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.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I'd welcome the end times and the removal of points. Makes things much much easier.

Not for you.

It makes things easier for the GW development studio if they don't have to bother with that pesky "making a fair and balanced game" stuff, but there is no benefit to the player base to not have these tools available, when any idiot could simply ignore the points system if they and their opponent really think they're better off without it.

exactly, no point cost is just a lazy management decisions to justify incompetence. As you said, you can simply ignore them if you wish so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lockark wrote:
I can't believe their are people here who like Formations and the No-points AoS systems. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks this is a good direction for 40k are not gamers, They were just people who want to put their modles on the table saying "pew pew your dead".


I already had my fill of the disaster that was 5th ed apoc, IMHO a experiment that failed and GW needs to stop trying to force it into all their games. Age of Sigmar sold well when it 1st launched, but at this point all it did was take fantasy out behind the shed and finished the job.

Agreed, formations are a disaster imo, and only taking the game down. Would have been so much better with more restrictive (and varied) FOC (for example, a FOC for speed freaks in which you need to take at least 3 bikerz squad and all vehicle need to take the "red paint" upgrade).



BTW, great post Yodhrin. The only reason I "left" Confrontation (a far better game imo) and started a 40k army was that it was too much of an hassle to find players and to balance armies. If I have to argue and bargain (as well as go through them) about which of the numerous fans made supplement to use before each game, then I'm out (though I may very well be out once PP figures out if they want to make plastic, metal or resin mini considering the current emphasis on formations and unbalance)

Was about to say I think exactly the same as you do, then I realised who you are.

For me, the ones claiming that removing pointcost is a great idea are the same kind of persons that think that Malevich white on white is a great piece of art. Taking lazyness and complacency for brilliance.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I'd welcome the end times and the removal of points. Makes things much much easier.

Not for you.

certainly it does. No points, no hassle. Much easier for a game.

@Yodhrin, exalted sir. I don't understand why some people can't see that it is very easy to ignore/modify rules to suit a narrative, but almost impossible to introduce rules where none exist.

I have to say, I do love the occasional game of Apocalypse, it's like playing GTA in cheat mode; very cathartic to have all of the weapons and go to town, but only once in a while.

I've just had a bit of a left field thought; for a few years GW have seemed to be on the same trajectory as D&D took:
1) Have popular, successful, world-renowned game;
2) Radically change said game without understanding why your customers like it in the first place (4th ed);
3) Watch sales tank and upstart competitors muscling in (pathfinder);
4) Realise you need to go back to what you originally had ASAP
5) Conduct huge market research/open beta to develop new game that is actually what you customers want (5th ed)

If this comparison holds true, I posit that GW are just around the start of point 4, particularly with Mr Rowntree coming in. I wonder if these rumours (if there's even a shred of truth to them) tie up with the cryptic "100 days" announcement. I wonder if GW are actually going to open up some sort of beta to develop the next edition of 40k.?

As others have observed, balancing 40k seems to be either too hard or straight up beyond the capabilities of the studio at the moment, so what better way to sidestep that problem and rebuild your relationship than by letting your customers help you do it.

This "unpointed formations" could be trial rules for evaluation.

Total speculation, probably untrue, but it would be wild if they did.

It's only easier if you don't care about the concept of a fair game. It's much more of a hassle if you do.

 Jadenim wrote:
@Yodhrin, exalted sir. I don't understand why some people can't see that it is very easy to ignore/modify rules to suit a narrative, but almost impossible to introduce rules where none exist.

I have to say, I do love the occasional game of Apocalypse, it's like playing GTA in cheat mode; very cathartic to have all of the weapons and go to town, but only once in a while.

I've just had a bit of a left field thought; for a few years GW have seemed to be on the same trajectory as D&D took:
1) Have popular, successful, world-renowned game;
2) Radically change said game without understanding why your customers like it in the first place (4th ed);
3) Watch sales tank and upstart competitors muscling in (pathfinder);
4) Realise you need to go back to what you originally had ASAP
5) Conduct huge market research/open beta to develop new game that is actually what you customers want (5th ed)

If this comparison holds true, I posit that GW are just around the start of point 4, particularly with Mr Rowntree coming in. I wonder if these rumours (if there's even a shred of truth to them) tie up with the cryptic "100 days" announcement. I wonder if GW are actually going to open up some sort of beta to develop the next edition of 40k.?

