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.

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:

Joe and Sam, strangers that come across each other make a time to meet the following day to play The Wargame. They meet at the local store the next day and both unpack their armies of predetermined sizes. As they lay them out, Joe silently notes that, by chance, the configuration of his army is pretty optimal against the configuration of Sam's army. Sam eyes Joe's army, and silently concludes that, the configuration of his army is probably a poor match for Joe's -- not an impossible fight, but a very difficult and likely frustrating one.

So at this point, what do Joe and Sam do?

A) Neither says anything, deploy, and play the game
B) Joe says something and offers to remove some units
C) Sam says something and asks for Joe to remove some units

D) walk away from these terribly balanced games. Have a beer. Discuss possible alternatives.

None of those suggestions are wrong. They all work fine. But You're still assuming they got to the scenario in the first place. This does not have to be though. Other games have other solutions. Malifaux lets you create your list after rolling for mission. Wmh has two or three list formats. Infinity is just brilliantly balanced.

Amen to that, and I'll add that I've never had to negotiate anything in WMH, Infinity or Malifaux. We just say points and scenario. Done.

And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.

@MWHistorian - It's just not true that you can build a semi-reasonable 50 point list in WMH and have it as good the most popular 50 point lists. I mean, just go to the PP forums, and people complain about this all the time.

The issue with practically every game, even a well-balanced one, you cannot just buy an army based on "I like this model, and these look like they'd look cool together" without having read the rules for it first (and expect to win). You can't look at Infinity and go, "Hey, those service robots with humans on them look awesome. I want my whole army to be made up of them!"

The experiment of AoS is that you *don't* have to bring your best because you know the other guy is. You can bring *anything* -- you can bring *the worst list in the world* and still expect a fair game, because the game is built on the premise that the other guy will adjust his list to be equally ineffective as yours.

Likewise, the experiment of AoS is that you aren't even *trying* to bring your best. You're trying -- wanting -- to play the lowest common denominator (based on models available) between you and your opponent's army in effectiveness in the specific scenario that you are playing. It's a totally different mindset.

 Talys wrote:
@MWHistorian - It's just not true that you can build a semi-reasonable 50 point list in WMH and have it as good the most popular 50 point lists. I mean, just go to the PP forums, and people complain about this all the time.

The issue with practically every game, even a well-balanced one, you cannot just buy an army based on "I like this model, and these look like they'd look cool together" without having read the rules for it first (and expect to win). You can't look at Infinity and go, "Hey, those service robots with humans on them look awesome. I want my whole army to be made up of them!"

The experiment of AoS is that you *don't* have to bring your best because you know the other guy is. You can bring *anything* -- you can bring *the worst list in the world* and still expect a fair game, because the game is built on the premise that the other guy will adjust his list to be equally ineffective as yours.

You're arguing against things I've never said.
I like putting thought into my lists. But that has nothing to do with pre-negotiation at the table.

@MW --

You said...

 MWHistorian wrote:
And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.

I'm simply replying that in AoS, the stressor of bringing your best is entirely removed (words of the OP). You don't bring your best. You bring whatever you want, with the expectation that you will play with the lowest common denominator between you and your opponent. Whomever has the stronger army will reduce its effectiveness.

This is certainly not for everyone (as I said, it excludes a big chunk of the gaming population, I think, and to a degree, me). But I think it appeals to a good chunk of folks, too.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I like putting thought into my lists. But that has nothing to do with pre-negotiation at the table.

That's exactly my point. In AoS, you don't NEED to put thought into your lists if you don't want to. If you want to base your army on how awesome it would be in performance, that's good. If you want to base your army on how cool it looks that's good too. If you want to base your army on a love of archers to the exclusion of every other unit, you can still play a game without getting stomped, because the other guy *wants* to play a fair game with you and will figure out what he needs to adjust in his army to make that happen.

What AoS will do, though, is irritate a lot of people who want to bring their best, and expect the other people to bring their best. Because one person will bring their best, and have to remove half of his army, and never get to play the synergy that he wanted to, since that would insta-win the game. In fact, since he's likely to encounter all sorts of people who DON'T bring their best, he's likely never to want to play the game at all. Unless, of course, he has a group of like-minded people who ALSO want to bring their best armies. Hence, I call it an "experiment"...

