops. AoS battles look like battles from epic fantasy movies, and that is damn cool.

He's right. I think that Greek Hoplites and Roman Legionnaires would have been much more effective on the battlefield, as well as visually appealing without their formal formations, and had just blobbed up into hordes of men screaming across the battlefield.

Screw all that. POINTS VALUES WERE NEVER BALANCED. They were actually unfair.

The last 30 years have all been a lie! We have been deceived by a system that has never worked in the history of ever! Fairness is an illusion!

Warhammer devolved into an exercise where power-mad dice chuckers would spend every waking moment breaking the latest army book.

Yeah, because it's real hard to look at the warscrolls and find cheesy combos of buffs and unit abilities. There's just as much ability to be a power gamer in AoS. Only it's easier now because you don't have points limits, and you can include everything you've ever wanted to create your super list.

The fun in the game comes with the delightful way all the various abilities work to enhance your troops. That the abilities come from heroes encourages gamers to indulge in heroic, movie-style duels of champions to knock out enemy buffs. I can add whatever I want to my army, whenever I want. That’s fun too.

Wasn't this guy just bashing WHFB for encouraging people to break the latest armybook and find cheap combinations? Now he's praising that ability in AoS.

Despite what the detractors say, there are tactics, they are merely different to the old maths-hammer style gaming. Ability combos, battalions, troop numbers and so forth mean army selection still has its role. Outmanoeuvring your opponent is still important. What isn’t important is trawling the army books for weaknesses in the rules.

But... you said... oh what's the point. Oh that's right. There are no more points.

 Pojko wrote:
The bare bones rules are free, sure. But then it becomes a DLC fest full of scenarios and rules locked behind pay walls if you want the "full experience". $58 books and $2 scenarios add up.

All the unit rules are also free. Only the scenarios, battalions, and time or war rules cost money - and even then, they are completely optional. The 4 pages of rules includes a basic deathmatch scenario built in, so you are missing nothing by igoring them. I wouldn't even consider them the "full experience", given how situational they all are. You won't use most battalions or time or war rules even once, but the game probably could use more free scenarios.

The last 30 years have all been a lie! We have been deceived by a system that has never worked in the history of ever! Fairness is an illusion!

I don't think ANYBODY has argued that point systems were perfectly balanced - just that they were balanced enough (in certain circumstances) and that something bad or mediocre is better than nothing at all. If you are clinging to the idea that point systems in games like Warmachine or 40k actually do their job well, then I'm not really sure how to respond to that particular delusion.

Yeah, because it's real hard to look at the warscrolls and find cheesy combos of buffs and unit abilities. There's just as much ability to be a power gamer in AoS. Only it's easier now because you don't have points limits, and you can include everything you've ever wanted to create your super list.

I think the point is that because it is so easy to be a power gamer in AoS, it requires effort to not be one. So rather than spending your effort trying to outdo your opponent, you are spending your effort to do them... uh, that came out wrong... You spend effort to create playable experiences, rather than unplayable ones. Rather than minmaxing a bunch of points to create a cheesy army which exploits loopholes to unbalance the game in your favor, you instead seek to create a friendly game where neither side has an unfair advantage.

Well as to the points value thing I am strongly of the opinion that points are great for balancing two armies in a wargame but that the GW points system is garbage and has always been garbage since at least the mid 90s when I started.

Especially when there are other games on the market that do points so much better; when I look at 40k i only shake my head. And 40k balance has always been bad so its not like its a new thing - but a lot of that is simply units that are very powerful being too cheap for what they can do (and now we have formations that are free that do even more, and if you arne't rocking a formation and your opponent is, the conclusion is largely scripted out like a Michael Bay film)

I'm actually of the opinion that AOS losing points is a tremendous positive because it allowed fan comps to do a better job of it.

A nice read. Thanks for sharing! I'm glad he pointed out that Age of Sigmar isn't a skirmish game. Nowhere in White Dwarf or GW's website have I seen this game marketed as a skirmish game, and, yet, when a big model like Archaon comes out or GW puts out a new bundle on their webstore, so many AoS detractors are dumbfounded because they're under the impression that this game is meant to played only on a small scale. I, for one, am looking forward to playing some huuuge games once I get more miniatures painted for my Order and Chaos armies.