As others have observed, balancing 40k seems to be either too hard or straight up beyond the capabilities of the studio at the moment, so what better way to sidestep that problem and rebuild your relationship than by letting your customers help you do it.

This "unpointed formations" could be trial rules for evaluation.

Total speculation, probably untrue, but it would be wild if they did.

That's the thing that's so maddening though, as HBMC said, they could literally walk across to the FW studio and say "Hey, yo, walk us through your thinking on the Heresy list designs" and fix most of their issues if they took the advice on board. I mean crikey, it's hardly as if FW's superior rules design for 30K has led to them being unable to push big expensive kits, so it's not as if GW's apparent present main strategy for 40K is incompatible with solid rules.

I don't understand why some people can't see that it is very easy to ignore/modify rules to suit a narrative, but almost impossible to introduce rules where none exist.

I keep seeing this argument. It is tripe. Adding rules and removing/modifying rules are exactly as easy or as difficult as each other. They are fundamentally the same thing - changing the way the game plays for some reason. In both cases someone has to come up with the change and a reason it will make a good game then persuade someone to play that.

Come up with rule you want to delete/modify/add.
Discuss with opponent.

If the other guy will happily discuss removing or modifying stuff then it is just as likely he will happily discuss adding stuff. If he won't add stuff 'cos he plays by the rules as they are then he probably won't remove/modify either.

puree wrote:

I don't understand why some people can't see that it is very easy to ignore/modify rules to suit a narrative, but almost impossible to introduce rules where none exist.

I keep seeing this argument. It is tripe. Adding rules and removing/modifying rules are exactly as easy or as difficult as each other. They are fundamentally the same thing - changing the way the game plays for some reason. In both cases someone has to come up with the change and a reason it will make a good game then persuade someone to play that.

Come up with rule you want to delete/modify/add.
Discuss with opponent.

If the other guy will happily discuss removing or modifying stuff then it is just as likely he will happily discuss adding stuff. If he won't add stuff 'cos he plays by the rules as they are then he probably won't remove/modify either.

Maybe they mean if there isn't a base ruleset to add to and modify then it's hard to come up with one from scratch?

If so I agree with them if not I agree with you


If the models remained I would just use a modified version of 7th but if they feth up with rules and start discontinuing kits I would be pushed into other games like Bolt Action which I have looked at with interest but been preoccupied with my 40k army to actually start collecting

puree wrote:

I don't understand why some people can't see that it is very easy to ignore/modify rules to suit a narrative, but almost impossible to introduce rules where none exist.

I keep seeing this argument. It is tripe. Adding rules and removing/modifying rules are exactly as easy or as difficult as each other. They are fundamentally the same thing - changing the way the game plays for some reason. In both cases someone has to come up with the change and a reason it will make a good game then persuade someone to play that.

Come up with rule you want to delete/modify/add.
Discuss with opponent.

If the other guy will happily discuss removing or modifying stuff then it is just as likely he will happily discuss adding stuff. If he won't add stuff 'cos he plays by the rules as they are then he probably won't remove/modify either.

Really!!! you don't see how it's easier to simply say "screw the points for this game", than to introduce a point cost for every models and options in the game ? HInt: the latter would take me about two seconds, while the former would take me weeks, if not months of work.

 Jadenim wrote:


If this comparison holds true, I posit that GW are just around the start of point 4, particularly with Mr Rowntree coming in. I wonder if these rumours (if there's even a shred of truth to them) tie up with the cryptic "100 days" announcement. I wonder if GW are actually going to open up some sort of beta to develop the next edition of 40k.?

That was my guess. They will introduce either player/or store play testing. 100 represented days to announcement or 100 players/stores.

The reply in the below image then had me double-down on the idea:


I believe they used to playtest until someone leaked the rules. They got upset. Brought it back in-house.

With AoS being open/free with rules the idea of more playtesting is not out of question. If Nintendo can embrace the Internet GW can embrace external playtesting.

Playtesting that GW will actually listen to?
I'll believe that when I see it.

 Zywus wrote:
Playtesting that GW will actually listen to?
I'll believe that when I see it.

I'll make this comment and leave it at that before I push the derailing of this News thread.

Add seasoning as required; and as expected.

With the release of AoS, they provided free rules and said they were open to feedback.