 Talys wrote:
@MW --

You said...

 MWHistorian wrote:
And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.

I'm simply replying that in AoS, the stressor of bringing your best is entirely removed (words of the OP). You don't bring your best. You bring whatever you want, with the expectation that you will play with the lowest common denominator between you and your opponent. Whomever has the stronger army will reduce its effectiveness.

This is certainly not for everyone (as I said, it excludes a big chunk of the gaming population, I think, and to a degree, me). But I think it appeals to a good chunk of folks, too.

How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!"
I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random.
I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans.
I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort.
As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.

 MWHistorian wrote:

How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!"
I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random.
I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans.
I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort.
As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.

@MWHistorian - this is exactly why I said that the game is not for players like you (or me).

I generally want to bring my best too (though not always, often I like to play strange scenarios). Some people do not wish to put thought and effort into building their army, and instead, want to build their army based on the attractiveness of models or what they *think* should function as an army, to the exclusion of the rules. My wife is one of these people... if model A is nicer looking than model B, but A and B work well together, her preference is simply to take model A and not to take model B, rather than have a better functioning army. She also wants to put ZERO thought into "will this work well together", beyond her preconceived notions of what a fantasy army should look like, which is generally why she hates wargames, and likes Magic with like minded friends where the success of the game is determined by who has cards with the coolest artwork and how many hours they can stretch one game into.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@MW --

You said...

 MWHistorian wrote:
And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.

I'm simply replying that in AoS, the stressor of bringing your best is entirely removed (words of the OP). You don't bring your best. You bring whatever you want, with the expectation that you will play with the lowest common denominator between you and your opponent. Whomever has the stronger army will reduce its effectiveness.

This is certainly not for everyone (as I said, it excludes a big chunk of the gaming population, I think, and to a degree, me). But I think it appeals to a good chunk of folks, too.

How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!"
I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random.
I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans.
I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort.
As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.

It is not Better, It is not worse, it is just what it is.
The whole idea [Besides selling more models] is for You to Play what You want to play, good, bad, broken, it does not matter. If You have a unit of models that You have not played since 5th, but You did not because they were not any good, but You liked them anyways, now You have no excuse not to pull them out.

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!"
I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random.
I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans.
I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort.
As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.

@MWHistorian - this is exactly why I said that the game is not for players like you (or me).

I generally want to bring my best too (though not always, often I like to play strange scenarios). Some people do not wish to put thought and effort into building their army, and instead, want to build their army based on the attractiveness of models or what they *think* should function as an army, to the exclusion of the rules. My wife is one of these people... if model A is nicer looking than model B, but A and B work well together, her preference is simply to take model A and not to take model B, rather than have a better functioning army. She also wants to put ZERO thought into "will this work well together", beyond her preconceived notions of what a fantasy army should look like, which is generally why she hates wargames, and likes Magic with like minded friends where the success of the game is determined by who has cards with the coolest artwork and how many hours they can stretch one game into.

Looking at cards is not a game.
It may be a past time and a hobby and very enjoyable. But it's not a game.
And believe me, I get it that sometimes people just want to shut off their brains and throw some dice. AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up. I get it. (Except SR also had a lot of thought and effort put into it)
But don't pretend like it's some serious effort by GW to change the face of wargaming.
It's just lazy writing.

 Talys wrote:


The issue with practically every game, even a well-balanced one, you cannot just buy an army based on "I like this model, and these look like they'd look cool together" without having read the rules for it first (and expect to win). You can't look at Infinity and go, "Hey, those service robots with humans on them look awesome. I want my whole army to be made up of them!"

Should you though? I mean, I can't expect to just turn up to a marathon and expect to come first, with zero preparation can I? It takes 4-6 months to train up. A lot of miles goes in, the right shoes, the right diet, the right training plan, the right gear etc etc. things worth doing require their participants to put some effort into doing them.

 Talys wrote:

The experiment of AoS is that you *don't* have to bring your best because you know the other guy is. You can bring *anything* -- you can bring *the worst list in the world* and still expect a fair game, because the game is built on the premise that the other guy will adjust his list to be equally ineffective as yours.

