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 tend to think about this issue along these lines:

 Manchu wrote:
One way to think about game design is as a spectrum between competitive and simulative. Competitive games are obviously played to find out who wins. Competitive game design thus tends to emphasize player agency: the players have a large degree of direct control over what happens during the game. Simulative games, by contrast, are played to find out what happens. Such games tend to put mechanical obstacles between the players' intentions and how things actually play out.

When I lose a competitive game, I mainly think "okay I need to practice and get better." This is because the primary point of competitive gaming is to demonstrate skill/measure who has greater skill. When I lose a simulative game, by contrast, my reaction is all about "wow that was a blast, it was so cool how that one combat turned out and I really thought it would go the other way on the left," etc.

 marlowc wrote:

Sadly, its not that simple. Thorough playtesting tends to highlight the fact that the points value of a unit has to be changed according to the situation that it is fighting in.

Never said it was simple. But a lot of those 'situations' boil down to 'using it right'. Costing an ant tank battery Based on it's ability to take on infantry because you positioned it wrong is a bit silly. Other factors like terrain can be accounted for and mitigated. That's what playtesting is for.

Points are one tool. Amongst many. Sideboards, multiple lists, scenarios, various win conditions, unit and army structures and limits, defined terrain placement, use and set up, and tools like soft countering (eg a human based game like infinity, even a guy armed with only a pistol can bring down a heavy infantry unit; meaning when everything is essentially 'lethal', things become far less problematic).

And mirror matches aside, I'd personally like to know the error ratio of creating 'good matches' in aos's structure-less and point less system as a conparison before we talk about points being pointless. Because as much as I like and approve of 'putting down what's apprpriate, and what fits within the context of the theme and scenario', there is a lot of ways to go wrong...

 infinite_array wrote:
And second, that Warwick Kinrade states that he's in Jervis' camp, and yet his relatively successful Battlegroup ruleset for WWII has a points system - and errata correcting points values - and so does his new Soldiers of God rules.

I think BG includes points for the sake of folks who, in the infamous words of that anonymous GW employee, feel like they need points to be successful. But the actual point of BG, the perspective from which it was designed, was to get WW2 models from enormous existing collections on the table simulating historical or historically-inspired events.

I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

Oh I agree -- and then some! List building is almost like a separate mini-game but it often comes to dominate the actual roll-dice-and-move-minis gameplay. A friend of mine jokes that 40k tourneys should just feature submitting lists. The same friend absolutely insists this is not true of WM/H.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

Deadnight wrote:
And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

It won't be a problem if the players in question actually find such a force interesting.

Okay, I looked up what a Bloodthirster is. Wow! There are even three different kinds so you'll be able to have some variety in the list. Whatever happens, that's going to be a pretty crazy battle! Impressive for the spectacle, if nothing else.

I think you are going to need a big table.

People keep bringing up the 10 Bloodthirsters etc thing.

My thoughts on that:

- That's an expensive investment, and I've never met a person with that many copies of one large model. I think AoS discourages using stand-ins, which I think is a great thing. Either you have the models and can use them, or you don't.

- It could actually be fun to have, say, 5-8 large monsters/characters on one side and then a horde of goblins or what have you on the other side. A goblin village is under siege from giant daemons, a horde of dwarfs seeking treasure end up battling monsters deep in a mountain, a few powerful characters attempt to hold off a skeleton army, etc.

Why are any of these fun, scenario-driven games impossible in a version of AoS that has points? Without points these are possible, but players who wanted points are left to their own devices. With points, these are still possible AND players who like points can enjoy those too. GW pretty much said "why get the best of both worlds when we can get the best of only one world?" To be clear, I am not speaking against those who like games better without points. I just opposite the idea that these things weren't available in 8th, 7th, or any previous edition that had a balance mechanism.

So, to answer the question posed in the thread title: No one 'needs' them, but the game would please more people (and thus sell better) if they were present.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why are any of these fun, scenario-driven games impossible in a version of AoS that has points? Without points these are possible, but players who wanted points are left to their own devices. With points, these are still possible AND players who like points can enjoy those too. GW pretty much said "why get the best of both worlds when we can get the best of only one world?" To be clear, I am not speaking against those who like games better without points. I just opposite the idea that these things weren't available in 8th, 7th, or any previous edition that had a balance mechanism.