Since then they've made:
- Comments to clear up if Stormcasts can be male or female (yes)
- Added clarity about which rules to use at the beginning of campaign books
- Added variations on Sudden Death in scenarios
- Added some wording in regards to summoning (though not the core rule itself)
- Began to remove "silly" rules; i.e. Masque rule is now based on movement rather than dancing

I expect they'll make a change to measuring on bases once everything has been repackaged/re-released/retired.

It's nothing major, I agree. But there's been changes quicker than before. And the way rules are released allows them to make changes quicker. Maybe the design team were told FAQs don't "sell" so where is the immediate value? Their answer was to work around that and use campaign books/warscrolls/free rules they could do yearly refreshes of.

We'll see.

As to the OP, no.

puree wrote:

I don't understand why some people can't see that it is very easy to ignore/modify rules to suit a narrative, but almost impossible to introduce rules where none exist.

I keep seeing this argument. It is tripe. Adding rules and removing/modifying rules are exactly as easy or as difficult as each other. They are fundamentally the same thing - changing the way the game plays for some reason. In both cases someone has to come up with the change and a reason it will make a good game then persuade someone to play that.

Come up with rule you want to delete/modify/add.
Discuss with opponent.

If the other guy will happily discuss removing or modifying stuff then it is just as likely he will happily discuss adding stuff. If he won't add stuff 'cos he plays by the rules as they are then he probably won't remove/modify either.

That is a very stupid argument. It is far, far easier for two people to say "Let's play without points." "Okay!" than to go through an entire book saying "I think this is worth 20 points." "No, I think it should be worth 25 points." "But it's not strong enough to be worth 25 points." "Yes, it is." "No, it isn't."

Having a single presumably competent games design studio do that once and just tell us what points cost they found to be fair is far better than expecting tens of thousands of players to do it every time they find a new opponent.

I'll make this comment and leave it at that before I push the derailing of this News thread.

Add seasoning as required; and as expected.

With the release of AoS, they provided free rules and said they were open to feedback.

Since then they've made:
- Comments to clear up if Stormcasts can be male or female (yes)

When did they offically state this as not seen it byond a BL authors blog?

 Mr Morden wrote:

I'll make this comment and leave it at that before I push the derailing of this News thread.

Add seasoning as required; and as expected.

With the release of AoS, they provided free rules and said they were open to feedback.

Since then they've made:
- Comments to clear up if Stormcasts can be male or female (yes)

When did they offically state this as not seen it byond a BL authors blog?

First page of the new Campaign book.

Edit: To be clear, the people selected to under go the trials to become a Stormcast are chosen from the best men and women.

 Mr Morden wrote:

I'll make this comment and leave it at that before I push the derailing of this News thread.

Add seasoning as required; and as expected.

With the release of AoS, they provided free rules and said they were open to feedback.

Since then they've made:
- Comments to clear up if Stormcasts can be male or female (yes)

When did they offically state this as not seen it byond a BL authors blog?

In addition, Shane, using that as your first example doesn't exactly fill me with hope that they're straightening up their clattering heap.

 Vermis wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr Morden wrote:

I'll make this comment and leave it at that before I push the derailing of this News thread.

Add seasoning as required; and as expected.

With the release of AoS, they provided free rules and said they were open to feedback.

Since then they've made:
- Comments to clear up if Stormcasts can be male or female (yes)

When did they offically state this as not seen it byond a BL authors blog?

In addition, Shane, using that as your first example doesn't exactly fill me with hope that they're straightening up their clattering heap.

That was first because I've just read that chapter of the new campaign book. It's also not a game changer but it's something in regards to a possible climate change down there. But this is my last comment to get back on topic.

AoS got me playing GW games again... and an AoS 40k might get me playing 40k again. But only if they completely and totally rewrite the rules.

Da Butcha wrote:
the person who does lay out for GW super-pricey rulebooks gets actual game benefits for doing so, as they can use the formations with all the extra bonuses.

So it would be LITERALLY pay to win? No thanks. I'd rather 40k just get mechanically sigmared. The fluff can stay or go. I prefer AoS background to the old world so I wouldn't mind an overhaul but the current setting, with all its holes and uncreative grimdark for the sake of grimdark, is okay too.