And when the other guy is a whiny, temper throwing man child? Youre making assumptions, and you know what they say about assumptions, right? You're assuming the other guy will 'play down' instead of walking away because you put a bunch of crap on the table. You're assuming the other guy will be an 'enabler' for whatever the heck you want to do. Foolish, if you ask me.

 Talys wrote:

Likewise, the experiment of AoS is that you aren't even *trying* to bring your best. You're trying -- wanting -- to play the lowest common denominator (based on models available) between you and your opponent's army in effectiveness in the specific scenario that you are playing. It's a totally different mindset.

And that falls down the second someone does bring their best.

And fyi, i do thie whole 'play down' thing in warmachine as well. Not 'can do'. 'Do'.

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
Can't go back to old way. 40k limiting and restricted now. AoS is the future. Buy whatever you want is the new way. World of opportunity open.

In what universe is 40k "limiting and restricted"? They've all but done away with the FOC and with multiple detachments, formations, allies etc. you can take a whole lot more as a legal force than when I last played.

 Grimtuff wrote:

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
Can't go back to old way. 40k limiting and restricted now. AoS is the future. Buy whatever you want is the new way. World of opportunity open.

In what universe is 40k "limiting and restricted"? They've all but done away with the FOC and with multiple detachments, formations, allies etc. you can take a whole lot more as a legal force than when I last played.

Can't just buy what I like. Look at online store - oh I gotta buy certain allotments from different sections? I can't just look at the rules here on the site? I gotta buy a book to find out what this guy even does and what a good amount of this unit is? Screw that.

Great post and agree with almost everything you have said.

I am a competitive player - and I think that the system does support competitive play as well as hobby play. This i think is great and is much improved from previous versions - the tournament community especially internationally has responded badly to AOS but I think over time it will grow and build back to or hopefully in excess of the position it was under 8th edition.

Also I have played hobbyists how can be just as much 'that guy' as hardcore tournament players

40k is very restrictive in pickups, if you like winnng.

If you love dreadnaughts and terminators because they're cool, bulky models and take them in spades you'll lose a disproportionate number if games.

By the way, playing MtG to stretch a game out to 2 hours and not to just pass turns is harder than it sounds. It absolutely is a game; just like Minecraft is. It's just a different game (that some may think is stupid).

 Talys wrote:
40k is very restrictive in pickups, if you like winnng.

If you love dreadnaughts and terminators because they're cool, bulky models and take them in spades you'll lose a disproportionate number if games.

Hold on folks, the goalposts are on the move again.

Neither of those things are a fault of army construction and the framework put in place by it. They are faults of balance within the game system and the metagame that has appeared as a result of it.

Some friends of mine and me were talking and one came up with an analogy that I think fits the difference.
A lot of people were expecting/wanting 9th to be Batman
we go AoS which is a lot like Deadpool
1] There are very little rules and they play them loose.
2] It is not about how much c4 is needed, it is about how much you have.
3] You can [Suppose to in some cases] break the 4th wall.

It took me a while, but I think they were right.
AoS is all about fun, sometimes Brain-Dead fun, sometimes serious fun, but it is supposed fun.
When you go into the game you have a basic plan of what you are wanting to do an objective {Whatever that may be}. It is important that you get there, but it is more important how you get there.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Talys wrote:
40k is very restrictive in pickups, if you like winnng.

If you love dreadnaughts and terminators because they're cool, bulky models and take them in spades you'll lose a disproportionate number if games.

Hold on folks, the goalposts are on the move again.

Neither of those things are a fault of army construction and the framework put in place by it. They are faults of balance within the game system and the metagame that has appeared as a result of it.

No, not at all, that is EXACTLY the goalpost. Let's make it WMH instead. I love the Victoria Haley model, and I love Stormguard and Stormblades. I want to make my army ENTIRELY with these models, and nothing else. Doing so would guarantee that I lose any pickup game. Same goes with 40k, and really, most other wargames.

In most wargames, building a good army is CENTRAL of the game. In AoS, building a good army is not central to the game, because the spirit in which it is designed is for the two players to cooperatively determine a fair fight using the available models. I can't think of any other wargame that is designed to be that way, and *forces* you to play that way.