In the comments, he mentioned writing an article on Age of Sigmar fluff. I hope he does that! I'm reading Storm of Blades right now (his story in War Storm) and am really enjoying it, and am curious to see what a GW writer thinks of the Age of Sigmar fictional setting.

Very bland article in my opinion. Read basically the same thing 100x on random blogs a week after AoS's release - and his opinions on points and the players that like them is just offensive and rude.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Pojko wrote:
The bare bones rules are free, sure. But then it becomes a DLC fest full of scenarios and rules locked behind pay walls if you want the "full experience". $58 books and $2 scenarios add up.

All the unit rules are also free. Only the scenarios, battalions, and time or war rules cost money - and even then, they are completely optional. The 4 pages of rules includes a basic deathmatch scenario built in, so you are missing nothing by igoring them. I wouldn't even consider them the "full experience", given how situational they all are. You won't use most battalions or time or war rules even once, but the game probably could use more free scenarios.

The last 30 years have all been a lie! We have been deceived by a system that has never worked in the history of ever! Fairness is an illusion!

I don't think ANYBODY has argued that point systems were perfectly balanced - just that they were balanced enough (in certain circumstances) and that something bad or mediocre is better than nothing at all. If you are clinging to the idea that point systems in games like Warmachine or 40k actually do their job well, then I'm not really sure how to respond to that particular delusion.

Yeah, because it's real hard to look at the warscrolls and find cheesy combos of buffs and unit abilities. There's just as much ability to be a power gamer in AoS. Only it's easier now because you don't have points limits, and you can include everything you've ever wanted to create your super list.

I think the point is that because it is so easy to be a power gamer in AoS, it requires effort to not be one. So rather than spending your effort trying to outdo your opponent, you are spending your effort to do them... uh, that came out wrong... You spend effort to create playable experiences, rather than unplayable ones. Rather than minmaxing a bunch of points to create a cheesy army which exploits loopholes to unbalance the game in your favor, you instead seek to create a friendly game where neither side has an unfair advantage.

Forgive me if anything I'm about to say sounds rude or combative. My only intent is to have s nice friendly debate.

This is something I see a lot of AoS supporters, Guy Haley included, say. They demonize WHFB as being some cutthroat, ruthless game where everyone is gunning to outdo their opponent and win at all costs. Simply not true. You had the option to be that kind of player. You also had the option to be the opposite. To play narratively, to make a themed army, to just have a good time. Same as AoS. You never had to fight against being a power gamer. The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing.

To me the point of Warhammer was to have fun. But the objective was to win a battle. Because it's two armies fighting. You should want to defeat your opponent and both have a fun time playing. Just like any sport or video game.

To me the point of AoS is also to have fun. But the objective is to create a fair, cooperative experience with your "battle partner". Note I didn't say opponent because that would imply competition. And from all of the people I've spoken to about this, they seem to think that competition or wanting to win at AoS is bad and goes against the spirit of the game.

The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing

No more or less than WFB did. You can play any way you want with AoS, you can play any way you want with WFB.

Points in any wargame are not about creating equal armies per se, they are about creating balance for a specific scenario - usually the line up and kill each other one. Points are really part of a scenario not the rules of the game. Tweak the victory conditions or setup or size or terrain or whatever and the points may well no longer work, as you are now playing a different scenario. Units that are good in small games may not be so in big games, units that are good at speeding across the table are awesome if you need to exit the far side, and potentially pointless in other scenarios. Skirmish types are often great in terrain and crap on an open table. A points system in isolation can't cover all those variables.

AoS breaks away from any pretense of points being some magic balancing mechanism for the 'game' rather than a specific scenario. As they are for a specific scenario it is for the scenario designer to come up with the army building system (comp, points, scrolls, lists, fixed etc). So if you wish to use a points system for a competitive environment then AoS in no way stops you. Work out what sort of game your competitive type game should be (size, VC, terrain etc etc) and do the points that best handle that.

