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.

hey all

I know this must have been done a thousand times but...

Got back into Warhammer recently and picked up an AOS starter box, I enjoy modeling and painting as well as playing and really like the models, plus a codex to use my old 40k army upon first visit to a GW store

Reading the codex and thinking up ideas got me super excited to keep playing 40k and there are a great group of players near me


I like the AOS book a lot as well and there are good players for it too but right now it's waiting to get any attention until... A point system ....

The guy at the store told me sure no problem you can just figure out what's fair, but Ive played a few 40k games next to AOS games and it seems every time one side is clearly more powerful than the other

I will paint my models when I run out of 40k to work with but I'm really hoping for a point system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it? Was WHFB broken - and if it was - were points bad? I just can't see a game working well without points.

If I'm holding onto this box to paint and play once we get a good set of rules - will these be collection pieces or should I keep hoping - for official rules

Honestly, I don't think points will save this game.

True enough, but GW is investing quite a bit into all these new releases don't you think? What is wrong with AOS? I sort of like the new unit characteristics and to hit/to wound/rend balance- in theory. Is it more than that?

I don't know if GW will ever come out with a balancing/point-ish mechanism in the future, but fans have made various versions, such as www.scrollbuilder.com.

I think the game takes a slightly different mentality to the old way, more of a cooperative experience, where you're working with your opponent to have a fun game, not so much trying to list-craft your way into beating him.

its a laundry list of bad. I have played about 110 games of it and was enthusiastic about it before I actually played it, now I loathe it to the point of ditching GW altogether after playing since rogue trader and old hardback warhammer, its that bad. but as for the issue around points, GW should have done their homework and tested, played, and tested again a balancing mechanism, instead they didnt bother and gave us some lame "narrative" bs. which you can do in any game out there. the bases thing is just a mess, I have seen more arguments about distances and ranges in AoS than i did in any other game, and there were only a tiny group of us even willing to try. combat, especially when you have bigger games is just an abysmal mess. the rules are basically just rehashed watered down 40k/WHFB mixed. The closest we came to games that werent either 1 sided slaughters or complete snoozefests, were the old battallion boxes against each other. the warscrolls are good (even if i personally think the name is ridiculous) they are themselves easy enough to use. but overall the game scales very poorly. was rarely any fun, which the GW staffer constantly saying "now isnt this fun" and "see this is so much better than warhammer" while we were frustratedly trying to tolerate the shoddy rules didnt help. This game should have been so much better than it is, GW had a real opportunity to send warhammer out gracefully, then make a great game, they didnt bother, and it shows in the power creep already.

Wait a second. You can't compare to 40K. 40K is a fracking joke. 40K points? Really? Seriously? You know how unfair 40K points are right? AoS is better and more fair than 40K with points.

Yeah but at least it's something, a concrete system that allows customization but is held within bounds and does allow balance and rebelancing!! - and although I've yet to play really OP armies, and things are more complex and a lot different than when I used to play in third, at least everyone fights under the same system. I don't care if chaos units are underpowered, let the good guys have their advantage we can siege victory against the odds! But for AOS I'm looking at seraphon units, why would I ever take Saurus Warriors instead of temple guard, how can blood reavers stand up to liberators, nice models aside, without a point system - the absolute core of any take too game - I just don't see matches being fair - I play fun, and so my opponent has fun - but we both do, win or lose, with equal chance under the same system

Even if they added points it's a sure thing they'd not do proper play testing so it'd still be an unbalanced mess.

Davor wrote:
Wait a second. You can't compare to 40K. 40K is a fracking joke. 40K points? Really? Seriously? You know how unfair 40K points are right? AoS is better and more fair than 40K with points.

the comparison is not the points, its the model to model distance for coherency, the turn sequence, the shooting/combat, that kind of thing, believe me I concur completely on how awful 40k is.

Davor wrote:
Wait a second. You can't compare to 40K. 40K is a fracking joke. 40K points? Really? Seriously? You know how unfair 40K points are right? AoS is better and more fair than 40K with points.

Just because 40k points aren't good for balancing doesn't mean points are bad.

I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]

I played miniatures since the 80's. Even with a points system, I never saw a balanced game.

After setup, we usually knew who was going to win based on terrain and unit choice.

Some of that was paper-scissors-rock ("You brought a knife to a gun fight?"), but some of it was the fact that all point systems are merely an attempt at balancing and can't be perfect.

