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.

No, I think the decision for a new system was driven by financial need as WFB was not making any money, rather than a dislike of tournament style gaming.

If a product line is losing money, then dumping it and rebranding with a new focus makes financial sense, especially if you need to recoup design and development costs for plastics.

Im not sure if having points or not makes a game quicker to design, though logic kinda says it should, but the systems I have worked on with no points had just as much playtesting done as those with points. Indeed with Force-on-Force by Ambush Alley Games (no inherent points system) we had 18 months of playtesting which compares directly to the 18 months initial testing we had before Battlegroup Kursk was released. It should be noted though that every book we release for Battlegroup has a minimum of six months playtest to iron out things, not just points but special rules etc. Some have even more... For our Blitzkreig (early WW2 book) I put back the release date by six months to make sure it was what we wanted. That gave us over 12 months playtesting on a single book.

For us, as two old farts doing the books, we can do such extended testing though it does effect us financially. I imagine for a company the size of GW the financial cost in delaying release and long extended playtest periods could give financial costs that have to be taken into account.

I dont know, just supposition on my part as its been a long time since I was at GW and Woz left a good few years ago too...

 Talys wrote:

Or do you think they believe that AoS would be more profitable without points, than with points?

What I know for sure is that players are confused with this system. The main problem that keeps coming on the table when you try to "sell the game" to your friends is exactly that; it is very difficult to have two "balanced" armies to have an interesting game in itself. The points were not perfect, but at least it was something. Here, there is not: the players have to do that themselves. And there are actually a lot of different systems - that aren't perfect as well.

In short, GW delegated their game designing work to their customers. Sure, the rules are free - but for now, it's a bit difficult to organize a play on the long term and players who were used to points for such a long time are rightfully a bit lost with AoS.

This is still new and people will need time to adapt/see if something change in the future (GW will certainly not, but the community can bring something more "unified" on their own, who knows).


I also remember the quote in army books from previous editions that stated why they use the points system and army limitations so that you can't take anything you want: so that you can have a more or less "balanced" army to play quicky with anyone. AoS is doing exactly the opposite; now you have to spend more time talking with your opponent so that the game you will play will be interesting to be played.

And that's time you do not spend to actually play.


Yes, AoS is really easy to customize and rather quick to play when you agree with your opponent. Still, if many games out there use the point system, it's not for naught as well...so, Jervis Johnson has an interesting view, but trouble is it's difficult to apply such a view to something else than playing only with your usual circle of players.

Time is always the issue in games. And always playing "house rules" has the disadvantage of having difficulties when you meet an "unknown player" who was used to different house rules than yours. That's why it's a horrible game for tournaments - game manifestations where the point is to meet a lot of different, unknown players outside of your regular circle.

From personal experience, points give a baseline for two players to use, but in practice they never seem balanced.

I frequently hear that this is the fault of GW not trying hard enough, and I agree that anyone looking at the cost in points versus table top effectiveness of the Gorkanaut versus the Eldar Wraithknight will notice that something isn't right.

Conversely, how much are five space marines with plasma guns worth, fighting a unit of Terminators? Now, how much are those five plasma guns worth, fighting a unit of Imperial Guard? The variety of units in the GW games and their effectiveness against one type of unit versus another makes them very hard to balance. Infinite points of basic imperial guardsmen can never destroy a 35 points rhino, unless they have the assault, special or heavy weapon upgrade that will allow them to do so, at which time that upgrade becomes nearly infinitely useful.

The effect that has had on my games of 40k over the years caused us to understand there were power imbalances between army lists due to one army getting more for their points than another, but suffering anyway because this was how it "officially" was, and it was an insult to the player of the weaker codex to give them extra points or some other handicap, because that would somehow be unfair.

I think the only working solution would be for all GW games point costs to be public, with the community endlessly posting how much they think unit X or Y is worth based on how it actually plays in the current meta. In lieu of that option, AoS just trusts that within a few games, you're going to know how valuable a given unit is versus your most common opponents, and the two of you will come to an agreement on how much they should get to field in response to that unit in your army.

It seems my working solution is the one most of us will end up with, as now numerous public composition groups have begun pointing up all of the units, complete with community input into which units should be more or less.

Point system is just a way to translate what is merely the "equivalent in game" in comparison with the other units/models, so that you can have something that seems "fair to play against". It was never meant to be perfect, just a tool to help players finding an agreement to play with each other.

