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.

Recently I've been invited to a game where there are no point, power level, or anything. Basically, it is going to be what Age of Sigmar was when it was released. Put all your stuff on the table and hope to have fun. My opponent is someone I've played before, so I know we are like minded players and it is very likely we will both have an enjoyable game, no matter what the balance issues may be. Not too much to my surprise, when I discuss this with other players, they are very surprised that such a game would be played. It got me curious to find out if the idea is so appalling to a wider audience. I've overheard people at the LGS saying that "beer and pretzels warhammer cannot exist" and "GW needs to stop caring about casual play". There are some pretty competitive people around me.

Would you partake in a narrative style game, with potentially fluid rules and chances in the narrative to assist in balancing the complete and total lack of balance in the army building phase? Would you bring as much of your collection as you have to the shop, and field it all, because someone said they would like to do the same thing?

yeah... I wouldn't want to play it too often but it would be nice to shake up if you know your playing someone with good intentions. Id personally wanna do it at someone's house with plenty of drinks.

Sounds fun! I'd let my opponent know ahead of time I would be bringing lots of tanks and driving forwards, but I think it would be enjoyable.

 gwarsh41 wrote:


beer and pretzels warhammer cannot exist" and "GW needs to stop caring about casual play

What kind of moron could say that ? Casual warhammer is the only warhammer. «Competitive» warhammer has loads of problems because at is core 40k is casual, made by casuals and aimed at casuals
.

If we put effort into setting up the game ahead of time for some sort of fun scenario or something sure. Playing matched play style missions. Nah, I’ll want some sort of list building in play. I don’t think showing up with the equivalent of 2k points to face 5k points sounds enjoyable unless there is a reason behind it:

could be fun - gotta take a look at the armies and see realistically where about they stand - then make an objective to favor the team with less power on the table.

Could be a lotta fun - kinda like a real battle where both sides usually aren't even.

I've played other games where there were no point specifically to encourage you to devise scenarios.

Of course, these systems had sufficiently deep moral and motivation mechanisms to make asymmetric scenarios interesting. 40K rather struggles in that regard.

Maybe. Depends on who's playing. Points/PL and army composition exist to try and keep games roughly even; if both players know each others' armies well enough to come up with a reasonably balanced scenario it might work, or if you have someone acting as GM to keep things from getting out of control. Otherwise I wouldn't.

I would absolutely play this, it sounds like a lot of fun!

I really like building new narrative missions, so I would be more than up for trying "unbalanced" games - everything against everything, or pick an elite force to hold out against the hordes, or what have you. Especially if I know the other player and they're cool, I'd love to just have fun with a big game of 40k.

That being said, I would want to know that we were roughly in the same playing field, or agree to some scenario first. Fighting at a disadvantage just because the other player doesn't want to total up their points doesn't sound fun to me.

no. Why would I want to play a "game" that consists of nothing more than "the player who buys the most GW models wins"?

 Peregrine wrote:
no. Why would I want to play a "game" that consists of nothing more than "the player who buys the most GW models wins"?

Well, my answer would be that I would only do it with someone I knew well, preferably with a neutral game master, and that we'd be doing it with only fully painted models on an amazing game board, and that we'd be trying to tell some sort of a fun story, not find a winner.

Not everyone's cup of tea, so if you want a winner, it isn't for you.

Don't get me wrong, I want a winner in 90% of my games, but I've also played in games, mainly one-off games of Necromunda and Afterlife where something seems cool, so we do it regardless of whether there are rules or if it will affect who wins. As a small example, I recently had a juve who was ablaze, tumble from an upper floor directly onto an opponent's ganger. There are rules for the impact, but none for setting the opposition ganger on fire too, but we made up rules and did it anyway. We might not have done in a campaign, but it was fun as part of a skirmish. We had a few other little "narrative" moments like that in that particular game because circumstances conspired to suggest them and there was nothing to stop us because it was non-competitive. If I remember rightly we also fiddled the rules so that our leaders could potentially mutually take each other out, something not possible in the rules, but we set it up so it could happen, and it did, despite the unlikelihood.

