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 purchased the book via the AoS app on my android (aside: Really don't like how it's tied to platform i.e. if I want to use it on my iPad I need to buy it again). I like the points and things seem pretty balanced, but a few things bug me, maybe because I just started Flesh-Eater Courts and bought the "King Vlagorescu's Ghoulish Host" boxed army only to run into issues. First, said battalion is not included, which I guess means I am not allowed to use it in Matched Play. Second, requiring two BattleLine units and then forcing the Crypt Haunter Courtier and Crypt Infernal Courtier to unlock Crypt Horrors/Flayers as Battleline units does not seem right, since the "organisation" in the book shows that those units also tend to fall under Varghulf Courtier to; see; "Royal Mordants" which is 1 Vargulf Courtier, 1 unit of Crypt Ghouls, 1 unit of Crypt Horrors and 1 unit of Crypt Flayers, but under the rules for Matched Play in the Handbook this is not allowed.

I appreciate that GW is trying to strike a balance, and I get that you don't need to use battalions (I think paying extra points for them is a great idea to counter-balance). However, it seems "Matched Play" is now the default way to play, which also has the drawback of limiting a lot of options that previously were available if you just applied some sense and not try to powergame; most of the Start Collecting boxes, for example, can't be used in Matched Play because they don't have enough "Battleline" units and/or don't have the battalion listed. I can't believe that I am defending a lack of points, but it seems to me that most rational human beings can come to agreements on what is/isn't fair and not just spam uber units because they can.

For me, I find that the more restricted the better in regards to matched play. Matched play should be solely about balance IMO.

As such I am a fan of having multiple ways to play. Because powergaming will always be a thing no matter what game system is involved, and the quickest way to cause people to leave is when you mix powergaming with someone that doesn't want to powergame.

While matched play has flaws too, particularly with the SCGT way of discounting monsters and heroes, I find that most of the restrictions make the game somewhat balanced in that format... which indeed is the default format where I am as well... and that leaves narrative play open for when you want to get in arranged games with buddies who know how to tune things down (whereas in the default matched play you often face people that don't know how or refuse to tune things down)

 auticus wrote:
For me, I find that the more restricted the better in regards to matched play. Matched play should be solely about balance IMO.

As such I am a fan of having multiple ways to play. Because powergaming will always be a thing no matter what game system is involved, and the quickest way to cause people to leave is when you mix powergaming with someone that doesn't want to powergame.

While matched play has flaws too, particularly with the SCGT way of discounting monsters and heroes, I find that most of the restrictions make the game somewhat balanced in that format... which indeed is the default format where I am as well... and that leaves narrative play open for when you want to get in arranged games with buddies who know how to tune things down (whereas in the default matched play you often face people that don't know how or refuse to tune things down)

True. I was chatting with some people at my local GW and was saying how Matched Play is fine for like tournaments, but I think being all adults we can decide for ourselves what is/isn't too powerful without points. I'm not sure if others agree with me, but I hope so

I'm going to reply to your title to open the thread out more a little if that's okay.

I think this book is all kinds of incredible. To talk about Matched Play, I really like the balance it gives in builds from my expereince so far. I do think the first 2 pitched battle scenarios are a bit too difficult to win objective wise which essentially makes them kill-matches so that's a little downer. Next battle I play I am going to suggest playing a narrative Battleplan with points glued on.

I am also not a fan of the battleline requirement because I think it gets in the way of some cool armies (like an Ironjawz army + a Desrtuction Beast of some sort), but I am happy to waiver the battleline for my opponent in PUGs.

Lastly I love love love the House Rules section (getting to play base-to-base in my GW is the best!). I am also a big fan of the way they did summoning.

Going on to the other sections, I really like the Triumph and Treachery in the Open Play section and can't wait to play that 'crown of command' battleplan with the watchtower in the middle.

There's lots to like in the Narrative Play sections. I love the Map Campaign especially (wow that Realm of Battle map is cool). However, Path to Glory was a big let down for me.

Overall the book is awesome and I have set myself a little goal to not play the same Battleplan twice in a PUG until I have played them all at least once!

Map campaigns are my favorite. The biggest disadvantage though is that you need a small, DEDICATED group to see them conclude.

People typically quit when they start losing and that can mess up the map.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 auticus wrote:
For me, I find that the more restricted the better in regards to matched play. Matched play should be solely about balance IMO.