 Pojko wrote:

This is something I see a lot of AoS supporters, Guy Haley included, say. They demonize WHFB as being some cutthroat, ruthless game where everyone is gunning to outdo their opponent and win at all costs. Simply not true. You had the option to be that kind of player. You also had the option to be the opposite. To play narratively, to make a themed army, to just have a good time. Same as AoS. You never had to fight against being a power gamer. The thing is, AoS has basically given you only one way of playing.

I've never played WHFB, and as such, I have nothing positive or negative to say about the game. However, I've heard (repeatedly) that the game is largely won in the list building and deployment stages. If that is true (no idea if it is), then power gamers have a distinct advantage in the game, seeing as they can heavily unbalance the game in their favor before even the first model is moved. I assume WHFB is unbalanced (and unfun) when you pit a power gamer against a non-power gamer. So, if you were preparing an army against an unknown opponent, how would you create your army?

To me the point of Warhammer was to have fun. But the objective was to win a battle. Because it's two armies fighting. You should want to defeat your opponent and both have a fun time playing. Just like any sport or video game.

You agree that winning by cheating is not acceptable, right? Therefore, you agree that the goal of winning does not justify the means by which you win. Just follow that line of reasoning a little further and see what you end up.

To me the point of AoS is also to have fun. But the objective is to create a fair, cooperative experience with your "battle partner". Note I didn't say opponent because that would imply competition. And from all of the people I've spoken to about this, they seem to think that competition or wanting to win at AoS is bad and goes against the spirit of the game.

No, competition is fine, but that competition does not begin before the game begins. Once you've decided on a scenario and the units to use within it, both of you agreeing that it seems like a fair, fun fight, then you compete to win. The competitive aspect just doesn't extend to list building.

Deployment is important in big battles because it is difficult to redeploy large bodies of troops over significant distances in the face of the enemy.

In a skirmish game, though, it's relatively easy to move a squad a hundred yards or so to a new position.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I've never played WHFB, and as such, I have nothing positive or negative to say about the game. However, I've heard (repeatedly) that the game is largely won in the list building and deployment stages. If that is true (no idea if it is), then power gamers have a distinct advantage in the game, seeing as they can heavily unbalance the game in their favor before even the first model is moved. I assume WHFB is unbalanced (and unfun) when you pit a power gamer against a non-power gamer. So, if you were preparing an army against an unknown opponent, how would you create your army?

The same problem of unknown opponents exists in AoS. From what I've read on forums such as Dakka and Warseer, very few people use the rules as written straight out of the box. Many play a variety of comp systems, or ignore/add rules like no shooting in and out of combat, restricted summoning, measuring from bases, etc. What if you and your unknown opponent have different ideas of what is fun and fair? You compromise with your opponent, right? You could compromise in WHFB too, nothing prevented you from doing so.

Yeah, it's possible to be a power gamer. It's also possible to not be one. You get out of the hobby what you put in. If you aren't a power gamer and you surround yourself with like-minded people, then there's no problem. If you don't like power gamers, don't play them.

But to me it seems like you're implying that this was the only way to play in WHFB. That's unfair. It would be like me unfairly saying (and I'm not saying this) that AoS only consists of socially awkward manchildren who compare mustache sizes, yell "For The Lady!" in a heroic voice and scream a "primal warcry" because it's within the realm of the rules to do so. And yes, these rules are a legitimate part of the game.

You agree that winning by cheating is not acceptable, right? Therefore, you agree that the goal of winning does not justify the means by which you win. Just follow that line of reasoning a little further and see what you end up.

Again, Warhammer was not some win at all costs game where you threw fun out the window. I've watched every Fantasy battle report places like Miniwargaming and Guerrilla Miniature Games have to offer on Youtube. If the WHFB critics were to be believed then I'd expect these to be miserable experiences that lasted 20 minutes until one person lost or gave up. But no, they're full of guys laughing, ribbing each other and having fun.