Another way to put it: in most games, building efficiency in an army is important; in AoS, only understanding the efficiency in an army is important. Because if your army is inefficient, you and your opponent recognize this during pregame setup, and the inefficient army gets more stuff, or the efficient army gets less stuff, until the two sides are deemed balanced relative to the scenario being played. Of course, a lot of gamers will just dismiss this type of play out of hand and go, "God, that sounds like the stupidest thing ever. "

I'm just saying, there are also gamers who think of exactly the same thing, "Wow, that's the most wonderful thing ever." I am 100% sure of this, because I'm married to one, and she and her friends have really gotten into AoS, in a way that I never thought possible of their group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
AoS is all about fun, sometimes Brain-Dead fun, sometimes serious fun, but it is supposed fun.
When you go into the game you have a basic plan of what you are wanting to do an objective {Whatever that may be}. It is important that you get there, but it is more important how you get there.

This is not a bad way of thinking of it As the OP put, a lot of stressors to "having fun" are removed -- at least for some people. By coincidence or design, the same stressors are factors which are "fun" for the group of people who don't like those stressors... so it works out for the AoS crowed.

End of the day... it is a fundamentally different way imagining a miniature or war game that will appeal greatly to some, and repulse others. If the former is a big enough group, GW will have a hit; otherwise, it will be a one-edition-wonder, and the AoS 2e will come out with drastically different rules.

Talys...

you do know in ANY game you can look at someones army and if it is weak change the list during deployment to make the game better yea?

AOS is unique because it forces you to tailor your armies for each other. If you cannot tailor your armies you will have some very bland games.

I also want to point out that your examples are contradicting.

"If I want to take X in X game I will lose"

"If I take X against someones X in AOS without tailoring I will lose"

Whats the difference again? The only difference is you need a game to tell you to list tailor before the game begins... Which means AOS is no different from other games in this regard, except other games do it better yet again.

@Swastakowey - the difference is very subtle.

If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.

In AoS, there is no such expectation. Not only does this make the game highly unattractive to people who like squeezing mileage out of points, it attracts other people who prefer to game without the "stressor" (as the OP put it) of figuring out optimal armies for a point cost. You need to know how good your army is, but you don't need to make your army good. Because if it's a bad army, it will be relatively huge compared to your opponent's good army, to compensate. You go in expecting this, which is something you would never do in another game.

As to your example, it's not correct. It's more like this: "If I take X in AOS, my opponent must take out Y from their army so that we both think we have a good chance of winning." If I and my opponent can't come to an agreement on fairness (because I think Ogres are awesome and my opponent thinks his Ogres suck), the game never starts. By definition, every game of AoS should start after the two sides agree that the armies are fair. Of course you can do that with any game; it's just that few people do, especially in pickup games of predetermined army size (the paradigm is, "bring your best").

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - the difference is very subtle.

If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.

In AoS, there is no such expectation. Not only does this make the game highly unattractive to people who like squeezing mileage out of points, it attracts other people who prefer to game without the "stressor" (as the OP put it) of figuring out optimal armies for a point cost. You need to know how good your army is, but you don't need to make your army good. Because if it's a bad army, it will be relatively huge compared to your opponent's good army, to compensate. You go in expecting this, which is something you would never do in another game.

As to your example, it's not correct. It's more like this: "If I take X in AOS, my opponent must take out Y from their army so that we both think we have a good chance of winning." If I and my opponent can't come to an agreement on fairness (because I think Ogres are awesome and my opponent thinks his Ogres suck), the game never starts. By definition, every game of AoS should start after the two sides agree that the armies are fair. Of course you can do that with any game; it's just that few people do, especially in pickup games of predetermined army size (the paradigm is, "bring your best").

Well the expectation is very dependent on the players not the game yes? In say 40k (easiest example) if I arrange a game of 5k points then I myself have set the expectation of a 5k point game. If I say lets do this scenario I have planned then I have changed the expectation. I have done, in many games, added points to the weaker army, or changed the points dependent on the scenario or ignored points all together. The game is irrelevant.

If you and your opponent cannot agree on anything before the game then there will be no game... how is AOS special here again? Oh... it's not...