This would be awesome. You know why?
#1 40k/9th Age Fanbased rulebook
#2 I save lots of money and time when I quit this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
#3 An opportunity to "short" a foreign stock... GW PLC when they feth up the company's bread and butter game. Coke Classic vs New Coke for all you 80s children. Lets make our #1 selling beverage taste more like the #2 selling beverage. Doesnt that seem similar?

 doktor_g wrote:
This would be awesome. You know why?
#1 40k/9th Age Fanbased rulebook

Not sure if this will come true
While the Fantasy Community has always been more open minded about house rules, the 40k community of some country’s is very strict and will not accept anything which is not from GW, (doesn't matte how bad the rules are).

But maybe years of work will finally have a chance to reach some more people out there before everyone switch back to "the new rules are not so bad as everybody say"

puree wrote:

I don't understand why some people can't see that it is very easy to ignore/modify rules to suit a narrative, but almost impossible to introduce rules where none exist.

I keep seeing this argument. It is tripe. Adding rules and removing/modifying rules are exactly as easy or as difficult as each other. They are fundamentally the same thing - changing the way the game plays for some reason. In both cases someone has to come up with the change and a reason it will make a good game then persuade someone to play that.

Come up with rule you want to delete/modify/add.
Discuss with opponent.

If the other guy will happily discuss removing or modifying stuff then it is just as likely he will happily discuss adding stuff. If he won't add stuff 'cos he plays by the rules as they are then he probably won't remove/modify either.

As someone who regularly writes fan rules for the systems I like: total, utter manure.

I, as an individual and an amateur with no studio resources and no playtesters beyond a couple of mates, am not in any way even remotely capable of coming up with rules of the same quality as a company like GW if they actually try. And even if I and most other people actually could just fart out an entire, balanced, system-wide army selection system complete with points values for hundreds of units across over a dozen factions, pretending that doing so would only require as much effort as it takes to put together a single, short, unbalanced scenario for thematic/"historical" campaign games is a joke.

And you must know that, it's impossible to not know that, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that you're just being willfully disingenuous.

I sincerely hope that this "no points formation" idea is GW's way of resurrecting W40K Apocalypse.

It's brilliant. It's exactly what they can do / need to do to make Apocalypse relevant again.

Imagine... W40K Apocalypse played with no point formations only... OMG, it would be amazing.

 oni wrote:
I sincerely hope that this "no points formation" idea is GW's way of resurrecting W40K Apocalypse.

It's brilliant. It's exactly what they can do / need to do to make Apocalypse relevant again.

Imagine... W40K Apocalypse played with no point formations only... OMG, it would be amazing.

As someone else brought this up also, the question still remain.. What would this possibly change? Math is hard and thats what makes points a problem? There is no functional difference in balance between restricting points vs restricting # of formations.

A formation of a Warhound titan is better than a terrible baneblade for example. Its better in points and better when you restrict via formations.

Well, it'll be interesting if this happens. I've a pile of 40K stuff gathering dust from the last edition change, but if they go no-points, I'm pretty much done.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I'd welcome the end times and the removal of points. Makes things much much easier.

Not for you.

certainly it does. No points, no hassle. Much easier for a game.

You can't do that already with your friends?

Because there'd be a hell of a lot fewer pick up games of 40k if that went through.

 Azazelx wrote:
Because there'd be a hell of a lot fewer pick up games of 40k if that went through.

Or games of 40k in general. With no points the game is an unplayable mess. The only thing giving people any hope of having a fun game would be the memory of what things used to cost giving at least a rough estimate of what they should cost in the new game.

The game is already an unplayable mess.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
The game is already an unplayable mess.

This. I've completely given up on 40k.

 Kirasu wrote:

 oni wrote:
I sincerely hope that this "no points formation" idea is GW's way of resurrecting W40K Apocalypse.

It's brilliant. It's exactly what they can do / need to do to make Apocalypse relevant again.

Imagine... W40K Apocalypse played with no point formations only... OMG, it would be amazing.

As someone else brought this up also, the question still remain.. What would this possibly change? Math is hard and thats what makes points a problem? There is no functional difference in balance between restricting points vs restricting # of formations.

A formation of a Warhound titan is better than a terrible baneblade for example. Its better in points and better when you restrict via formations.

Well, you can do different types of formations to use an example of a potential way of balancing.

That Warhound Titan could be a "Legendary Formation" while the Baneblade could be something else entirely.

Removing pts wouldn't be so bad. You could just use MSRP instead. Instead of exchanging army lists you would just exchange receipts. You could even do away with all the dice rolling and moving models around. Just total up the receipts and whoever has the highest number wins.