I'm sure there will be a points system sooner or later. There are several fan made systems already. There is also the Chaos Warband Path to Glory system that has a system for chaos armies.

 Haechi wrote:
I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]

Probably the biggest key to what you said is the word "friends" any game can be great with friends, but pick up games with complete strangers that have no basis of comparison is hard. I had a hell of a time trying to work through warscrolls at pickup games at our gw. too many people who have too many different ideas, its not necessarily about "competition"

Yes friends, family, your local gaming community of friendly gamers... THIS is what GW made AOS for. If you want competitive play, this game is not for you. There are a lot of fantasy players badmouthing the game but I say remember past fantasy editions? One was so bad it only lasted months... months before the next edition was released with a new starter set. AOS has lasted more than a few months, has come out with several army books, campaign books, the app, and gorgeous models (all gw models are getting a lot better). Aos is selling and folks are enjoying it. I'd say if you have no friends or family, meet a core group of flgs 'strangers', befriend them, and learn the enjoyment of playing casual narrative games. If not, well aos is not for you and badmouthing it won't make those that enjoy it not enjoy it. Building a modular 8' x 4' table is also easy to do and very rewarding.


The internet, ebay, and direct only models are making the "stranger" pick up games at flgs go away. Besides, it is so much nicer playing in your home where you can drink, uncensor language, watch tv, play music, etc, whilst gaming and not have the smelly crowd playing cards, itching their faces, and trying to touch or take your models that many flgs have.


We have found balance with the 0-1 monster keyword, 0-2 hero keyword, and 7 max warscroll keyword limits (without duplicate scrolls). This limits power units, characters, and summoning shenanigans. Our games are always close and we have a lot of fun playing with our group of friends and wives. We have not tested all armies for balance but so far the tomb kings, stormcast, all chaos, high elves, dark elves, lizardmen, and bretonians all work well (do math hammer first and find the better 'elite' units, it is a small skirmish game that elite units do better in). Points would make the game easier for many but it wouldn't change what we have with the wound cap and limits spoken of earlier. There are also several different point systems made by gamers for gamers, which work well in the casual setting. In the end, points would end up like formation hammer/40k, in which a lions blade force gets 600 points of tanks for free... leading to a 2450 vs 1850 point army battle...

Well, gotta go and build my new kits I purchased for aos today (more high elves, dark elves, tomb kings, everchosen, and lizardmen)! Got an aos game tomorrow night to prepare for!

the thing is AoS like all war games IS a competitive game, its just not any good at it. noone is seriously going to go set up the models with the intent of being nothing more than a punching bag, AoS is not written that way, and it is no more narrative than any other game. It has scenarios that are meant to be won, it is not a balanced tournemant game, but it is by its very nature competitive. most of what I hear in these forums are people having to modify the game just to make it work, thats not a good thing its a design flaw. This is not a hate on AoS rant for the hell of it, its simply that this game should have been a lot better than what we got. accepting subpar products from GW guarantees you will continue to get subpar products.

I'll be in Illinois next year and I'd love to come play with your circle 455_PWR =]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:
the thing is AoS like all war games IS a competitive game.

Last game I played was a combined force of all order armies my friends and I have, set up all around the table 6" from the border, against our other friend who only played 4 necromancers and Neferata in the middle, trying to raise armies faster than we could destroy them. This was not a competitive game whatsoever and I have no idea what you're talking about.

you were in direct competition with the necromancers. if you could not destroy those army's you lost, if you did you won. It doesn't have to be cutthroat but that is most certainly competition.

Then AoS is a very good competitive game cause not only that one was hilarious and fun, but it was also very close and epic.

If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.

thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.

GW will not retroactively add them. It was a clear design decision intrinsic to what AoS is.

It is what it is (and our group enjoys it).

 thekingofkings wrote:
Honestly, I don't think points will save this game.

I think it might; the other issues can be overcome. I don't think it'll happen though as that's not how the gw staff play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bleak wrote:

thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.

Of course. There is literally nothing you can do in aos that you can't in any other game*. As proof; give me an example of one.
obviously some systems will require more work; Bolt Action doesn't have rules for magic, for instance.

Edit: The game would need to at least cover troop based combat. You can't really do a Nagash Vs Orc battle using Blood Bowl, X-Wing or Battlefleet Gothic for example.