AoS has nothing at all of that. Everything until now comes from the work of players. Which means players have to do more on their own so that they can play...and we know how lazy the players can be.

We'll see if that way is better or worse in a few months (for now, game is still new and need to have some time for the players to find something suitable on the long term - fun games that just keep having silly results have the risk of not becoming so fun if they get repetitive).

By the way, trying to make a system based on something other like the number of wounds is...a point system, where points are replaced by another term.

People talk of AoS being aimed for young people but I think taking away points is a big bet on the maturity of gamers.

The hyperbolic situations of turn 1 wins and 20 Bloodthirsters are only things actual children would try, as children are more interested in winning at all costs than creating a balanced game.

I'm glad points are gone because I think they bring with them a number of problems and wreak havoc with the other parts of GW's business. However, I do wish there was a little more structure to AoS units. I'd have liked to see some unit limits perhaps (such as Liberators 5-12 models, or what have you) that give you more of an idea of how to build your collection.

 Talys wrote:

In the context of AoS, if you took 300 peasants with pitchforks the system would warn you that you have a stupid army.

Of course, such a thing will not ever exist I don't think, anyhow.

The problem is not the fact that someone is stupid enough to buy 300 of bad models. The problem is someone ploping a unit of corrions, two phoenixs or something else that flies, and says they are done deploying.

I understand that GW reset WFB, because it sold bad. I get that and it was a wise thing to do. They even , well kind of, recognise what the problem with WFB was. The high entry point cost for an army. Starting armies at 2250 or more was a stupid thing. But turning it by 180 degrees does not help at all. It maybe good for GW, because more people will fall for the trap of play what you want, and other stupid slogans they have. But for someone who wants to play the game, what is the difference, if he gets beaten by a super demon army at 2250 or lizardman summoning list at no points.

burningstuff wrote:

I'm glad points are gone because I think they bring with them a number of problems and wreak havoc with the other parts of GW's business.

Having no points brings other unwanted problems, though. We already began to see them but there will be more in the following months, I'm afraid...

However, I do wish there was a little more structure to AoS units. I'd have liked to see some unit limits perhaps (such as Liberators 5-12 models, or what have you) that give you more of an idea of how to build your collection.

Then you won't be "free" anymore to take anything you want to play.

Setting the ball in the players' side is an understandable move and I see why GW is doing it. But then, if so many games still use something akind to a point system or at least set the models you have to use to play, it's for a very good reason...that is precisely lacking here, in AoS.

 Sarouan wrote:

burningstuff wrote:

I'm glad points are gone because I think they bring with them a number of problems and wreak havoc with the other parts of GW's business.

Having no points brings other unwanted problems, though. We already began to see them but there will be more in the following months, I'm afraid...

However, I do wish there was a little more structure to AoS units. I'd have liked to see some unit limits perhaps (such as Liberators 5-12 models, or what have you) that give you more of an idea of how to build your collection.

Then you won't be "free" anymore to take anything you want to play.

Setting the ball in the players' side is an understandable move and I see why GW is doing it. But then, if so many games still use something akind to a point system or at least set the models you have to use to play, it's for a very good reason...that is precisely lacking here, in AoS.

I like the army building side of the hobby and think GW should not totally depart from it. People love making lists, even if they don't play, and it encourages them to buy models. Points are too heavy handed and come with too many problems, in my opinion. If army building and lack of points can be married in some way, I'd be interested. The formation thing isn't my cup of tea, as I don't like being told exactly what to buy.

burningstuff wrote:

If army building and lack of points can be married in some way, I'd be interested.

That's what players are trying to do recently.

It really shows the statement "you can take any model you want" isn't really telling the truth; in fact, it can't work because of the same reasons two people can't agree on a topic they both take at heart but with different/opposite views. If you don't have the same referential core, you will unavoidably have different points of view. When you play with people with the same, it's fine. Trouble comes with those who do not...if it is not settled, it generally ends with people playing each in their own side within their own circle.

In short, we will not be playing the same game anymore - we will play different versions with different "house rules", because the original rules are too vague/not clear enough. Dislocation of Warhammer gaming community...that's what I'm afraid.

The formation thing isn't my cup of tea, as I don't like being told exactly what to buy.

Yes, but on the other hand, the formation is an interesting tool to have armies that make sense with the background and still have a "reward" in game to do so.

The main strength of Warhammer games was always the huge amount of choices (and, personnally, the fact you don't have to take a named /special character in your army, so that I can make "my own character" if I wish so). But that comes with a price...it's very difficult to balance such a game.