No, competition is fine, but that competition does not begin before the game begins. Once you've decided on a scenario and the units to use within it, both of you agreeing that it seems like a fair, fun fight, then you compete to win. The competitive aspect just doesn't extend to list building.

List building didn't have to be a competitive aspect. I made all my lists based on fluff, my own army's narrative, and what units I had/thought were cool.

Now if you were attending a competitive tournament this would be a different story. That would basically be like comparing a pickup game of WHFB to a friendly exhibition soccer match, and a tournament to the World Cup tournament. I wasn't a tournament player, but even if I was I wouldn't take some power build armylist I found on the internet to a friendly match at a local game store and expect fun times to be had.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I've never played WHFB, and as such, I have nothing positive or negative to say about the game. However, I've heard (repeatedly) that the game is largely won in the list building and deployment stages. If that is true (no idea if it is), then power gamers have a distinct advantage in the game, seeing as they can heavily unbalance the game in their favor before even the first model is moved. I assume WHFB is unbalanced (and unfun) when you pit a power gamer against a non-power gamer. So, if you were preparing an army against an unknown opponent, how would you create your army?

It was so easy - my local GW had a regular points limit of 1250 so I would build one list for that and one for 1500 and one for 750 in case someone wanted to play bigger or smaller.

Did I ever play a power gamer? We always played to win and we had great games. If I got stomped I went and reviewed my list and tactics and came up with something new.

WHFB was won and lost in the movement phase, not in the list building. I used to draw tactical maps on the train ready for my next battle.

We would even make concessions in our lists to accommodate the other player (for example I would often agree to not play with 'Pit of Shades')

I enjoy AoS - but I have come to realise I now mainly enjoy the hobby aspect. I love being able to paint anything I want and only needing 10 of them. I love being able to collect all 4 grand alliances, totalling 7 factions (Empire, Dwarfs, Fyreslayers, High Elves, Vampire Counts, Night Goblins & Trolls and Skaven).

I found WHFB to be really rich and tactically rewarding - and this is something I am struggling with in AoS. I often find the game to be very unsatisfying tactically - especially in pick up games. I am hoping being much more strict about summoning is going to help my games become more tactical though.

 Pojko wrote:
The same problem of unknown opponents exists in AoS.

Except AoS expects you to have a dialogue with your opponent before (or more precisely, WHILE) you select your units.

From what I've read on forums such as Dakka and Warseer, very few people use the rules as written straight out of the box. Many play a variety of comp systems, or ignore/add rules like no shooting in and out of combat, restricted summoning, measuring from bases, etc. What if you and your unknown opponent have different ideas of what is fun and fair? You compromise with your opponent, right? You could compromise in WHFB too, nothing prevented you from doing so.

Long story short, AoS has no innate balancing mechanisms, so any changes you make to the rules - either by adding, limiting, or removing rules - will not affect the innate balance of the game. You are expected to decide on the balance yourself, and that's one way to do it (though I don't agree with no shooting into/out of combat, as that changes a fundamental rule which affects the very nature of specific units).

In a game like Warmachine, which is built on various combos and combo-counters, removing/changing a rule could end up making one combo unstoppable, unbalancing the game to the point of no fun. Like if you play the Twisted Metal variant (warjacks and casters only), the relative power of the units change completely, and you might as well throw out points completely. Age of Sigmar can not be unbalanced because it is not designed to be balanced.

But to me it seems like you're implying that this was the only way to play in WHFB. That's unfair.

I'm not saying it is the only way to play it. I'm saying that, if you don't know who your opponent will be, because of the way point systems work, you will have a better game if you assume some level of minmaxing on their part than if you do not - and design your list accordingly. If you took a 1,500 pt fluff list filled with models you like with no regard for anything BUT points, how balanced would your game be against ten other random 1,500 pt lists? Would you expect a balanced game every time? Points do not work as a balancing mechanism. There is no such thing as a game where every (or even most, or many) 1,500 pt list is balanced against each other.