So, to answer the question posed in the thread title: No one 'needs' them, but the game would please more people (and thus sell better) if they were present.

I do agree that if you put everything in a pot and people can take whatever they want out of it, technically you are providing more options. And on the other hand, by providing less framework, technically you are allowing even more options for people to come up with as well. The shift here has not been one of limiting or expanding options necessarily, but changing the intent. That matters a lot when it comes to the customer engaging with your product.

It was not a choice of best of both worlds or best of one world. Points created one world, especially in business terms. I don't think points helped sales. Points destroyed the work of the artists and the much more expensive side of the business (model making as opposed to rules making) as all that mattered in the end was the points value. No limit of money could be poured into a unit, and if the points were too much, it was all to waste. Of course, this spurred things in the other direction, with higher sales for undercosted units.

Games Workshop recognizes that there is no marrying these worlds.

Now, where I think points were best, and what I think is a major element of the game that is now missing and this is a negative, is army building. People love creating army lists. Lots of people make army lists daily and never play a game. It's fun. I love it too. I want to see that element in AoS. But I don't know how you do it without going right back to a system that caused all of the other problems in the first place.

burningstuff wrote:

It was not a choice of best of both worlds or best of one world. Points created one world, especially in business terms. I don't think points helped sales. Points destroyed the work of the artists and the much more expensive side of the business (model making as opposed to rules making) as all that mattered in the end was the points value. No limit of money could be poured into a unit, and if the points were too much, it was all to waste. Of course, this spurred things in the other direction, with higher sales for undercosted units.

What?

I mean, really? What?

I've some some pretty big re-writes of GW's supposed "history" with the release of AoS, but I'm pretty sure this takes the cake.

I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop. Points and rules cause some models to become obsolete, so no one buys them or uses them.

This is seen in 40k. People find the few powerbuilds or deathstars their armies were designed around and don't waste time or resources on marginal units.

Usually GW would re-write a codex every 5 years and many marginal units become good, and vice versa, to keep the sale of models flowing.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop.

If these models were being sculpted by hand, I might agree. But since GW has moved to 3D scultping, it's far, far easier to design these sculpts than I think he believes.

 Manchu wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
And second, that Warwick Kinrade states that he's in Jervis' camp, and yet his relatively successful Battlegroup ruleset for WWII has a points system - and errata correcting points values - and so does his new Soldiers of God rules.

I think BG includes points for the sake of folks who, in the infamous words of that anonymous GW employee, feel like they need points to be successful. But the actual point of BG, the perspective from which it was designed, was to get WW2 models from enormous existing collections on the table simulating historical or historically-inspired events.

From Kinrade himself, on the subject;

"The game can be played either with historical scenarios (several and a campaign are included in the book) or as a points based game. As the army lists are structured to force a player into historical style lists and balanced combined arms units, you tend to get forces that look ‘right’ for the period rather than ‘Uber’ armies. The army lists are well balanced for fighting against each other. Coupled with a generic set of scenarios that are well designed to give maximum replay value and are not your usual ‘line ‘em all up’ affairs, they give points game that feel far more like historical scenarios."

Look at that. Balance and points? Who would've thought.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop. Points and rules cause some models to become obsolete, so no one buys them or uses them.

This is seen in 40k. People find the few powerbuilds or deathstars their armies were designed around and don't waste time or resources on marginal units.

Usually GW would re-write a codex every 5 years and many marginal units become good, and vice versa, to keep the sale of models flowing.

This is a great argument for why removing points was a bad business decision. A model is overpowered = it sells more to players who like it on a points basis. Players who just liked the model for other reasons still bought it. A model is underpowered = it sells only to players who like it for non-points reasons. Now, players who bought models for points reasons are out of the picture, replaced with... nothing. The players who bought the model simply because they liked it will still buy it. They haven't eliminated the problem of a few models doing poorly because they perform poorly in the points meta, they have decided to put ALL models in that category because there are no points. Effectively, all models are now equivalent to those that weren't worth their points before.

 infinite_array wrote:

burningstuff wrote:

It was not a choice of best of both worlds or best of one world. Points created one world, especially in business terms. I don't think points helped sales. Points destroyed the work of the artists and the much more expensive side of the business (model making as opposed to rules making) as all that mattered in the end was the points value. No limit of money could be poured into a unit, and if the points were too much, it was all to waste. Of course, this spurred things in the other direction, with higher sales for undercosted units.

