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.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:



Switching to round bases. CCG like unit "combos." Free (or mostly free) access to the rules. Scenario orientated victory conditions/objectives. Smaller starting game size. I'm sure rules compendiums that are an optional purchase but useful reference are in our near future too.

I'm not saying they're doing it exactly the same (and I'm not saying they're doing it well!) but it feels to me like someone has looked at how Warmachine has grown and Fantasy hasn't and decided to ape it.

Just, as already mentioned, they've tried to copy it without really understanding it.

"Switching to round bases" - like their other game already has...not sure how that is aping PP

This is about AoS - is switching their fantasy game to round bases more or less like Warmachine?

"CCG like unit "combos" - You mean units boosting other units in some way shape or form to make them more effective? Yeah, GW hasn't been doing that for years (even without psychic powers) in 40k and to a lesser extent fantasy

Yep, and those things required a specialist unit and often a whole other phase. Now there's lots of bonuses built right into the units, just like Warmachine.

"Free (or mostly free) access to the rules" - Show me where PP's rules are completely free? Or all their unit entries are free? Sounds like GW is actually taking more of a page from CMoN than PP if they are copying anyone.

Where did I say ALL rules for free? Equally I didn't say they were copying them exactly in all things. You get the rules for each unit in the box, you don't have to pay extra, and I believe you get a rulebook in the faction starters? Warmachine requires a much lower investment in compulsory rule books than old Fantasy, and AoS does also.

"Scenario oriented victory conditions" - Something that already exists in the games the company has produced.

Never said it didn't, but it's something that occurs more frequently in WM than it did in Old Fnatasy, and is now more of a thing in AoS

"Smaller starting game size" - How is this a PP thing? GW did "true skirmish" way back and then went to mass battle. GW didn't invent it but don't act like PP did.

It's a "PP thing" because PP do it, and before AoS GW really didn't. What they used to do has no bearing on what they're doing, and what they've done is reinvent one of their main lines that just happens to bear a remarkable resemblance in terms of model count to their largest competitor in that sphere.

I don't think GW is copying PP. I think the things you claim are copying are things they've pretty much done off an on over the 30+ years they've been producing games (outside of free rules, that one is completely new). Again, not that they invented it just that it's been something they've been doing for a while. And that they just designed a system they best feel will sell models and make it easy to make purchases.

Sure, that's possible, it could all be a massive coincidence.

Personally I just can't get into Warmachine/Hordes. Part of it is the local scene. Part of it is the models (looks and materials). And part of it is I just don't have the time to play a game that changes that often at a competitive level (and I'd want to be competitive if I play WM/H). Rules are good from what I hear and people enjoy it but it's not for me. Granted not all GW games are for me either as I just didn't play 8th Fantasy but do play 40k fairly regularly and like the look of AoS. Trick is finding games that I can play locally with others without buying and painting 2-3 armies myself

I have a similar attitude, but I've no intent of getting into AoS either and right now I'm tired of 40K. The beauty is that there's loads of other stuff out there I'm keen to try/am playing!

Wonderwolf wrote:
Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.

Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.

Spoiler:

Of course it's Johnson.

I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.

Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.

I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

I think what a lot of people, including GW, miss is that not everyone that goes to tournaments goes just for the competition or to play the most mathed out solution they can find from a given army list. Plenty of people go because they want to enjoy playing the game and indulging in the hobby with other enthusiasts, and ensuring that your game rules facilitate a balanced and level playing field so that players of all levels and ambition can have a great time* fielding (broadly speaking) the models that they like encourages people to attend these events and spend money on your product.

*Sure I'm early rounds you can get a disparate difference in player skill, but at least later rounds should shake that out

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.

I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.

If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.

 Azreal13 wrote:

...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...

Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.

 Talys wrote:

 keezus wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.

There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.

This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs. Plague rats, too! They were nice, cheap, stupid decks for the everyday player. When MtG launched, it was ubercasual, the instructions were very simple (now look at the volume of errata, lol), and there were a bazillion cheap ways to make the game unplayable. Even some great, "I go, you die, ha ha!" combos with a good draw.

