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.

 Sqorgar wrote:
And frankly, if you are unwilling to compromise for the sake of a better game, you are probably the pain in the ass type of player that would be better served with a more structured, cutthroat game.

I think the issue isn't so much people being unwilling to compromise as there being no real way to know what is an isn't fair without a reasonable amount of experience in the game.

So far, the only option suggested for getting around that problem is 'just don't worry about it!'... which simply isn't a particularly useful answer.


There's a weird situation created here by the very structure of the game. They've made AoS into something more akin to Mageknight or the various othr Clix games than a traditional wargame. The thing is, in the Clix genre, people don't get quite as attached to the actual models... they're just counters for playing a game. But miniatures that people actually buy and build and paint develop a little more attachment. People build armies that they love, and they want to be able to use those armies. Having that all thrown up in the air by a system that doesn't let you plan just what you're going to be able to put on the table from one game to the next feels like a really weird direction to go in.


Edit - Or, in a nutshell, this:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.

I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:

If we started yesterday instead of years ago, we would not have to buy a single model more than we wanted to. We wouldn't need to collect a faction. We would have chosen our army and bought it, ...

And then, according to what we've just been told over the last page or so, may or may not ever get to actually put that army on the table, due to having to customise what you use based on what your opponent happens to bring with him on the day.

Rihgu wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.

I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.

While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.

I don't see how Age of Sigmar prevents that or even hampers the process. I love Dwarf Slayers. I have 40 of them, plus a dozen or so character models.

In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.

My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.

If we started yesterday instead of years ago, we would not have to buy a single model more than we wanted to. We wouldn't need to collect a faction. We would have chosen our army and bought it, which seems to be the opposite of what your objection to Age of Sigmar is.

Sorry if I misunderstood a part of your post.

My objection has nothing to do with wanting to make an army out of all 'special' and 'rare' units without any 'core' from the 8th ed army building system, it is that the way the rules are supposed to work I can put down 15 archers, my opponent 15 spearmen, me another 15 archers, him 10 riflemen, me 10 light cav, him 10 heavy cav. I have my whole army on the field, that is all I bought, all I painted, and I love the theme of it. Except he then puts down 20 greatswords, a cannon and a griffin. He's doing nothing wrong, and he just wants to play his 'army' like I just want to play mine, but the way the game is set up I seem top be expected to have pheonix guard and a dragon to put down to match him.

Rihgu wrote:


In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.

My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.

One might counter with the point that an entire army of nothing but Slayers never really had much of a basis in fluff to begin with, much like the forces of the Tomb Kings have never been portrayed as just a bunch of giant statue things.

Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...

In what way?

Given the constant complaints about how GW doesn't price things properly, the obvious hope would be that they did not bring a babykiller list to curbstomp your fluff bunny list into the ground.

But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.

Hiding behind the fig leaf of points doesn't change things, any more than not having points. Not all battles are fair, nor should they be. The real question is simply how well you can do with the forces you've got. If you tried to play well, then that's all GW asks of you.

If you can get past actually honestly losing a game, then AoS won't be an issue.

However, if you're still obsessing over winning, then AoS is not the game for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.

GW has no interest in supporting you on that; they want you to keep buying stuff, not to buy X points and quit.

Quite frankly, if you're going to be completely uncompromising about what you field, and you end up playing someone of the same mindset, playing their fixed "army", then you probably won't have an awesome game.

But then, that wouldn't be anything different from 8E, either, as comp / restrictions would have forced you to field other core stuff to enable your shadow warriors, watering your theme down. Or your army would have been weak due to points balance issues.

Again, if that's what you want to do, you should play something else. Not sure what that'd be, as I'd expect Ninth Age and Kings of War to have some sort of comp / restrictions just like in 8E.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...

In what way?

Given the constant complaints about how GW doesn't price things properly, the obvious hope would be that they did not bring a babykiller list to curbstomp your fluff bunny list into the ground.

But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.

That's a rather bold statement to make. The idea that people just can't accept that they lose games is rather, well, silly, especially for people that have stuck around through multiple editions. People that can't take losing don't stick around like that.

Hiding behind the fig leaf of points doesn't change things, any more than not having points. Not all battles are fair, nor should they be.