On some level you're always playing with points. Maybe not official points, but on some level if you're at all trying to set up something of equal measure you're weighing a value on things and likely even using your knowledge of how many points they're supposed to be as a baseline.

40k is a good game of "set things up and see what happens" so you can definitely have games without points work (I used pointless here about 9 times before I realized how that sounded). I think the best way to do something like that though is something akin to Gears of War Hoard mode where a player starts with a siginificant advantage but the opponent just keeps respawning stuff until they win. That game of "how much can I take with me?" is generally pretty fun.

A full on "even" game without points though always seems to go like this in my experience:
"This seems about right; shall we play?"
"Whoa, that was one sided. Maybe we should tweak this"
*After much haggling, eventually ends up with something vaguely resembling points anyway

That would depend. Normally I'd say "absolutely" but I'd want a reason why - i.e. a scenario or historical setting. Are we playing against an endless wave of Necrons or bugs? Are we playing a custom scenario based around a key moment in 40K fluff and the "author" has decided the forces involves? Are we playing from a Forgeworld book that has an explicit scenario detailed out?

If we're just throwing everything we own on the table, is there a gamemaster deciding how it's showing up? I'd love a third party who is "running" the game by picking units I get to bring on the table each turn, etc. So, yes, but not just if it's a cloaked "I bought more stuff than you" game.

I have and do.

Just slap out literally every model on table? Well if I know all have pretty ridiculous large collection sure(at that point board size is bigger issue so bigger force isn't really that much of advantaged anyway plus point is just to field literally all models to get hell of a big game anyway rather than see who's best). But with random people no that doesn't sound particularly fun.

However if we are talking about creating lists based on scenario we want to play out? Yeah that's my favourite way of playing and it's the only way you even can get really get balanced game. Points&Power levels have their uses but balanced game is not reason for using either.

it'd be fine so long as everyone was of the right mind set. obviously this kinda thing wouldn't work with a TFG but with a chill group it'd be fun

 Fifty wrote:
Well, my answer would be that I would only do it with someone I knew well, preferably with a neutral game master, and that we'd be doing it with only fully painted models on an amazing game board, and that we'd be trying to tell some sort of a fun story, not find a winner.

But what exactly is gained in this situation by refusing to use points to add up the strength of each army and ensure balanced forces (or, in an asymmetrical scenario, forces correctly built to "the defender gets 50% more points" or whatever)? It sure seems like the only thing it accomplishes is virtue signalling about how 'casual" everyone involved is because they get as far as possible from competitive play.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Well, my answer would be that I would only do it with someone I knew well, preferably with a neutral game master, and that we'd be doing it with only fully painted models on an amazing game board, and that we'd be trying to tell some sort of a fun story, not find a winner.

But what exactly is gained in this situation by refusing to use points to add up the strength of each army and ensure balanced forces (or, in an asymmetrical scenario, forces correctly built to "the defender gets 50% more points" or whatever)? It sure seems like the only thing it accomplishes is virtue signalling about how 'casual" everyone involved is because they get as far as possible from competitive play.

Well since points/pl's aren't designed for balanced game one reason could be having actually balanced game.

Give a reasonably balance scenario and I don't see why not, especially if both players work together designing something they both like the idea of

I've played games like that over the years but..it was like a box battle. What ever armies my friend had that day vs what ever I brought. This was fun. I had a full battle company and support at the time he had 2 or 3 2000 point armies depending so we just tried to play for 3 or 4 turns and see what would happen. This was usually after a full day of games at the shop, the clerk was paid by the regulars to stay open late er till early.

On a few other ocasions I ran some games where players were asked to bring any two squads they wanted and what ever character. all tooled how ever they wanted. I had about 16 people around a tabe and it was madness! Such a good time.l

We tried it again recently and later added the points and were within 500 or so points Tau vs Orks, this would have been late last edition. Tau had more points effectively but Ork won the day easily enough. We set just a few restrictions to create some balance but I can't recall what we decided on.

These were all fun.

tneva82 wrote:
Well since points/pl's aren't designed for balanced game one reason could be having actually balanced game.