Here, it seems GW gives the balance to the players, directly. (well...not exactly, because I suspect there will be wacky OP rules in the warscrolls, anyway). Was it a wise idea or not? At least, the question has been asked. The answer will show up in the following months...

In many ways, GW's problems with fantasy and AOS are self-inflicted.

Let us not forget that this is a company that, in a previous edition of a Dark Elf army book, had a 1000 year old veteran, with spear, shield, light armour, and eternal hatred, priced the same as a toothless human with a spear...

Even when they were trying to balance a game, GW failed spectacularly.

With AOS, they've managed to annoy people who wanted a focus on scenarios AND people who wanted balanced, competitive play.

That takes some doing.

Big P wrote:

Im not sure if having points or not makes a game quicker to design, though logic kinda says it should, but the systems I have worked on with no points had just as much playtesting done as those with points.

Interesting.

Did those other games you mention have a different balancing mechanic?

I'm saying this because I've played some cool games that didn't use points, but had some other way of achieving a game where either side could win, and victory was up to who played better (I remember Monsterpocalypse having a particularly cool one).

As is, I don't see how eliminating point values from the game would make it 'better' for creating your own scenarios than a game in which you mostly ignore the point values. It just makes it worse at other things.

I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

@JohnHwangDD: Funny how a front page article can be a direct reprint of GW with a post text that contains profanity... plus threats of supressing opinions. A "forum" is not what you think it is. This kinda screams double standard. But whatever. You're opinionated and thats ok. I have had my fill of unproductive ranters myself sometimes. Still though bro... check yourself.

Regarding JJs essay and AoS. I watched an AoS batrep. It looked fun. Id play it. I read the rules and it looked fun and elegant.

HOWEVER

Ignoring what what a "game" is does not seem to be logical to me. Its like playing monopoly when 1 player already has hotels from park place to st charles ave. What fun is there in that? Sure you can forge a narritive where the other players are peasant street urchins playing against a new york land barron. Great fun.

Also, I take umbridge at the assumptions that tournament organization is "easy." Look at Reece and Frankie and company at FLG. They are working their asses off trying to FAQ and balance 40k all the while getting flak from folks. Booking blocks of rooms in vegas finding vendors etc... Doesnt sound "easy" to me.

Now, I will say that i look back with great fondness at when my best friend and I in rural arkansas would try to fumble through space marine and adeptus titanicus. We would have agreat time moving models and not knowing anything about the rules. Then came blood bowl and space hulk. Balanced. Tight. Narrative. Cinematic. Those are great games. TTWging is more difficult but not impossible to balance. I dont share Mr Johnson's opinion, but I understand it as being a nostalgic throwback to simpler times of GW... which these ain't.

These games are fun to play competitvely even though I play orks and am not even close to a tactician. I have a less than a 30% win record. I get all caught up in saying pew pew and forget about the lurking malwok or flanking imperial knight. I like seeing deep striking grey knight terminators get swept from the table in whithering burna wagon flames... wait a sec, what do those tzeentch screamers do again???

Without points, it is impossible to have a fair fight. Simple as that. Narrative in this case does not matter.

Tabletop RPGs are essentially PvE. The goal is for the group of characters to have a fun adventure, and though the game master may choose to torment them and even create a no-win scenario, the adventurers are not really competing against the game master.

Wargames are always PvP. One side wins, one side loses. Whether a cinematic narrative is involved or not does not matter. Unless you specifically aim to cheat and win, the forces should be as evenly matched as possible. If the point limit is 1000, winning with 1005 points against 1000 points is a hollow victory. You might as well be playing chess with an extra piece.

And while you cannot ever perfectly balance a tabletop game, point values provide a solid foundation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

I think it's also aimed at oldsters -- or at least the type of people who play Magic the Gathering with random pretty cards (which is a lot of people that I know). Out of all the folks I know actually PLAYING AoS now, almost all of them play Magic in a very uncompetitive way. And didn't really play wargames before. In my wife's group, she has a 67 year old grandmother playing -- she has her *grandson* build & paint her army (a lot of it is old Fantasy stuff) which she proudly displays and marches forth.

In other words, it specifically does not target 16-35 year-old males

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

In my experience, it's usually kids who like points the most and try to powerbuild/win at all costs. I think AoS is a bet on having a lot of mature fans. Of course, like all GW games, the model range will certainly appeal to kids, and simpler rules helps get anyone into the game. But I don't see a specific target of young people going on here.