Again, Warhammer was not some win at all costs game where you threw fun out the window. I've watched every Fantasy battle report places like Miniwargaming and Guerrilla Miniature Games have to offer on Youtube. If the WHFB critics were to be believed then I'd expect these to be miserable experiences that lasted 20 minutes until one person lost or gave up. But no, they're full of guys laughing, ribbing each other and having fun.

I don't think WHFB is a WAAC game at all (again, I've never played it). I think games which feature the opportunity to minmax will draw players who minmax, and the end result is that some players will put efficiency ahead of fun, sportsmanship, or fairness, and because minmaxing is codified in the rules directly (and fun, sportsmanship, and fairness are not), they end up dictating the terms of play within the community. AoS doesn't have minmaxing (not really), but does codify sportsmanship and fun through the Most Important Rule, and the looseness with which the game is drawn.

List building didn't have to be a competitive aspect. I made all my lists based on fluff, my own army's narrative, and what units I had/thought were cool.

And how well did those lists fare against the ones created by minmaxing players, eking out every advantage from every point? Points largely one work with a specific scenario, and an unspoken agreement on the purpose of employing those points. AoS forces you to speak that agreement, then cooperate on fulfilling it, while points systems force you to operate under assumptions and act unilaterally towards a purpose your opponent may not share.

I think you are making a lot of fallacious arguments against points here. I played WFB from 5th edition to 8th edition, and the points system was at least reasonably balanced for large chunks of that time.

Poor rules writing from GW resulted in imbalance (most infamously the 7th edition Daemon book) but the balance was nowhere near as bad as you were making out. The games were in general (especially in 6th and 7th edition) reasonably balanced and fair.

This was especially true below 1500 points where you could only take heroes and fewer rare units.

I played pick up games and in tournaments with lists cobbled together with stuff I liked, that fit my theme, or that I got cheap in starters and always did alright, and rarely felt I had no chance until the end period of 7th when the army book writers started to lose the run of themselves.

We played narrative campaigns too, in fact that was the most common way for us to play. Frankly I think you have little idea of what you are talking about with regard to older editions of Fantasy.

 Bottle wrote:

I enjoy AoS - but I have come to realise I now mainly enjoy the hobby aspect. I love being able to paint anything I want and only needing 10 of them. I love being able to collect all 4 grand alliances, totalling 7 factions (Empire, Dwarfs, Fyreslayers, High Elves, Vampire Counts, Night Goblins & Trolls and Skaven).

That is also my favorite aspect of the game. I love that I can see a model I like and buy it without having to support it with specific units or even investing in another full army. And I firmly believe that the reason that is possible is because AoS is innately unbalanced, such that no balancing contracts are broken by "coloring outside the lines".

I found WHFB to be really rich and tactically rewarding - and this is something I am struggling with in AoS. I often find the game to be very unsatisfying tactically - especially in pick up games. I am hoping being much more strict about summoning is going to help my games become more tactical though.

That's a perfectly reasonable assessment of AoS, and I don't disagree. It's just that I have a lot of tactical board and video games that I enjoy that require far less time and money to play. If I'm going to make the effort to hang out with my friends with a few hundred dollars in models, painted over dozens of hours, I don't want the tactical aspects to overpower everything else. I don't want to play against a friend who always wins (or loses), nor do I want to spend money and time on models that are tactically rich, but ugly and expensive. I see the tactical aspect as a framework to hang the shared experience on rather than the goal itself. If I want to dwell on the tactical, I'll whip out Advance Wars - they don't charge extra for more powerful units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I think you are making a lot of fallacious arguments against points here. I played WFB from 5th edition to 8th edition, and the points system was at least reasonably balanced for large chunks of that time.

I haven't played WHFB, so I'm speaking generally about point systems. Perhaps WHFB implements it better than everything else - and that's possible. Warmachine, for example, has a bunch of situational abilities. For instance, I have a Leviathan jack which is amphibious, but I've never played on a table with any significant body of water on it, so I'm paying extra for an ability I've never used. Maybe WHFB is less situational, and therefore more fairly balanced? Does WHFB have a bunch of units which do not change in effectiveness depending on the terrain or opponent's army selection?