Under no circumstances will "let's ignore the balance information we have, as flawed as it is" provide a more balanced game than using all available information.

 gwarsh41 wrote:
Recently I've been invited to a game where there are no point, power level, or anything. Basically, it is going to be what Age of Sigmar was when it was released. Put all your stuff on the table and hope to have fun. My opponent is someone I've played before, so I know we are like minded players and it is very likely we will both have an enjoyable game, no matter what the balance issues may be. Not too much to my surprise, when I discuss this with other players, they are very surprised that such a game would be played. It got me curious to find out if the idea is so appalling to a wider audience. I've overheard people at the LGS saying that "beer and pretzels warhammer cannot exist" and "GW needs to stop caring about casual play". There are some pretty competitive people around me.

Would you partake in a narrative style game, with potentially fluid rules and chances in the narrative to assist in balancing the complete and total lack of balance in the army building phase? Would you bring as much of your collection as you have to the shop, and field it all, because someone said they would like to do the same thing?

that used to be what Apocalypse was for. And with the understanding described above, sure id do thay, and have many times.

But it requires a lot more effort and time than just taking a 1500pt list down on game night, and some effort in finding the right types of players. Such games were never unheard of, but were always preplanned events with like minded people, not something doable for everyone.

I'd play, If the game sounded fun.

 Peregrine wrote:
no. Why would I want to play a "game" that consists of nothing more than "the player who buys the most GW models wins"?

This.

"Well, OK. I've got some Sisters of Battle Saraphim, an IG Infantry squad, and a bunch of Space Wolves Bloodclaws. What are you bringing?"

"Seven Baneblades."

I've played games where there were 8 or so of us on the same table; something like 200 or less points or so each and we all deployed close enough that we had to enact a " no combat first turn" rule and then just went all at it. Alliances formed and broke in seconds; the game had several small battles that raged on and then the survivors charged in.

It's fun, just like Apoc is fun to throw down huge armies without any real restrictions save points.


Doing stuff like this is enjoyable for a once off or a few events. It's something different that presents new challenge and some fun so long as everyone goes into it fairly and sensibly.


So sure a game with no points could be fun for a while. Muck around and play it out and see how it goes. Sure I don't want it for every game; I wouldn't want it for a competition or for a tournament or such; but for a bit of fun with friends for a few hours - sure go for it! It won't hurt anyone.

Sounds like fun, I'm always down for unbalanced play. attacking with a much larger force against a well dug in enemy, ambushing an armoured column in a valley with concealed firing positions by an elite force, etc...the possibilities are endless. I've always liked "run whatcha brung" games, who cares if you've got twice the models I have but I'll have first turn shooting and everything will be a -2 in cover. use your imagination I've always liked recreating classic real world battles with 40k. same scenario but different belligerents.

@ my FLGS we're doing an Apoc battle that has point "suggestions". basically you need around 5k fully painted wysiwyg and everybody is of the same mind; no spam, flufftatstic lists, etc.

There are a bunch of special rules but they're more scenario stuff rather than mechanical to the game.

phydaux wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
no. Why would I want to play a "game" that consists of nothing more than "the player who buys the most GW models wins"?

This.

"Well, OK. I've got some Sisters of Battle Saraphim, an IG Infantry squad, and a bunch of Space Wolves Bloodclaws. What are you bringing?"

"Seven Baneblades."

Well the point is to have fun right? So even if you bring the wrong set of models to a pointless game if that's all you have to work with you make it work.

very doable in narrative games if you both have a feel for points and or power levels.
In fact, If you ever need advice on setting up that kind of scenario just PM me.

phydaux wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
no. Why would I want to play a "game" that consists of nothing more than "the player who buys the most GW models wins"?

This.

"Well, OK. I've got some Sisters of Battle Saraphim, an IG Infantry squad, and a bunch of Space Wolves Bloodclaws. What are you bringing?"

"Seven Baneblades."

Lol at how some people can't grasp there are other ways to play the game.

And if you want balanced game the FIRST thing you MUST do is abandon points&power levels. Period. Burn them from your memory. They will lead to nothing but unbalanced games.

I could see it being fun to just take a fluffy version of whatever you're army usually brings. Make it something like a full demi company vs equivalents. You can bring your 10 man assault & devastator squad without feeling guilty about kitting stuff out.