It actually took quite a while before there were such restrictions, officially

Didn't prevent us from going crazy buying truckloads of boosters, lol.

You seem to have a very different memory of the launch of Magic than I do - the Ante made people pretty damned cutthroat - which is the opposite of 'ubercasual'.

Mind you, I played Alpha - and didn't like it... the game felt like a money sink.

The Auld Grump

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...

Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.

Where did he say they invented them?

All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Where did he say they invented them?

All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.

You're right. My issue, though, was with the attitude that this was aping them as if they were the only ones doing it. The majority of skirmish games these days feature all of those elements.

 infinite_array wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.

Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.

Spoiler:

Of course it's Johnson.

I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.

Back in the day, he wanted Warhammer to be entirely scenario driven, with GW selling the scenarios.

In his defense, some of those early Warhammer scenarios were a lot of fun - Lichemaster, MacDeath... I enjoyed the heck out of those scenarios.

I believe, but am not certain, that the points were first introduced so that folks could create their own scenarios... instead you had folks skipping the scenarios, and going straight for two armies slaughtering each other.

That said - my biggest problem with Mr. Johnson has long been his poor consideration of balance. (His desire to maintain the Specialist Games line regained him those lost points, and then some.)

I suspect that the next half year will do well for GW (Not the one that will get its report next week - the one after.)

Maybe the one after that, as well... but I do not see AoS having legs much beyond that.

Still, it shores Kirby up for the Shareholders for a year or so....

The Auld Grump

 Grimtuff wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...

Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.

Where did he say they invented them?

All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.

But there's nothing specifically PP in those changes. So saying they're copying PP when many other games (Including GW games) do the same thing is inaccurate at best.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.

I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.

If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.

Apparently talys, you are having the wrong kind of fun. :(

Deadnight wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.

I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.

If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.

Apparently talys, you are having the wrong kind of fun. :(

Wow, totally not what I was going for.

Deadnight, you've done nothing but misread, and misinform in this entire thread, I give your posts no credence, and hence shouldn't even be responding to you, but nonetheless, here is what I was aiming to say.

You're entirely welcome to have story-based gameplay, no one is stopping you (points costs aren't stopping you - just ignore them)

But to say that a great majority of people don't enjoy tournament gaming is a farce. A *lot* of people enjoy tournament gaming *and* casual gaming too. And can get both from the old systems, like 40K can WHFB(not AoS)

But GW have, in recent years, destroyed 40K to the point where heavy comp rules are needed to maintain balance and keep everything fun for everyone. Why is it so impossible for GW to maintain balance?

They acknowledge that people like playing tournaments, but want no privey to it, and thus begins the exodus... Some of us are just about ready to jump off this sinking ship if it continues to go sink and shows no signs of improvement.

Nothing is stopping you from enjoying scenario based gaming, to play out a scenario you don't exactly *need* points costs, so just ignore them. As I'm sure you've done for years.

No one is saying your fun is wrong or you can't have fun, but why must your fun conquer and eradicate mine?

In my view Jervis Johnson's "no points" crusade is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

@Auld Grump - other than the first 2 MtG tournaments I went to, I never played a MtG game with ante. And then I played stupid decks like plague rats that had a high win ratio without losing anything good. I think ante was a horrible idea . So did TOs, because ante was removed very early on in our scene (didn't even make it to beta iirc).

@Deadnight - apparently :( Plague conveniently ignored the part where I said that a fame system should be designed to accommodate both types of fun, where possible or offer a dual track system where 2 sets of similar rules can be used in 2 scenes.

It's so wierd... I think gamers that like stuff I don't are just people with different tastes, but some people think that folks like me should get with the program or do something other than mini wargames

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.

I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.

Bolded and underlined the relevant part.

Without any data we can't really say which is in greater demand. I tend to think "hypercompetitive" probably isn't a huge group, but I'd say "casual competitive" is probably a huge chunk of people (people who don't enter tournaments and don't cry if they lose but still want a game that is solid and balanced out of the box).

But either way it doesn't really matter because you can cater for both without sacrificing the other if you pay even just a small amount of attention to writing decent rules.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

...round bases...
...bonuses built right into the units...
... the rules for each unit in the box...
...Scenario oriented victory conditions...
...Smaller starting game size...