What?

I mean, really? What?

I've some some pretty big re-writes of GW's supposed "history" with the release of AoS, but I'm pretty sure this takes the cake.

I'm guessing that GW's physical product line is where it spends most of its money. It doesn't matter if they were sculpted by hand or not.

 infinite_array wrote:
From Kinrade himself, on the subject;

"The game can be played either with historical scenarios (several and a campaign are included in the book) or as a points based game. As the army lists are structured to force a player into historical style lists and balanced combined arms units, you tend to get forces that look ‘right’ for the period rather than ‘Uber’ armies. The army lists are well balanced for fighting against each other. Coupled with a generic set of scenarios that are well designed to give maximum replay value and are not your usual ‘line ‘em all up’ affairs, they give points game that feel far more like historical scenarios."

Please appreciate that you are quoting a pitch. The opposing forces in historical conflicts are not the product of balance-oriented design, after all. Thinking critically, we must conclude that game design can therefore prioritize either historicity or balance. I have no doubt Mr. Kinrade gave more than a passing thought to the latter. But from what I understand, the former was and is more important.

 infinite_array wrote:
Look at that. Balance and points? Who would've thought.

I don't think anyone is suggesting points and balance don't go together.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think what he is trying to say is that artists work hard to create beautiful models, both of which cost a significant investment from Games Workshop. Points and rules cause some models to become obsolete, so no one buys them or uses them.

This is seen in 40k. People find the few powerbuilds or deathstars their armies were designed around and don't waste time or resources on marginal units.

Usually GW would re-write a codex every 5 years and many marginal units become good, and vice versa, to keep the sale of models flowing.

Surely this is an argument for 'write better , more balanced rules'...

In 40K the points are unbalanced and the game structure allows players to find exploits which in many cases are so extreme as to be highly unbalancing.

One solution is properly balanced points and army structure. Other solutions are to create defined army lists, to randomise army lists within boundaries, or to use historical forces and balance by other means such as objectives.

GW have chosen a different solution, not to bother with balance at all. The dozen or more balancing systems that have already been created for AoS indicate that this solution is unsatisfactory to a lot of people.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

GW have chosen a different solution, not to bother with balance at all.

This really seems to be the crux of the issue. GW wrote rules for basic model interaction & an extremely basic "encounter" battle scenario, and aside from that, have abdicated responsibility for everything else to the players.

Balance, narrative framework, scenario design, force composition, army construction, etc is all the responsibility of the players, and that just doesn't work in a lot of cases (for a variety of reasons, from different gaming mindsets to time investment and more), and is what most people typically expect the rules to provide, at least to some degree.

The rules really just don't provide for much of anything beyond model interaction. They're not a very good story/narrative ruleset, they're not a good competitive ruleset, they're not a good pickup game ruleset, they're a paper-thin sandbox.

Well, put on the other shoe.

How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

How do you build a game so that someone can show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and play without feeling like they have no hope of winning against the person who shows up with the models that they built to beat you?

You do you build a game that allows reasonable allowances of allies and situationally unreasonable allowances (desperate times call for desperate measures!), without allowing craziness on the tabletop?

How do you build a game that is rich, deep, and complex, but is attractive to people who are currently non-wargamers, who are unlikely to have an interest in reading a long rulebook?

The easiest answer to all this is to just (a) assume the players are reasonable and (b) let them sort it out -- which is what AoS does. The question is, "are players reasonable"?

I don't think that even if the answer is yes to both, this is a game that "hardcore gamers" will ever love. But it will probably serve an underserviced (or unserviced?) segment of people previously only tangentially interested in miniatures or who were previously extremely dissatisfied with the competitive gaming meta.

 Manchu wrote:
Please appreciate that you are quoting a pitch. The opposing forces in historical conflicts are not the product of balance-oriented design, after all. Thinking critically, we must conclude that game design can therefore prioritize either historicity or balance. I have no doubt Mr. Kinrade gave more than a passing thought to the latter. But from what I understand, the former was and is more important.