Most people approach tabletop wargames from the perspective that there's as much effort made towards fairness as possibly typically, or that, if the game isn't fair, that there's some sort of major stiliting in victory conditions to compensate.

I can't think of another tabletop miniatures game where anyone would even dream of making this argument. Not Dropzone Commander, not X-Wing, not Infinity, not Firestorm Armada, not Malifaux, not Warmahordes, or anything else I can think of.

The closest thing might be Flames of War, where it has a more "historical recreation" bit to it, but even that has points values and army structures and the the like and generally tried to be as "pickup" friendly as possible.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.

In general, these armies are nothing but spam, with ridiculously contrived justifications for the army.

Besides, GW wouldn't be so ridiculous as to allow players to field anything like that in 40k. Imagine of a player could field nothing but Titans in 40k. Or if every player could just take a Titan to augment their army. How stupid would that be?

Oh, wait...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.

In general, these armies are nothing but spam, with ridiculously contrived justifications for the army.

Besides, GW wouldn't be so ridiculous as to allow players to field anything like that in 40k. Imagine of a player could field nothing but Titans in 40k. Or if every player could just take a Titan to augment their army. How stupid would that be?

Oh, wait...

Indeed

 Vaktathi wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...

In what way?

Given the constant complaints about how GW doesn't price things properly, the obvious hope would be that they did not bring a babykiller list to curbstomp your fluff bunny list into the ground.

But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.

That's a rather bold statement to make. The idea that people just can't accept that they lose games is rather, well, silly, especially for people that have stuck around through multiple editions. People that can't take losing don't stick around like that.

Hiding behind the fig leaf of points doesn't change things, any more than not having points. Not all battles are fair, nor should they be.

Most people approach tabletop wargames from the perspective that there's as much effort made towards fairness as possibly typically, or that, if the game isn't fair, that there's some sort of major stiliting in victory conditions to compensate.

I can't think of another tabletop miniatures game where anyone would even dream of making this argument. Not Dropzone Commander, not X-Wing, not Infinity, not Firestorm Armada, not Malifaux, not Warmahordes, or anything else I can think of.

The closest thing might be Flames of War, where it has a more "historical recreation" bit to it, but even that has points values and army structures and the the like and generally tried to be as "pickup" friendly as possible.

It is an extremely mild statement, because otherwise, this whole "points" thing wouldn't be so much of a concern. If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same. If they didn't care about losing, then they'd accept that a big chunk of their wins (and losses) came from getting lucky or bringing some kind of OP list to the table, not "skill". If they didn't care about losing, they'd be OK to give their opponent an advantage. And if they really were even half as good as they pretend on the Internet, they'd win anyways, even with the odds against them..

None of those games are "fair", either. They all depend on a lot of luck and listbuilding to eke out advantage before the first die is thrown. If people were about fairness and skill, they'd play Chess or Go, and accept that a lot of games would be auto-loss / auto-win simply based on the skill of their opponent.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

For the record, I entered a lot of 40K tournaments throughout 5th and 6th edition. I was extremely happy with my results if I managed to finish anywhere in the top half of the field (which happened about half of the time). As a standby, I'd settle for winning at least one of those games, and if I managed to not get tabled more than twice, well, that was good too.


I have absolutely no problem with losing games.

I do, however, prefer the game to start on a more or less even footing, so that the game is a contest between me and my opponent, rather than a test of which of us can fit more stuff in his car...

Not all battles are fair, nor should they be.

Battle aren't. Games should be, unless there's a specific reason for it to not be.

Uneven games are all well and good for a one-off challenge, or to play through a scenario-driven campaign. But the standard should be to aim for both players being on an even footing... because that's what keeps the game interesting for both players.



There's a difference between 'obsessing over winning' and 'wanting a fair game'.

I plan out my armies based the stories I make up. Not spam lists and I dont have a problem with losing. I use Man O Wars and Freebooters for pity's sake. I like the idea that thought needs to be put into the lists.
But I need a fair game to have fun.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same.