Who can name a system other than PP who's used these things in the last 15 years? ...nah, you're right. PP must've invented all of those things.

Where did he say they invented them?

All that was said was AoS is merely aping WMH. Nothing more.

But there's nothing specifically PP in those changes. So saying they're copying PP when many other games (Including GW games) do the same thing is inaccurate at best.

But that's not my point.

They're things AoS is that WHFB wasn't and all these things also happen to be features of Warmachine.

I'm not saying they've copied some original idea that PP had that had never before occurred in the history of man, just that AoS has moved towards Warmachine in several notable respects that weren't present in Fantasy.

 infinite_array wrote:

Of course it's Johnson.

I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.

In fairness he did write Epic:Armageddon (complete with points values) so he can at least do something right.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm not saying they've copied some original idea that PP had that had never before occurred in the history of man, just that AoS has moved towards Warmachine in several notable respects that weren't present in Fantasy.

Too bad they didn't copy the idea of good rules.

Talys wrote:@Auld Grump - other than the first 2 MtG tournaments I went to, I never played a MtG game with ante. And then I played stupid decks like plague rats that had a high win ratio without losing anything good. I think ante was a horrible idea . So did TOs, because ante was removed very early on in our scene (didn't even make it to beta iirc).

@Deadnight - apparently :( Plague conveniently ignored the part where I said that a fame system should be designed to accommodate both types of fun, where possible or offer a dual track system where 2 sets of similar rules can be used in 2 scenes.

It's so wierd... I think gamers that like stuff I don't are just people with different tastes, but some people think that folks like me should get with the program or do something other than mini wargames

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.

I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.

Bolded and underlined the relevant part.

Without any data we can't really say which is in greater demand. I tend to think "hypercompetitive" probably isn't a huge group, but I'd say "casual competitive" is probably a huge chunk of people (people who don't enter tournaments and don't cry if they lose but still want a game that is solid and balanced out of the box).

But either way it doesn't really matter because you can cater for both without sacrificing the other if you pay even just a small amount of attention to writing decent rules.

Apparently both of you missed my response to Deadnight. Here you go.

PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
Nonetheless, tournament gaming is in huge demand. Otherwise you wouldn't have loads of people trying to comp your system for tournament usage. There's obviously more of a demand for it than casual games like AoS.

That tournament or competitive play constitutes the majority is an assumption or hypothesis, not a fact. People who play at home, in a store, or in a gaming club likewise think theirs is the majority (and certainly the group that should be catered to) without any basis in fact.

I am of like mind to Jervis Johnson philosophically (not exactly, but close enough) and personally eschew tournaments and hypercompetitive play for tabletop miniatures; I think I am representative of a significant number of players in that respect. However, I also believe that a gaming system ought to be written in a way that has the option of being played in either fashion.

If you want a RPG, go play an RPG, some of us want tactical depth and Mass Battle wargames. And more of us would like tournament style gaming too.

Apparently talys, you are having the wrong kind of fun. :(

Wow, totally not what I was going for.

Deadnight, you've done nothing but misread, and misinform in this entire thread, I give your posts no credence, and hence shouldn't even be responding to you, but nonetheless, here is what I was aiming to say.

You're entirely welcome to have story-based gameplay, no one is stopping you (points costs aren't stopping you - just ignore them)

But to say that a great majority of people don't enjoy tournament gaming is a farce. A *lot* of people enjoy tournament gaming *and* casual gaming too. And can get both from the old systems, like 40K can WHFB(not AoS)

But GW have, in recent years, destroyed 40K to the point where heavy comp rules are needed to maintain balance and keep everything fun for everyone. Why is it so impossible for GW to maintain balance?

They acknowledge that people like playing tournaments, but want no privey to it, and thus begins the exodus... Some of us are just about ready to jump off this sinking ship if it continues to go sink and shows no signs of improvement.

Nothing is stopping you from enjoying scenario based gaming, to play out a scenario you don't exactly *need* points costs, so just ignore them. As I'm sure you've done for years.