As such I am a fan of having multiple ways to play. Because powergaming will always be a thing no matter what game system is involved, and the quickest way to cause people to leave is when you mix powergaming with someone that doesn't want to powergame.

While matched play has flaws too, particularly with the SCGT way of discounting monsters and heroes, I find that most of the restrictions make the game somewhat balanced in that format... which indeed is the default format where I am as well... and that leaves narrative play open for when you want to get in arranged games with buddies who know how to tune things down (whereas in the default matched play you often face people that don't know how or refuse to tune things down)

True. I was chatting with some people at my local GW and was saying how Matched Play is fine for like tournaments, but I think being all adults we can decide for ourselves what is/isn't too powerful without points. I'm not sure if others agree with me, but I hope so

Like understanding statistics, people in general are really really bad at determining what is a fair fight. I'm not even raising the specter of TFG, I mean just normal happy well adjusted people looking for a fun game, have zero idea what balance actually looks like. That was the problem with Pre GH AoS, it was well intentioned but completely missed the reality of having actual players.

My FLGS uses points now that they're here, but we're not sticklers over specifics. If you're 20 points over, whatever, we know it's hard to fit specifically. If you don't have enough Battleline, it's fine as long as you're not just trying to spam stupid stuff.

A mix of Matched and Open has been working just fine.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 auticus wrote:
For me, I find that the more restricted the better in regards to matched play. Matched play should be solely about balance IMO.

As such I am a fan of having multiple ways to play. Because powergaming will always be a thing no matter what game system is involved, and the quickest way to cause people to leave is when you mix powergaming with someone that doesn't want to powergame.

While matched play has flaws too, particularly with the SCGT way of discounting monsters and heroes, I find that most of the restrictions make the game somewhat balanced in that format... which indeed is the default format where I am as well... and that leaves narrative play open for when you want to get in arranged games with buddies who know how to tune things down (whereas in the default matched play you often face people that don't know how or refuse to tune things down)

True. I was chatting with some people at my local GW and was saying how Matched Play is fine for like tournaments, but I think being all adults we can decide for ourselves what is/isn't too powerful without points. I'm not sure if others agree with me, but I hope so

In our shop we rarely get to play good sized games of open play anymore due to the huge influx of AOS players and table availability. We stick to smaller games that finish quick or 2v2 and 3v3. In the days before points we would play games per the rules and it generally worked out simply because being the awesome community fostered by the shop manager if things started to get out of hand 1 of 2 things would happen people will tone it down so games can be played reasonably or other people will offer up models to start adding to the person handicapped. It always seemed to work out well with us simply because everyone has one goal and that's to have fun rolling some dice playing some games.

auticus wrote:Map campaigns are my favorite. The biggest disadvantage though is that you need a small, DEDICATED group to see them conclude.

People typically quit when they start losing and that can mess up the map.

If theres one rule about campaigns is even if you have only 2 players one will drop

 auticus wrote:
Map campaigns are my favorite. The biggest disadvantage though is that you need a small, DEDICATED group to see them conclude.

People typically quit when they start losing and that can mess up the map.

Too bad they rarely ever happen. We had a 40k one and had around 20 people participating, and a load of people stayed till the end. It was great.

An AOS one would be good fun to play.

The map campaign is interesting in the General's Handbook because it's not a "Risk" style mini game of territory capture, instead any army can fight for any territory over the month and the most wins an army scores in that area earns control and a bonus.

That means players could drop out midway through and it doesn't really affect anything.

WayneTheGame wrote: but I think being all adults we can decide for ourselves what is/isn't too powerful without points. I'm not sure if others agree with me, but I hope so

I agree with you. Sadly I have been saying this and people just can't do it unless the points are in the book. Even when we all know the points are too much they don't want to make adjustments in a friendly game. I am shocked people need to win with plastic toy soldiers instead of just having fun playing with them.

So it doesn't matter what is or isn't too powerful with or without points. People will not adjust or say "they shouldn't have to fix" anything to have fun. If it's not in the book it can't be done.

Just picked mine up today, and the campaign looks really cool. I really bought it for the matched play section, but the rest of the stuff in the book is actually pretty sweet. I'm unsure of how much use I'll get out of the narrative stuff, but I'm sure to be using a combo of the matched play and campaign stuff.

Very impressed with it.