Sorry, Manchu - even the books support my interpretation of the intention of the rules. Mr. Kinrade continues to talk about how battlegroups are not a player's whole collection, how the forces are written to allow for balance, etc. Unless the in-book examples are also simply "pitches"?

I don't think anyone is suggesting points and balance don't go together.

Really? Because because I've seen plenty of that in regards to AoS.

 Talys wrote:
Well, put on the other shoe.
How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

I don't know - but AoS certainly doesn't do that. See the oft-quoted Clanrat/Stormvermin example.

How do you build a game so that someone can show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and play without feeling like they have no hope of winning against the person who shows up with the models that they built to beat you?

On the other hand - how does someone show up with the models they enjoy modelling, and then are forced to put them away since the other player decided they really liked the looks of basic troops, and only brought 30 of them?

You do you build a game that allows reasonable allowances of allies and situationally unreasonable allowances (desperate times call for desperate measures!), without allowing craziness on the tabletop?

By intentionally building and testing said alliances?

How do you build a game that is rich, deep, and complex, but is attractive to people who are currently non-wargamers, who are unlikely to have an interest in reading a long rulebook?

I don't know - but apparently they have no problem going through pages after page of Warscrolls.

The easiest answer to all this is to just (a) assume the players are reasonable and (b) let them sort it out -- which is what AoS does. The question is, "are players reasonable"?

You mean what any wargame does. Seriously - AoS isn't some messianic ruleset that's the first to say, "Hey guys, let's talk to each other before the game - isn't that a crazy and novel idea?"

If you want to sell me overpriced minis, you'd better do your job and either create a reasonably balanced points system, or create better fluff and a giant compendium of scenarios to go without points.

Historicals can get away with this because on of their primary purposes was to recreate a semblance of historical battles.

But don't try to argue this is some artistic move by a multi-million dollar company who constantly goes on record as saying they have plenty of money in the bank, but refuses to use it to make a good product.

Points can, do, and always have worked just fine for creating a base level of balance framework, and it's worked across the spectrum of games, even historicals, throughout the industry. GW isn't trying to be special, they're trying to pass the work off to you so they save money.

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

I would totally play against twelve Bloodthirsters. That might even be more fun than a "balanced" game.


However, I want to point out that just asking this question demonstrates your mindset, which seems to presuppose everyone cares about whether they win or lose, or that the game is fair, or that the "outcome", that is which force survives more intact than the other, matters at all as far as enjoyment is concerned.

I don't feel that AOS caters to that mindset. Which is good for me, because I've had enough of it over the years.

 Talys wrote:

How do you create a game with models that range from peasant with pitchfork to God of Undead and quite literally everything in between, and in the context of a 30 model wargame make it so that every game can be a fair fight, and so that no model is marginalized?

No one sane would create such a game, nor would anyone sane expect it to be in anyway good.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

I agree that Games Workshop's point systems have been especially bad, but points are always going to have issues because they are context-free. To give an example from the Age of Sigmar boxed set, Blood Reavers are massively more powerful when a Bloodsecrator is nearby. If I take Blood Reavers in my army and don't take a Bloodsecrator, they are worth much less, but a points system does not represent this, and I don't think you can make a non-automated system that will represent this in a satisfactory way. Also, to a certain extent these are considered perks of a points system - that you can attempt to optimise your army within the points limit - and this perk is necessarily at odds with people wanting freedom in their army composition.

You are incorrect. You even said it yourself. You take blood reavers on their own, you pay x points. And they're good. You take blood reavers and a bloodsecrator for x plus y points. And they're better. You essentially pay a points 'tax' for an improvement.How does a points system not represent this?

The worth of a unit depends on what other units are in the army, what units are in the opponent's army, the scenario, the terrain on the table, and complex interactions between all of these, often in ways that are non-obvious. It is not possible to accurately derive a points value for a unit that takes all these factors into account.

(That said, maybe I'll bow out of any further discussion on whether No Points is Bad since the thread seems to be intended to revel in the joy of No Points. Which is awesome. Hooray no points! )

You show the defaulf table you've been playtesting on, then add guidelines for modyfing point limits according to changes in terrain and type of scenario in relation to the army list. It still won't be perfectly balanced but paired with a properly tactical rules it would just be enough for the game to be decided on wits instead of imbalances in army builds, something that will be rare in AoS.