Poor rules writing from GW resulted in imbalance (most infamously the 7th edition Daemon book) but the balance was nowhere near as bad as you were making out.

It's never the points, it's always GW's fault

The games were in general (especially in 6th and 7th edition) reasonably balanced and fair.

This was especially true below 1500 points where you could only take heroes and fewer rare units.

It's generally reasonably balanced and fair, but in some situations, it is especially reasonably balanced and fair?

5th edition had balance problems due to herohammer, and late 7th became unbalanced through badly designed army books. That's what I was referencing in the sentence that gave you trouble.

And, well, GW are the people setting the points values, so yeah, it's their fault if the points are imbalanced.

I would not say WFB was an especially good example of points balancing - about as good as Warmachine/Hordes but without the advantage of those games of every faction getting upgraded at once.

KoW has better points balancing, though it is not perfect. It will never be perfect, but should strive to be as good as possible. Completely jacking it in because it can't be perfect is...well, it's not something I agree with.

I do play narrative games, but I feel that AoS is poorly designed to be a narrative game. Dungeons and Dragons does a better job of it.

I also play pointsless games (in theory - in reality I don't get to play much these days) but they generally are historicals where you would recreate a specific battle.

As a foreigner in Germany, if GW games were not so complicated to negotiate right now, I would probably play them. It would be a lot easier for me with my not-so-great German to walk into the shop and get a game with someone by saying "Wollen Sie spielen? 1500 punkte?" than having to engage in the complex conversation about expectations. So I don't play GW games any more, pretty much, because they made it more awkward for me to do so by removing the structure that would have made it easy for me to play.

I don't mind much though as it's probably been good for my hobbying overall to look outside the pond after all these years.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think you are making a lot of fallacious arguments against points here. I played WFB from 5th edition to 8th edition, and the points system was at least reasonably balanced for large chunks of that time.

Poor rules writing from GW resulted in imbalance (most infamously the 7th edition Daemon book) but the balance was nowhere near as bad as you were making out. The games were in general (especially in 6th and 7th edition) reasonably balanced and fair.

This was especially true below 1500 points where you could only take heroes and fewer rare units.

I played pick up games and in tournaments with lists cobbled together with stuff I liked, that fit my theme, or that I got cheap in starters and always did alright, and rarely felt I had no chance until the end period of 7th when the army book writers started to lose the run of themselves.

We played narrative campaigns too, in fact that was the most common way for us to play. Frankly I think you have little idea of what you are talking about with regard to older editions of Fantasy.

Most of my games were 1st edition - which is pushing the limits of my fading memory, but that was hopeless for points/balance as I remember. However, as teens with limited models points weren't that important, we played much more like AOS - discuss who has what and how should we split up between 2 sides. I think 3rd was my next version, but only dabbled and don't really remember much beyond it being very different to 1st. Then 6th ed. My recollections of 6th is mainly Skaven gunlines wiping most stuff and being the subject of much hate, and locally my lizard skink army that murdered everything for the short period I was playing with that army before losing interest in the game again.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I'm not saying it is the only way to play it. I'm saying that, if you don't know who your opponent will be, because of the way point systems work, you will have a better game if you assume some level of minmaxing on their part than if you do not - and design your list accordingly. If you took a 1,500 pt fluff list filled with models you like with no regard for anything BUT points, how balanced would your game be against ten other random 1,500 pt lists? Would you expect a balanced game every time? Points do not work as a balancing mechanism. There is no such thing as a game where every (or even most, or many) 1,500 pt list is balanced against each other.

I don't think WHFB is a WAAC game at all (again, I've never played it). I think games which feature the opportunity to minmax will draw players who minmax, and the end result is that some players will put efficiency ahead of fun, sportsmanship, or fairness, and because minmaxing is codified in the rules directly (and fun, sportsmanship, and fairness are not), they end up dictating the terms of play within the community. AoS doesn't have minmaxing (not really), but does codify sportsmanship and fun through the Most Important Rule, and the looseness with which the game is drawn.