The reasons why I think it is for youngsters are:


Overall it's a simple, short set of rules.
There is excessive complication in the damge determination system (To Hit, To Wound, To Save) which has an appeal to I don't know how to put it but let's say the dice rolling mentality.
This complication is balanced by simplicity elsewhere.
Practically every every unit has a special rule, giving it a "Gotta Catch 'Em All" flavour.
The fluff is all mighty heroes, savage demons, eternal war, etc. Simple and direct.
The lack of points system is made up for by scenario books to buy and follow.

 Talys wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters and I don't think the lack of a balancing mechanism will do any harm with that audience.

I think it's also aimed at oldsters -- or at least the type of people who play Magic the Gathering with random pretty cards (which is a lot of people that I know). Out of all the folks I know actually PLAYING AoS now, almost all of them play Magic in a very uncompetitive way. And didn't really play wargames before. In my wife's group, she has a 67 year old grandmother playing -- she has her *grandson* build & paint her army (a lot of it is old Fantasy stuff) which she proudly displays and marches forth.

In other words, it specifically does not target 16-35 year-old males

I'm with that granny. I played MTG up until the point where the tournament players started bringing their A games to friendly game nights. It's one thing to have a fun game with friends and family, and another to play to some guy who has to use game ending combos in round one just to prove he is the best. I don't have fun that way, and haven't played MTG in almost a decade because of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reasons why I think it is for youngsters are:


Overall it's a simple, short set of rules.
There is excessive complication in the damge determination system (To Hit, To Wound, To Save) which has an appeal to I don't know how to put it but let's say the dice rolling mentality.
This complication is balanced by simplicity elsewhere.
Practically every every unit has a special rule, giving it a "Gotta Catch 'Em All" flavour.
The fluff is all mighty heroes, savage demons, eternal war, etc. Simple and direct.
The lack of points system is made up for by scenario books to buy and follow.

Short, simple rules also appeal to oldsters who don't have the time or inclination to learn a lot of new rules. Printed cheat sheets can work against this, but actual memorization is a young man's thing. The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy. Historicals have plain and numerous grunts covered.

 Fabio Bile wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What didn't exist was the notion of playing WFB without points at all. That is what AOS brought to the table, as a way to sidestep all of those complaints by simply removing the point of complaint.

...

... And you won't have trouble getting anywhere on time so long as you're not a stupid lazy jerk.

As a group AoS-supporters really have no right to complain about "toxic environments". There's plenty of you who are using AoS as a platform/justification for being a douche. Maybe that's payback for bad wargaming experiences or maybe it's just part of the eternal fanboy vs. hater divide. But it's a really bad way to represent a game that relies entirely on its players being agreeable and fun.

First off, nowhere in my post did I say anything about "toxic environments", so I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth and attribute them to me via quote marks.

Second, I'm not sure I want to communicate with you further, if you're going to be like this.

@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

The SRs are really no different than effects MtG cards ) there are a bazillion, but you only need to worry about the ones in the game, if you're not trying to optimize a list.

It is an optimal system for people who don't consider the rules in their army building, and instead think, "l would like some elven archers, dwarven warriors, a wizard, two angels and this hero", selecting the models purely based on preconceived notions, photos on the website, and perhaps Grand Alliance.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy. Historicals have plain and numerous grunts covered.

How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker. Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Honestly, AOS still looks plenty grimdark to me. I mean, the world was destroyed, and now we've got some armored angelic host bringing retribution to the realms dominated by daemons and evil. Mordheimers never had it so bad as the natives of the mortal realms have it now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I tihink AoS is aimed at youngsters

You would be 100% wrong. Youngsters have the time and inclination to throw virtually unlimited hours at learning a system, so something as simple as AoS isn't necessary. In reality, 40k is aimed at youngsters. They are the only people with the sheer volume of hours to read and memorize and play all of the rules and Codices and interactions.

AoS is actually targeted toward the mature gamer with a substantial gaming collection, someone who has more meaningful and significant priorities in their life than just gaming, someone with limited time to prepare and play, someone who just wants to take out and push their toy soldiers around.

What you should have written is that "AoS is aimed at casual players", because that is definitely the case. AoS is a casual ruleset, designed for quick and easy play among friends. It is the antithesis of a tournament ruleset, and for that, I applaud GW. I've gone from 90+% tournament-oriented play to 90+% casual play, and I couldn't be happier. But I'm far from a "youngster", unless you're a creaky geriatric with one foot in the grave.

 odinsgrandson wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy. Historicals have plain and numerous grunts covered.