No one is saying your fun is wrong or you can't have fun, but why must your fun conquer and eradicate mine?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Whatever Rick Priestley might have thought/may think, Jervis Johnson has been hitting the "no-points"-line for literally decades now, just as he's said that early GW ventures into tournaments were (in his mind) a mistake.

Not that the commercial stars aligning wouldn't have helped, but this is Jervis Johnson's crusade since, well, forever.

Spoiler:

Of course it's Johnson.

I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.

Back in the day, he wanted Warhammer to be entirely scenario driven, with GW selling the scenarios.

In his defense, some of those early Warhammer scenarios were a lot of fun - Lichemaster, MacDeath... I enjoyed the heck out of those scenarios.

I believe, but am not certain, that the points were first introduced so that folks could create their own scenarios... instead you had folks skipping the scenarios, and going straight for two armies slaughtering each other.

That said - my biggest problem with Mr. Johnson has long been his poor consideration of balance. (His desire to maintain the Specialist Games line regained him those lost points, and then some.)

I suspect that the next half year will do well for GW (Not the one that will get its report next week - the one after.)

Maybe the one after that, as well... but I do not see AoS having legs much beyond that.

Still, it shores Kirby up for the Shareholders for a year or so....

The Auld Grump

If GW had gone down the narrative and scenario based play route from 2nd ed 40k and whatever edition fantasy was on they would be a very different beast to what they are now.

Jarvis would be very happy mind.

AoS could be a great example IF forging the narrative wasn't an excuse for poor rules writing and lack of balance. Free rules do not excuse having to resolve poor writing. I would go as far to say that forging the narrative is now a derogatory term used by GW and held in barely concealed contempt by a company whose primary purpose is just to sell models to collectors.

As long as they keep selling those models though.

If their primary function is to sell models, why are they still called "*Games* Workshop?"

It's almost satire at this point.

They're changing the shops to "Warhammer" remember?

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
If their primary function is to sell models, why are they still called "*Games* Workshop?"

It's almost satire at this point.

Well, they are changing some store names to 'Warhammer'. If this roll out is successful and continues you may end up with Warhammer PLC as the company name.

 Talys wrote:
@Auld Grump - other than the first 2 MtG tournaments I went to, I never played a MtG game with ante. And then I played stupid decks like plague rats that had a high win ratio without losing anything good. I think ante was a horrible idea . So did TOs, because ante was removed very early on in our scene (didn't even make it to beta iirc).

Well, it was officially in the Beta and first production of MtG - some people really liked the idea of Ante... and others refused to play in games with an Ante. (Often after losing something like a Black Lotus when the other guy's Ante was a Plains....)

Just was not my cuppa... but 'ubercasual' just does not describe the local scene, at all.

The Auld Grump

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

Of course it's Johnson.

I wonder if the guy drinks himself to sleep at night, or is just so deluded that his time at the office is spent talking to cardboard cut-outs of the Perry Bros, Ansell, Priestly and the others.

In fairness he did write Epic:Armageddon (complete with points values) so he can at least do something right.

I think he's suffering form a George Lucas-level of freedom within GW these days. Before, his bad ideas were reined in by people who could steer things in the right direction.

With all of the previous creatives gone and GW struggling to find a way to save their original flagship product, Johnson was probably given a lot more freedom to do as he saw fit to save WHFB. Of course, if they did some market research and checked into some of the main reasons why WHFB was actually struggling (i.e. over-bloated games), then we might have had a more happy medium of AOS. Instead, some decent ideas are being sunk by something that eschews many of the concepts of the gaming experience, and not necessarily for the better.

 PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
If their primary function is to sell models, why are they still called "*Games* Workshop?"

It's almost satire at this point.

Sounds better than, 'Miniatures Workshop'?

I bet you PP doesn't employ a single Privateer or write games about privateers. I'm sure the entire privateer community us outraged!

PlaguelordHobbyServices wrote:
I forsee a big deal coming about this, If Mierce Miniatures decides to do to GW what GW likes to do to everyone else, then GW may, in fact, have to eat humble pie and change the name *again*

I can see it turning out the way when GW tried it on CH, though.