And how well did those lists fare against the ones created by minmaxing players, eking out every advantage from every point? Points largely one work with a specific scenario, and an unspoken agreement on the purpose of employing those points. AoS forces you to speak that agreement, then cooperate on fulfilling it, while points systems force you to operate under assumptions and act unilaterally towards a purpose your opponent may not share.

Basically what I've gathered here is that despite never having ever played WHFB, you've come up with the notion that it was inferior because some people in theory could be power gamers and min/max and try to ruin everyone's fun. It's a pretty shaky premise to base an argument on.

Any game can be abused by power gamers, AoS included. Any game can have sensible people with good sportsmanship play it, WHFB included. Age of Sigmar is not a revolutionary idea that eliminates bad players by touting the "most important rule". Because that rule has been around the GW community for many years before AoS. People were having fun games, narratives, campaigns, battle reports, and all around awesome times without the need of GW's enforced freedom from points systems and balance. Because in the end it comes down to the people who play the game to have a good time, not the system forcing you to.

And since you asked, I don't have much experience playing against min/maxing players eking out every advantage from every point. Maybe level-headed people just outweigh power gamers in Chicago? Even in the couple 40K tournaments I attended as a teenager in 2001, people were kind, fair, and didn't have super lists. Except that one guy who had 3 Wraithlords, but hey, that could be considered fluffy if it was an Iyanden army.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I haven't played WHFB, so I'm speaking generally about point systems. Perhaps WHFB implements it better than everything else - and that's possible. Warmachine, for example, has a bunch of situational abilities. For instance, I have a Leviathan jack which is amphibious, but I've never played on a table with any significant body of water on it, so I'm paying extra for an ability I've never used.

That looks like a fundamental misunderstanding of how points work to me. You assume you're paying points for amphibious but you're not, it's not an upgrade you buy for additional points, it is part of a package deal and you get it with the rest of that jack. If you want to argue that the Leviathan is an overcosted jack then that is a debate we could have, but you're coming at that issue from a fundamentally wrong angle.


If a model in a game has an ability it doesn't get to use that game that model is paying points for something it's not doing, but it doesn't make that model not worth the points because of it.
A khorne warrior in WHFB was not overcosted because it got shot to death before it could ever reach melee.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll also just pitch in that while my WHFB experience was limited to 8th ed only I went to LOTS of tourneys for it and had a blast because I found it a balanced enough game that even when I went up against the cheesy powergamer (my most common opponent in fact) the game came down to how we played and woulds still be won on our maneuvering.

Also fun fact, the only WHFB player I can distinctly remember playing and having no fun against because of powergaming dived straight into AoS and last I saw him was super excited about it.

 Pojko wrote:

Basically what I've gathered here is that despite never having ever played WHFB, you've come up with the notion that it was inferior because some people in theory could be power gamers and min/max and try to ruin everyone's fun. It's a pretty shaky premise to base an argument on.

I've never said anything against WHFB. I'm talking about points used for balancing. They are innately poor at their job, and it does not appear that WHFB does anything to assuage those faults. Maybe it does. I don't know.

Any game can be abused by power gamers, AoS included. Any game can have sensible people with good sportsmanship play it, WHFB included. Age of Sigmar is not a revolutionary idea that eliminates bad players by touting the "most important rule". Because that rule has been around the GW community for many years before AoS. People were having fun games, narratives, campaigns, battle reports, and all around awesome times without the need of GW's enforced freedom from points systems and balance. Because in the end it comes down to the people who play the game to have a good time, not the system forcing you to.

You misunderstand. Anybody can play a game however they want, but at the point you start codifying specific behaviors into the gameplay DNA itself, it becomes more difficult to play against type. It's not that AoS doesn't have munchkins. It's that AoS doesn't include munchkin DNA within the rules themselves. And I consider point systems, which by their very nature encourage and reward minmaxing, to be munchkin DNA. Playing AoS as a narrative game is not playing AoS against type.