How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker. Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Honestly, AOS still looks plenty grimdark to me. I mean, the world was destroyed, and now we've got some armored angelic host bringing retribution to the realms dominated by daemons and evil. Mordheimers never had it so bad as the natives of the mortal realms have it now.

The Endless board game and SDE both look very interesting to me. I've come pretty close to buying into EFT, but metal minis and the shipping just killed it for me. Relic Knights looks just a little too fan servicy for me, the aesthetic is too anime, and the minis are expensive restic. If they have some fluff that is engaging and free, I'll happily check it out. KoW2 seems to have a slightly more positive take on a fantasy setting than WHFB, but it still has vast swathes of " you're doomed" to it.

AOS might appeal to me, but it just isn't developed enough yet to know either way. Right now, I'm pretty much ignoring the morsels of fluff from the boxed set which are about as cheerful as Wayne Barlowe's God's Demon, which I just couldn't force myself to finish. Casual damnation and eternal suffering are not my idea of escapism.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy.

Mighty Heroes? Have you considered Malifaux, Warmachine or Hordes? Those are all warband-oriented games that build around a named hero as its leader.
____

 odinsgrandson wrote:
How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker.

Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Relic Knights is a good choice, also being hero-oriented. But the thing is, RK is more of a card game with minis, so it plays very differently from things like 40k. The print & play demo is good. Models look great, but assembly is a huge pain, though!

I played a LOT of Super Dungeon Explore (1E) after I stopped playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles. The models were (are) cutesy, and the strategic balance was incredibly tight. I went practically all-in on SDE Forgotten King (2E), but it's very different, and players are trying to "fix" the gameplay with an eye toward speed and balance. In a couple months, SDE 2E will be great.

I agree that AoS still has a lot of grimdark (tm) to it. Visually, I think Anima Tactics might be a good alternative - the models are pretty, but I don't know the game well enough to say for sure. For what it is, the AoS game engine is pretty good, and highly adaptable. It would not be hard to create AoS-based games for other ranges of models.

Seriously, stop saying simple rules are for youngsters. That's not true at all. Chess has very simple rules, yet it's a game played without shame at any age.

"Simple" doesn't mean "poor". It means it keeps the rules to a minimum so that you can focus on the possibilities in game even offered by this simplicity.

There is thus no shame in AoS rules being simple. That doesn't mean they are well written...that's another debate.

By the way, if you really think GW is only counting on kids to keep buying models coming out weekly at expensive prices while they usually don't work and don't have infinite money each week...then GW wouldn't be here for quite some time now.


About the "WFB" bashing...I remember the time when WFB scenarios were published with no point system but fixed armies (gasp! The horror!!). So, no, the "no points system" is not new and AoS didn't reinvent warm water.

The trouble is that we don't even have fixed armies as well. So, AoS is a "no limit system"...which isn't a great idea for the long term (just look at what state 40k is with the "unbound" armies - they're not used that much). That's where I find them very lazy as a design team, honestly. And that's also why so many AoS players try to play with "homemade" limitations, to have a better tool to make interesting games.

So, yes, using no points is possible...but you have to find something else so that there is a feeling of "balance" or, at the very least, "fairness". Sure, there may be fun if you had a game when you lose against tremendous odds...but if it happens all the time, chances are high you will just get tired in the end. After all, it is a competitive game at heart. And you can't tell to the players who can win or lose to be objective and always fair so that you can have fun together all the time. We're only humans. That's why having a "neutral, unified system" that can say "lists built using these rules are more or less balanced so that you can both have fair chances to win or lose against each other" is an important tool - you then spend less time trying to find something balanced and interesting to play and more time actually playing.

And having fun.

I think the audience is fairly easily betrayed by the naming conventions GW is using at this point.

Stuff like "Stormcast Eternal Liberator Prime" and "Bloodsecrator" are aimed at a particular audience. And that audience is not typically older. That sort of stuff would have thrilled the 14 year nascent metalhead I was back in 9th grade. As someone with a job, two degrees, and other priorities in life, I'm not at all getting the impression this is aimed at someone my age or interests.

 doktor_g wrote:
@JohnHwangDD: Funny how a front page article can be a direct reprint of GW with a post text that contains profanity... plus threats of supressing opinions. A "forum" is not what you think it is. This kinda screams double standard. But whatever. You're opinionated and thats ok. I have had my fill of unproductive ranters myself sometimes. Still though bro... check yourself.