Btw I love how many thread creators in AoS section try to put a "be positive or gtfo" disclaimer in the op. Quite telling about the game quality heh.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Why are any of these fun, scenario-driven games impossible in a version of AoS that has points? Without points these are possible, but players who wanted points are left to their own devices. With points, these are still possible AND players who like points can enjoy those too. GW pretty much said "why get the best of both worlds when we can get the best of only one world?" To be clear, I am not speaking against those who like games better without points. I just opposite the idea that these things weren't available in 8th, 7th, or any previous edition that had a balance mechanism.

So, to answer the question posed in the thread title: No one 'needs' them, but the game would please more people (and thus sell better) if they were present.

Points lead to lists, and a whole bunch of associated expectations. As someone who hates writing list, I love the idea of plunking down my collection of minis with some kind of story or scenario in mind and just having fun. A game with points is typically set up to play armies against each other with scenarios that are written around an idea of what a balanced force is.

I did play BFG without bothering with points, but certain friends just could not shake the idea that it was supposed to be a match or competition even when the forces were random. Nether could they enjoy the game, because for them the point of a game is to win. Fortunately, not all of them are like that. Even the competitive ones are less likely to get caught up in balance and tournament thinking if the game isn't even ostensibly set up for it.

Yeah... I'm gonna' call BS on "you can't points-balance in a variable context."

There are far more complex games /list building interactions than anything GW puts out that use points systems well. If you decently balance units without buffs and proportionally price pieces that interact with them with respect to how they buff (even if they stand alone decently but are only worth their whole value in their appropriate role), you'll end up with a reasonable points system. It's not some esoteric system of thousands of variables requiring a perfect system.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think a neat thing about not using points is it shifts the focus away from the army and towards the setting. It becomes less "what units do I need to make a strong army" and more "what units would let me represent battles I find interesting?"

And when that interesting list is twelve bloodthirsters?

I would totally play against twelve Bloodthirsters. That might even be more fun than a "balanced" game.


However, I want to point out that just asking this question demonstrates your mindset, which seems to presuppose everyone cares about whether they win or lose, or that the game is fair, or that the "outcome", that is which force survives more intact than the other, matters at all as far as enjoyment is concerned.

I don't feel that AOS caters to that mindset. Which is good for me, because I've had enough of it over the years.

presumptuous much?

read my posts bob. Im pretty much on board with the whole point-less, scenario driven and thematic style of game. its how we brew our Flames of War games. i just think AOS does it extremely poorly. lack of points is fine, but other structures help enormously.

what annoys me is people who seem to be claiming that AOS heralds in this wonderful type of game where you can slap down whatever you want and have fun. because of reasons and unicorns. Because this was never possible before. Simply fact is you could always do this by (a) playing with like minded individuals and (b) carefully crafting a scenario. historical players are chortling into their beards with all this - theyve been doing this for decades. AOS is not something new and wonderful. its just as prone to frustration and headache as any other game at the end of the day.

 infinite_array wrote:
Sorry, Manchu - even the books support my interpretation of the intention of the rules. Mr. Kinrade continues to talk about how battlegroups are not a player's whole collection, how the forces are written to allow for balance, etc. Unless the in-book examples are also simply "pitches"?

Possibly so. I'm not suggesting duplicity. Designers naturally tend to be partial to their own work. I am a bit suspicious you and I are probably just talking past one another somehow. Unless you are really saying the primary purpose of Battlegroup is tightly balanced tournament and pick-up style gaming.

 infinite_array wrote:

I don't think anyone is suggesting points and balance don't go together.

Really? Because because I've seen plenty of that in regards to AoS.

Seems like we are talking past one another here, too. I think most folks agree that points-based list building is a mechanic intended to foster balance. There is more disagreement as to whether points-based list building is an effective balancing mechanic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
certain friends just could not shake the idea that it was supposed to be a match or competition

Yes, this is the entrenched mentality that points-based list building establishes. Players tend to start thinking of the game primarily as a way to measure their skill at playing it. This concept in turn attracts people who find measuring their skill against one another to be the main source of fun in gaming, which of course leads to the entrenchment of the match mindset you mentioned. The ironic part is, it ultimately creates a sense of schizophrenia as match mindset gamers try to iron all the randomness out of a dice throwing game.