There's basically two things points do, mutually exclusive. They either provide a sense of balance where one 1,500 pt army is balanced against another 1,500 pt army, or they reward the overcoming of limitations to create a better 1,500 pt army. They can't be both things. You can't have a situation where "1,500 pts is balanced, but some 1,500 pts are more balanced than others". So either points create balance or they create limitations to surpass. I can't think of a game which is more the former than the latter.

And since you asked, I don't have much experience playing against min/maxing players eking out every advantage from every point. Maybe level-headed people just outweigh power gamers in Chicago?

I don't think that power gamers aren't level headed. In fact, I think they tend to be rational to a fault. It's just that their goals involve efficiency and logistical mastery, which can be at odds with the goals of a balanced game - or even a game enjoyable to all parties.

auticus wrote:

I'm actually of the opinion that AOS losing points is a tremendous positive because it allowed fan comps to do a better job of it.

except it dosent. In fact you have camps of players that want to play by ruleset A and camps that want B, usually because they favor their particular armies. Say what you will about under and overcosted points values. At least whe they existed everyone had to play by the same set of rules.

Our players broke into groups. 9th age, kings of war, and staying with 8th. Lo and behold fan made "adjustments" to these sets split them further.

Now nobody gets a game. Literally have not seen a game of fantasy in any format since about 3 months ago. This goes from 20+ active players a year ago.

Does this man not understand why troops were organized into block formations until the wide-spread adoption of modern military firearms?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Does this man not understand why troops were organized into block formations until the wide-spread adoption of modern military firearms?

They only thing he understands is he had better damn well find a way to shill this thing in a positive light, because his companies future, and thus his job, relies on convincing the community that this change was a positive, and not a disaster.

 Orock wrote:

auticus wrote:

I'm actually of the opinion that AOS losing points is a tremendous positive because it allowed fan comps to do a better job of it.

except it dosent. In fact you have camps of players that want to play by ruleset A and camps that want B, usually because they favor their particular armies. Say what you will about under and overcosted points values. At least whe they existed everyone had to play by the same set of rules.

Our players broke into groups. 9th age, kings of war, and staying with 8th. Lo and behold fan made "adjustments" to these sets split them further.

Now nobody gets a game. Literally have not seen a game of fantasy in any format since about 3 months ago. This goes from 20+ active players a year ago.

I'm seeing the opposite. That there are people that demand that everyone else plays the same rules as they do or they won't play is not a concern of mine though. The whole "one way to play or nothing" mindset is never anything that I ever followed. Our fantasy group is growing locally, much like it did in 2010 when 8th came and everyone rage quit for warmachine because of the random elements introduced. The same growth ratio is present today with AoS here.

Having to play by the same set of busted unbalanced point costs is not much of an option in my opinion. Of the fan comps that exist I'm not sure of any of the bigger ones that favor any one army over the other, at least I would need to see that demonstrated mathematically some how. They all seem to provide fairly consistent balance.

If I have to choose between playing the same busted balance point costs which introduce a predictable internet meta every game, or getting a game in with a smaller subset of people but the games are more balanced I'm going with the latter every time.

I'm seeing the same thing as Auticus

Every few weeks we get another club member checking out the game,or a new player altogether joining us.The group now is probably around 15 or so players that pop in to get a game from every few months to every other week.

A few are old fantasy players,some 40k players and even a few new to the genre.

With all the great fan made comps out there,AoS has more ways to play than WHFB ever did,and with its focus on themed armies its really grabbing players with its relaxed less competitive vibe.

What I'm getting tired of is this assumption from all the so called log time GW gamer "experts" that everyone wants to have some ultra competitive game system with intricate points that ,by the way are ALWAYS bitched about ,no matter how many times GW would adjust them.
There is a whole segment of gamers that just want to play casual themed games and could care less how well they play toys soldiers because no matter how tactical you think you are,,after all you are just playing with toy soldiers,its just a game.They just want to socialize and have a good time and use the cool models they painted up.GW is going after this segment and from what I'm seeing and hearing its working.Just this weekend Ill be hosting another session at the largest game shop in the city,this time will have 2 more new members joining us,not to mention the watchers we get from the 100+ patrons that are usually in the store on Saturday evenings.