Regarding JJs essay and AoS. I watched an AoS batrep. It looked fun. Id play it. I read the rules and it looked fun and elegant.

HOWEVER

Ignoring what what a "game" is does not seem to be logical to me. Its like playing monopoly when 1 player already has hotels from park place to st charles ave. What fun is there in that? Sure you can forge a narritive where the other players are peasant street urchins playing against a new york land barron. Great fun.

Also, I take umbridge at the assumptions that tournament organization is "easy." Look at Reece and Frankie and company at FLG. They are working their asses off trying to FAQ and balance 40k all the while getting flak from folks. Booking blocks of rooms in vegas finding vendors etc... Doesnt sound "easy" to me.

Now, I will say that i look back with great fondness at when my best friend and I in rural arkansas would try to fumble through space marine and adeptus titanicus. We would have agreat time moving models and not knowing anything about the rules. Then came blood bowl and space hulk. Balanced. Tight. Narrative. Cinematic. Those are great games. TTWging is more difficult but not impossible to balance. I dont share Mr Johnson's opinion, but I understand it as being a nostalgic throwback to simpler times of GW... which these ain't.

These games are fun to play competitvely even though I play orks and am not even close to a tactician. I have a less than a 30% win record. I get all caught up in saying pew pew and forget about the lurking malwok or flanking imperial knight. I like seeing deep striking grey knight terminators get swept from the table in whithering burna wagon flames... wait a sec, what do those tzeentch screamers do again???

Dude, I just want the rants redirected to AoS mega thread that's already full of rants.

I've done my share of tournament organization in years past, and Jervis on point that "X points / credits / whatever FFA" is a lot easier than creating individual scenarios, above and beyond the communications, logistical and squirrel-herding headaches inherent to any tournament. Imagine if Reece had to create half-dozen "narrative" scenarios, rather than specifying a points total, wouldn't that be more work?

If you are an Ork / Orc / Orruk player, AoS may well work better for you than traditional WFB / 40k. Greenskin players seem to be more about the noises and goofiness and "fun" than the Serious Business (tm) of winning. And make no mistake that "winning" is a lot of work. I'm glad that I got my ticket punched way back then, because there is no way I could commit to winning today.

Yeah, I guess my Medium Crawler Retaliator for the Firestorm Planetfall game made by Spartan Games is also intended for kids - because it sounds like something a kid would like.

Yet, I don't see many kids playing that game. Maybe because Spartan Games don't really make games for children...

Names are just that; names. To me, it sounds more like something they can copyright instead of using generic fantasy terms that anyone can use.

As I sit here and ponder how to approah this without being nasty to GW.

Points who needs them?.....Well most games need them not all but most even, Malifaux is still point based. I find it odd that the theme of the original article was more of tournament hate than an arguement about why ponts aren't necessary. Sure Jarvis feel anyone can have fun playing with points, however the customer base seems to disagre with him. As normal GW has no need of our opinion. I feel points are the only way to make games like Warhammer Fantasy, 40K , and a host of other games balanced. Yes, I used the B word. While, I do not think any game as complex as 40K and Fantasy could never be 100% balanced, I feel with some fore thought, play testing you fine tune points and rules to make games work better.

IMHO a game which revolves around balance as: army A can beat army B, while army B can beat C, and C can only defeat A, is probabaly the worst game system in the world. Every army in a game setting should have equal chance to beat any army. With few exceptions the easiest way to do that is points.

As I read Jarvis press release or whatever it is. I feel confident that these bozos feel they have nothing to play test. Everything they write and publish at GW is unicorns and rainbows. the whole world will love whatever we do.

well I'm not really done with all i'd like to say on the subject be i digress, because my opinion doesn't matter anyway. Especially to GW!

 Sarouan wrote:
Yeah, I guess my Medium Crawler Retaliator for the Firestorm Planetfall game made by Spartan Games is also intended for kids - because it sounds like something a kid would like.

Yet, I don't see many kids playing that game. Maybe because Spartan Games don't really make games for children...

Names are just that; names. To me, it sounds more like something they can copyright instead of using generic fantasy terms that anyone can use.

You're being a bit disingenuous here, the unit you're referring to is just "Retaliator", which is largely fine, "Medium Crawler" is the unit type.

Names however do mean something, billions of dollars are spent on research into product names, mottos, etc and absolutely do point at a target audience.

Yes, copyright issues are playing a part, but there's a very definite market focus here.