This, BTW, is the Wraithknight "problem" in a nutshell. People want their extra-strong Titans and other super units, but they don't like that WKs totally fething *wreck* them, so that's "unfair". Despite the WK being grossly overpriced in a Titan-free environment. Since they can't comp the WK out of the game, without losing their Titans, the WK is "unfair", when it actually does exactly what GW wants it to do in managing the metagame.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Since they can't comp the WK out of the game, without losing their Titans, the WK is "unfair", when it actually does exactly what GW wants it to do in managing the metagame.

...which is...sell Wraithknights?

I'mma go with 'sell Wraithknights'.

You know, you can go ahead and say I don't care about anything but winning. You can say I can't take loosing. I don't give a gak. But you still haven't explained why an inherently unfair game is somehow a good thing.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

There's a difference between 'obsessing over winning' and 'wanting a fair game'.

Too bad it fits jono to a tee.

Not really. You're still presuming points to be fair, when we all know that points are not fair. At best, there is a semblance of external balance across a majority of factions, but no system out there has internal and external balance to a level that we might truly consider "fair". That's why the WM/H crowd takes forever to admit that their balance isn't actually that good, and never has been. It's why all of their wins are based on skill, rather than admitting that it's luck.

I mean, just read the comments here. Look how hard jono is working to come up with his replies. If he accepted that half his games would start at a disadvantage, and that he was going to lose a good chunk of them, while losing a good chunk of the ones where he had initial advantage, this whole "discussion" would be a lot easier.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.

That's a ridiculous generalisation.

There's a difference between 'obsessing over winning' and 'wanting a fair game'.

Not really. You're still presuming points to be fair, when we all know that points are not fair.

...no. No, we don't. Just because GW is bad at doing something doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Are they complex? Yes. Are they tricky to get right? Of course, and that's one of the reasons that a system like AoS, one which asks you to eyeball a fair fight, isn't particularly good at doing pickup games, because you still have to do that work. Are they inherently flawed as a system? I have yet to see a compelling reason for them to be.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know, you can go ahead and say I don't care about anything but winning. You can say I can't take loosing. I don't give a gak.

But you still haven't explained why an inherently unfair game is somehow a good thing.

Sure you do, or you wouldn't be responding like you do.

Every game is unfair, especially an "even points" game. What's ridiculous is that you won't acknowledge it as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not really. You're still presuming points to be fair, when we all know that points are not fair.

...no. No, we don't. Just because GW is bad at doing something doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Are they complex? Yes. Are they tricky to get right? Of course, and that's one of the reasons that a system like AoS, one which asks you to eyeball a fair fight, isn't particularly good at doing pickup games, because you still have to do that work. Are they inherently flawed as a system? I have yet to see a compelling reason for them to be.

If we know FOR A FACT that points are broken, how is eyeballing a game any worse?

Because the concept of points isn't broken. Certain models can be badly costed, but you've still got a baseline to work from if you want to adjust anything. A lot of people seem not to, but then, a lot of people tend to do what GW tell them to.

At least, until GW said 'buy Age of Sigmar'

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know, you can go ahead and say I don't care about anything but winning. You can say I can't take loosing. I don't give a gak.

But you still haven't explained why an inherently unfair game is somehow a good thing.

Sure you do, or you wouldn't be responding like you do.

Every game is unfair, especially an "even points" game. What's ridiculous is that you won't acknowledge it as such.

You still haven't explained why an unbalanced game is a good thing. Forget if other games are balanced or not. GW deliberately have not tried to balance AoS, that is an objectively bad design choice unless you can explain why an unfair game is better than a fair one.

 Spinner wrote:
Because the concept of points isn't broken.

Certain models can be badly costed, but you've still got a baseline to work from if you want to adjust anything. A lot of people seem not to, but then, a lot of people tend to do what GW tell them to.

At least, until GW said 'buy Age of Sigmar'

Except, points absolutely are broken. This has been proven in every single complex game system out there. Even WM/H, the presumed "best" balanced game flat out fails to be balanced with points. Until people can dartboard any army (absolute internal balance) and have them all match evenly against every constructed army (absolute external balance), points are broken. And that pretends it's all self-play of equal skill with perfectly uniform (not merely fair) dice.