I think you are making a huge assumption, that the rules are the reason for X, however it all comes down to the players.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well the expectation is very dependent on the players not the game yes? In say 40k (easiest example) if I arrange a game of 5k points then I myself have set the expectation of a 5k point game. If I say lets do this scenario I have planned then I have changed the expectation. I have done, in many games, added points to the weaker army, or changed the points dependent on the scenario or ignored points all together. The game is irrelevant.

If you and your opponent cannot agree on anything before the game then there will be no game... how is AOS special here again? Oh... it's not...

I think you are making a huge assumption, that the rules are the reason for X, however it all comes down to the players.

You are absolutely right: the expectation is totally dependent on the players. What you describe is *exactly* how we play 40k (well not 5k points. That would take forever ). However, it's not usually reasonable (certainly not common) to ask strangers to do this in a pickup game.

The real difference is, AoS has a massive sign over it saying, "People who don't want to figure out fair games before every game: look elsewhere, coz we're not going to help you along with a system that justifies whatever you want to field against whatever they want to field."

I've already seen in the people who actually *like* AoS a different mindset to a lot of 40k and WMH players I've run into in the wild. And again, I'm not really a pro-AoS type of guy. I like playing 40k the way that's precisely how you describe.

 Talys wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Well the expectation is very dependent on the players not the game yes? In say 40k (easiest example) if I arrange a game of 5k points then I myself have set the expectation of a 5k point game. If I say lets do this scenario I have planned then I have changed the expectation. I have done, in many games, added points to the weaker army, or changed the points dependent on the scenario or ignored points all together. The game is irrelevant.

If you and your opponent cannot agree on anything before the game then there will be no game... how is AOS special here again? Oh... it's not...

I think you are making a huge assumption, that the rules are the reason for X, however it all comes down to the players.

You are absolutely right: the expectation is totally dependent on the players. What you describe is *exactly* how we play 40k (well not 5k points. That would take forever ). However, it's not usually reasonable (certainly not common) to ask strangers to do this in a pickup game.

The real difference is, AoS has a massive sign over it saying, "People who don't want to figure out fair games before every game: look elsewhere, coz we're not going to help you along with a system that justifies whatever you want to field against whatever they want to field."

I've already seen in the people who actually *like* AoS a different mindset to a lot of 40k and WMH players I've run into in the wild. And again, I'm not really a pro-AoS type of guy. I like playing 40k the way that's precisely how you describe.

You are bang on, AOS kind of forces you to play the game a certain way. In my opinion a game with more options of Game Play available is better than a game that aims to kick off a bunch of people who would otherwise be fun to play against etc.

This is why people do not like it, because they have to play it X way instead of having X with the option to remove it.

But yes you are correct, AOS pushing a large demographic away. This is also exactly why this game will not last very long in my opinion. Not without heaps of changes anyway.

"This is why it won't last long in my opinion"... I wouldn't bet on that. Games Workshop is a very large company that will be around for many years to come. Gw financials would show they care still healthy and sustainable. I disagree with their price increases, but gw is smarter than most think. Yes they have become a business about making money, which is in reality smart from a business perspective.

They have also started giving back to the community a bit. Free app for aos? Free rules? Price deals for multi unit sets (havent seen that for years and now its back).

I have heard many speak of gw's demise for years; it hasn't happened yet and I doubt we would see that for at least a decade. As for age of sigmar, gw is fully behind it and is not going back. I have actually seen the naysayers leave or join oas, and I've seen a steady increase in the aos crowd daily. I'm glad to see more and more find fun in this game everyday.

 455_PWR wrote:
"This is why it won't last long in my opinion"... I wouldn't bet on that. Games Workshop is a very large company that will be around for many years to come. Gw financials would show they care still healthy and sustainable. I disagree with their price increases, but gw is smarter than most think. Yes they have become a business about making money, which is in reality smart from a business perspective.

They have also started giving back to the community a bit. Free app for aos? Free rules? Price deals for multi unit sets (havent seen that for years and now its back).

I have heard many speak of gw's demise for years; it hasn't happened yet and I doubt we would see that for at least a decade. As for age of sigmar, gw is fully behind it and is not going back. I have actually seen the naysayers leave or join oas, and I've seen a steady increase in the aos crowd daily. I'm glad to see more and more find fun in this game everyday.

I was talking about Age of Sigmar dude...