I think Jervis slightly overdramatises things in that article. (and I've been reading Rick's similar thoughts in W:SS) I can sympathise with the stance that scenarios and narrative could play a bigger part in the hobby, but I'm not so sure about some of his other protests. For example, that wargaming is essentially 'storytelling', one step removed from RPGs. There's an element there, but RPGs are basically co-operative play in the storyline that the GM's organised, with plenty of possible non-combative situations. In wargaming... yeah. Combative competition between two or more players is where it's at. Chess isn't about black and white teaming up to explore the backgammon board, with the knights making almost-pithy comments about the shortcomings of rooks, or summat. Even when you're having casual, gentlemanly, knockabout games with the Perry twins and having a civilised chat afterwards about who did the best achieving their objectives, even without direct engagement of minis, you're still chatting about who had competed best. That's not RPG-style storytelling to me.

And to be honest, with or without scenarios, I'm not so sure 'that one time you got a really really good roll at that critical point' is that much of a well-crafted page-turner. I don't know if dice are that good an author. (If a thousand dice were rolled at a thousand typewriters...?)

I'd say my sympathies still lie with some of the people Jervis castigates as 'competitive'. Yes, the fluff for a game can be great. (That's part of GW's lasting appeal, Lobo.) You can choose your own faction of 'protagonists', with their own look and history. You can imagine them entering a new story when you set up a scenario, or even line 'em up on one table edge. But when (or while, or even before) they're lined up or waiting for a desperate last stand, I imagine most people would like to write the story themselves, or at least try, by directing their troops and heroes the way they see fit; rather than leave all the outcomes and valiant victories to what any two gamers just happen to have in their cases, or to the random dice roll. That'd be like being engrossed by the tense battle of wills in snakes 'n' ladders. Meaningless! And I think that's what'll finally dawn on a lot of gamers with AoS. At the mo it's just digging things out of a case and throwing dice. With scenarios... I dunno. I have a nasty feeling they'll end up being either too restrictive in their rosters, or nicely printed shopping lists. I might be wrong, but with even Jervis' lofty ideals, refracted through the GW prism...

So, like it or not, an awful lot of players are in this hobby for some level of competition, to test themselves, even in 'storytelling'. And the point (pun unashamedly intended) is that balanced points can play a part at even the most relaxed and fluffy of those levels, as a handy yardstick to prevent a complete kerbstomp. And as folk here have long said, nicely balanced points in a game that's not all about listbuilding could encourage themed, fluffy, storytelly army building, if the low-tier stuff isn't all that much worse than what TFGs and tourney preppers normally hunt out. Would it encourage scenarios? I dunno. But then I get the feeling that two armies lined up across a field is a fairly standard and perfectly satisfactory battle scenario for pseudo-medievals anyway.

I used to be very competitive in Warhammer 40k -- for many years, in fact -- so I know exactly what the thought process is like. The reasons that, over time, I became a much less competitive player are:

1. The number of players you're likely to meet locally are pretty small, so finding people of similar skill levels and with comparably-sized armies can be difficult.

2. This is greatly exacerbated by my desire to play with friends rather than strangers. Even if a guy I really enjoy playing with is a crappy player, I still want the game to be close.

3. Too often the games are lopsided because of lists, so instead of a game skill, you get a game of listbuilding.

4. In a game that takes 4+ hours to play, I don't want to blow my time on a game where I can foresee the outcome early on, whether due to skill or list.

5. I started wargaming when the Internet was in its nascent years; I think at the time, I had just upgraded to a 2400 baud modem, and it was more about BBS's than the WWW. As the Internet became more ubiquitous and Internet gaming got better, I found that the competitive experience online was just infinitely better, primarily due to matchmaking.

6. Over the years, I put a lot more emphasis on nicely painted minis as models rather than as game pieces. So I get the desire to use a model as a game piece; it's just not how I see them anymore, primarily -- I'm playing with models I built, not modelling a pieces to play in a game.

Still, as I said, I think it's possible to build systems that mostly accommodate both groups and makes everyone happy. The competitive version can simply restrict some of the crazier stuff that might be exciting scenario-wise, or model-awesome-wise, but plays badly.