Ignoring GW, because WM/H isn't any better costed, despite what the WM/H players claim. PP claims to be all about balance, but they haven't achieved it despite massive playtesting. And 40k, arguably one of the worst-balanced games is still the most popular. By far.

Age of Sigmar gets away from the bs of pretending that points are fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know, you can go ahead and say I don't care about anything but winning. You can say I can't take loosing. I don't give a gak.

But you still haven't explained why an inherently unfair game is somehow a good thing.

Sure you do, or you wouldn't be responding like you do.

Every game is unfair, especially an "even points" game. What's ridiculous is that you won't acknowledge it as such.

You still haven't explained why an unbalanced game is a good thing.

GW deliberately have not tried to balance AoS

As above, it reflects reality. And it's honest. Are you so naive and ignorant to believe that any of your games have been "fair"? Or just having the pretense and illusion of fairness?

That's a fething lie, and you know it. GW added a giant-killer provisions for Sudden Victory in AoS.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

It is an extremely mild statement, because otherwise, this whole "points" thing wouldn't be so much of a concern.

There's a difference between not being able to accept losing, and not wanting to play absurdly one-sided curbstompings. I can handle losing. I've lots hundreds of 40k and Fantasy games in my life. If I couldn't handle losing, I can't for the life of me think of why I'd keep playing. I've been outplayed, I've outplayed others. I've lost games because the dice hated me and won games because the dice loved me. That's not the issue for most people.

However, most people prefer games that are ostensibly on at least a somewhat even playing field (even if not perfect)/. People can live with some level of imbalance and nobody expects *perfect* balance. However, I don't want to show up to a game and spend 3 hours curb-stomping an opponent who can't do anything, nor do I want to spend 3 hours having an opponent roll dice to tell me what models I'm putting back int he case and be able to do nothing otherwise meaningful. That's not fun for anybody really.

If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same.

How does not having a points system remove that ability to eke out an advantage GW never intended except by simply removing the basis for comparison in the first place?

If they didn't care about losing, then they'd accept that a big chunk of their wins (and losses) came from getting lucky or bringing some kind of OP list to the table, not "skill".

I don't think anyone is denying that, however, there's nothing wrong or bad about wanting to maximize the potential for skill to make the deciding difference, and thus, start off from a roughly equal platform. Points values, in general, help do that, even if they're not perfect. There's a reason basically every tabletop game in existence uses them in one form or another.

If they didn't care about losing, they'd be OK to give their opponent an advantage.

There's a difference between being "ok with losing" and not wanting to play a hugely uphill battle. I think you're conflating the two here.

And if they really were even half as good as they pretend on the Internet, they'd win anyways, even with the odds against them..

Usually not, God is on the side of the bigger battalion for a reason. Especially in a game where so many things that go into a real battle (e.g. choosing the engagement location, logistics, command & control, etc) don't play any part.

No matter how good you are, if you're playing at a significant advantage, unless your opponent is wildly incompetent, you're going to lose far more times than you're going to eke out a win. Everyone has had their "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat story", but they're typically rare and memorable for a reason.

if you show up with thirty Chaos Knights, two Hellcannons, a Bloodthirster, and Archaon, against my line of twelve Goblins and a single Shaman, well, sorry, no matter how good I am, I'm not winning that, skill will play zero part in determining victory.

None of those games are "fair", either. They all depend on a lot of luck and listbuilding to eke out advantage before the first die is thrown. If people were about fairness and skill, they'd play Chess or Go, and accept that a lot of games would be auto-loss / auto-win simply based on the skill of their opponent.

We're not talking perfect fairness, but "fair enough". Sure, there's all sorts of problems a lot of these other games have, but they're not on anything near what AoS (and increasingly, 40k) face. And, probably even more to the point, AoS faces the problem of a lot of "unknown unknowns".

Likewise, Chess isn't perfectly fair either, White will typically win ~55% of the time due to first turn advantage, but most people can live with a gap like that. But that's not what we're talking about in this case.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same.

This, BTW, is the Wraithknight "problem" in a nutshell. People want their extra-strong Titans and other super units, but they don't like that WKs totally fething *wreck* them, so that's "unfair". Despite the WK being grossly overpriced in a Titan-free environment.