AOS is laughed at by even the kids here. Have yet to see a game besides our quick test. Chances are it will stay this way in my area, I also hope it stays this way.

I appreciate the re-review, although I don't think it'll change any minds. Haters gotta hate, and they are so invested in disliking the game, they cannot like it, no matter how good it is.

Also, I don't think AoS is in its final form. I think there will be formal war scrolls for ranked units and explicit "balancing" and so forth. Eventually.

 Talys wrote:

If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.

If I could just interject something here - in no way do points indicate any sort of balance. Point values are a constraint. Given this constraint (X number of points), efficiently create the most effective army that you can. When one person is quite efficient going against someone who in not so efficient, the game is in no way balanced at all. The constraint, however, is mutually shared, and thus both players have equal opportunity to equally create efficient army lists.

Some people VERY much enjoy this challenge. I'd say that something like Warmachine (sorry, no experience with 40k) is largely built around army lists, and some people just go nuts creating stupidly efficient lists, and counters to other people's stupidly efficient lists. I played a 15 pt game with Khador where I had 9 models on the board, but my opponent had 26 Cryx models - all of which had oppressive synergy making them all tough and easily resurrected. That was not a balanced game, an no amount of skillful playing on my part would've resulted in a win.

The designers of Magic the Gathering design around 3 different gamer types - Johnny, Timmy, and Spike. Timmy likes to win big. Johnny likes to pull off combos. And Spike - Spike is summed up as winning 9 out of 10 games, but if he felt he should've won the 10th, he walks away unhappy. Since that article was written, they've added two more profiles, Vorthos (fluff integration) and Melvin (mechanics integration).

I don't know how much truth there is in those personality types, but I think the thing to take away from it is that there are different kinds of players who want different things from the game. There's no one true way to play that everybody shares. Everybody is drawn to games because of different things.

When people argue about how important points are, they aren't arguing about points themselves. They want some sort of constraint - any constraint - that puts the players on a semi-equal footing. It's not balance and it's not fair (especially when some players just download dominant lists from the internet, not even doing the work themselves). The constraint is a test of sorts. It tests how knowledgeable a player is of the game and their mastery of it. Creating an efficient list is just another battlefield that they seek victory upon. Even downloading a list, they still know how it works. They didn't invent the list, but they can still master it, thus proving they are worthy of it.

AoS has no points, and it isn't a lack of imagination that keeps people from accepting this. Points are a way to interact with the game, even while not playing (you can create lists on the toilet, you can't play 40k on it - or shouldn't). Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around. Not having those constraints removes a very large part of the game for some players (perhaps their favorite part), but it isn't about expectations of balance. In no way is it about creating fair games. Personally, I find points frustrating precisely because of these expectations of fairness.

Age of Sigmar is more like a toolbox. We can create new constraints and lay them on top of the game without breaking anything. We can even lay points on top of it. We can have a thousand different ways to do it, each different and useful in different situations. With no One Right Way(tm) of doing things, we can do it any way we want. That has to annoy people who seek efficiency - how do you minmax infinity? - but it makes for a game with a bunch of different futures for a bunch of different players - Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin can all find enjoyment in the Venn diagram, with those 4 pages of Age of Sigmar rules being the union they all share.

Sorry for that rant. I've just spent the last few weeks hearing about how important points are to the almighty Balance, and I disagree.

Agree or disagree, this was an excellent post. Thoughtful, well-written, organized, and with some very good points.

I agreed with most, disagreed with some. But I enjoyed reading it all.

Yup dude, swastakowey, my post was about age of sigmar too and that the game is here to stay. The gw stuff was because i wanted to throw in something more than just opinion and gw financials are available to everyone.

Sqorgar, that was a great post! I agree with you on pretty much everything too. Points isn't the real issue and there are many games in which synergy and army composition must be well studied and personally thought out.

^^ same (as Riddle of Steel)

Haha yea sure mate. I wonder how many people play their crappy board games... or how often people play Kill Team, or the Fantasy version of kill team etc.

I am very sure AOS will be different from the rest of GW mini games...

I give it 2 years at most before this game is hardly played anywhere unless GW makes changes to it.

I play kill teams, almost weekly. I also play planet strike, cities of death, the arena minigame from crusade of fire, and occasionally the old battle mission book...