By what standard? They pack weaponry that can remove high value targets with exceptional capable every turn, and engage at least two such targets every turn, while being extremely mobile, with high toughness and half a dozen wounds, and a large number of high strength CC attacks to boot. The vast majority of people don't play with Titans, most players have never seen a Titan and have never had one as part of their play experience, yet still have major problems with Wraithknights. They are certainly more than a match for their equivalent points in battle tanks, be they Hammerheads, Predators, Russ Tanks, Fire Prisms, etc, and likewise most MC's such as Trygons, Wraithlords, Carnifexes, Taloses, Avatars, Riptides, etc.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Until people can dartboard any army (absolute internal balance) and have them all match evenly against every constructed army (absolute external balance), points are broken.

And that is a complete and total misunderstanding of how balance is supposed to work. No one would ever suggest that an army that comes to say a 40k game with no anti tank weapons should have an equal chance of beating an all vehicle army.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


That's a fething lie, and you know it. GW added a giant-killer provisions for Sudden Victory in AoS.

No, GW added a horde-killer provision with Sudden Death. Since there's no real limit on how many elite troops/monsters/giant killy death machines you can bring, it really only penalizes groups that need to heavily outnumber the enemy.

Good thing they curbed all those unfluffy goblin and skaven swarms!

I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.

 Spinner wrote:
I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.

I forget if it was this thread or another but I have said it before on this sub forum that I had NEVER heard anyone asking for GW to remove points before AoS was released. The support for this sprang up the day it was announced.

@Vakathi - so points will automatically prevent curbstomp battles in 40k? How does that Possesed - Mutiliator - Defiler force of yours do on the tabletop against equal points of Imperial Knights? Fair battles every time, right?

If the requirement isn't prefect balance, then why is AoS held to a different standard? Nobody has shown any basis for explaining why the mk.1 eyeball is any worse than a points system, especially when employed by such experienced players as you all hold yourselves to be.

Your Chaos vs Gobbo example is a good example of the mk.1 eyeball at work. You're saying it would actually come up on the tabletop among players trying for a "fair" game? Really?

If a 55-45 advantage is OK in Chess (and assuming equal ratings), why isn't it OK in AoS? You're saying you have no ability to eyeball armies within 10%? Yet you just pulled that Chaos v Gobbo thing out your ass?

The WK is overpriced against fodder, and you know it. That's why you rattled off a list of superior units. And it's why the WK isn't free.
____

@jono - actually it absolutely is. Dartboarding an army should produce a valid result, particularly in the sort of limited turns, objective-based game that 40k has become. Same with WM/H - if all the tools were priced properly (which they are not)...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:
I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.

Nobody thought about playing without points until GW released AoS.

It's like nobody knew they needed a smartphone until Apple released the iPhone.

 Spinner wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


That's a fething lie, and you know it. GW added a giant-killer provisions for Sudden Victory in AoS.

No, GW added a horde-killer provision with Sudden Death. Since there's no real limit on how many elite troops/monsters/giant killy death machines you can bring, it really only penalizes groups that need to heavily outnumber the enemy.

Good thing they curbed all those unfluffy goblin and skaven swarms!

I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.

Yeah, Sudden Death really seems to work far more in the favor of armies that bring the giant killy things than against them, as they'll typically be the ones outnumbered and getting to pick the Sudden Death objective.

And yeah, never heard people actually have a problem with the fundamental concept of a points system until AoS came out. Lots of problems with specific implementations, but never with the underlying idea, especially with anything near the vehemency shown by some now.

Sudden Death is no worse a balancing mechanism than points.

Until AoS did away with points, there was never the vehemency with which people demanded points to be there.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

If we know FOR A FACT that points are broken, how is eyeballing a game any worse?

If my roof has a few leaks, I'm no worse off if I just remove it, right?

Calling people out because they disagree with the balance of a system as people who "can't take losing", as liars, or whatever else is happening here is not at all polite. Rule 1 holds, and if you step over that line again you're done for a goodly while

If your car is fundamentally unsafe, you won't be allowed to drive it.

Anyhow, I guess I'm done here.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Sudden Death is no worse a balancing mechanism than points.

Given that Sudden Death does absolutely nothing to balance the game, that claim seems questionable.