GW won't add points to AoS because somewhat ironically it means that no unit is pointless (to take).
As you may have picked up, opinion is divided...

As people have said, if you're after a straight-up balanced out of a book pitched battle type game, AoS vanilla isn't for you.
If you like the system but want points, there's various fan systems out there.

There are plenty of people who *do* enjoy AoS without points, MongooseMatt's blog posts are a great example of this.

AoS is intended to be a different experience to WFB.

endur wrote:
I played miniatures since the 80's. Even with a points system, I never saw a balanced game.

After setup, we usually knew who was going to win based on terrain and unit choice.

Some of that was paper-scissors-rock ("You brought a knife to a gun fight?"), but some of it was the fact that all point systems are merely an attempt at balancing and can't be perfect.

I'm sure there will be a points system sooner or later. There are several fan made systems already. There is also the Chaos Warband Path to Glory system that has a system for chaos armies.

You have had a deprived childhood. I've been playing since the 80s too, and I've seen tons of balanced games, with or without points.

Back on topic, whether points are good or not, and whether GW can do points well or not, it definitely looks like GW have no intention of putting points into AoS.

If you want a points system for the game, it's best to look into the various fan creations.

I honestly don't think GW as a company has what it takes to make a good points system, age of sigmar is ok without if they put some effort into it as such.
As a naritive system I think it's really avrage right now, and needs work. But Could be worse and end up like 40k right :0

No points before they get what they aiming for right.

When GW writes points for AOS, that will be a sad day. Not only will all of the fan systems be killed in one fell swoop, but GW's long storied history of not doing points right will bring back units you always take, units you never take, and an internet meta that will start creating carbon copied point efficient lists everywhere.

I hope GW leaves AOS alone as far as points are concerned.

Honetly I don't think it needs points. "If everything is OP, nothing OP" is sufficient, if not lazy form of balance.

If you must have a structure for the game Wounds and Unit Keywords are sufficient for the purpose of army building.

bleak wrote:
If you want to play points there are a couple out there fanmade sites such as scrollbuilder.com that let's you set some points as a gauge, which I use loosely as I often use a couple of points lower than my opponents and more often than not have an equal fight or even gaining an upper hand sometimes. You'll also realise how different fan made points are different although its the same unit, which proves that there is no particular fairness in pointage systems. In one area, a unit could be strong but bring it to a different area with different meta, you get a different result. Still I would agree points is a quite way to find 'balance' quickly.

thekingofkings, think of it this way, can you play a match that is somewhat similar to GoT's battle scenes with other games? Stannis' last battle was definitely stacked against him, but Ramsey did not get a major victory because Brienne was the one who truly won in the end, and AoS does let you create this kind of games easily which I do believe other games can do but nobody would want to play because there is 'no balance'.

There are literally dozens of games that would recreate that fight far better than AoS could, mostly because there was nothing inherently "fantasy" about that battle. Brienne and Ramsay had different objectives entiretly, Ramsay won a decisive victory as Stannis and his army were effectively destroyed. Stannis living or dying was of no matter at the point his force was destroyed. While it would seem a no brainer that such a cavalry force would easily win, had the ground been icier or less forgiving or had Stannis withdrew quicker and in better order to the treeline (the show had half his army rout before contact) it could have been a more closely fought affair. It would have been done far better by a "historical game" and having played these scenarios ad nauseam, they usually result in middle mosh pits,. the nature of movement and combat in AoS almost ensures it, without discipline on players parts, its inevitable. points arent necessarily the answer, something with the warscrolls themselves seems to me the way to go. that even so many folks who enjoy AoS seem compelled to create comps or points, even GW itself has done limiting for running its own game, that is design flaw, not a good thing. As for the freedom to build armies, AoS suffers the same as warhammer in that regard, there simply are useless units and units that are clearly superior. after about our 30th game, it was blatantly obvious that this was the case. I am also not saying this game is beyond redemption, but it is certainly not very good in its current incarnation, Believe that this is not "the final product" any more than any other GW mainline game, there will be a 2nd, 3rd, etc edition of this game. GW has never "gotten it right" straight out of the gate with anything, this is no different. I think what would have helped it more, delay release by several months, put ALOT more effort into finding some balancing mechanism, completely divorce the old world and old characters. insist on 1 base type and make it the standard of measurement, then produce the game as it is with its new factions and new concepts. as it stands now its a string along with people wondering "is my army next" to be deleted. I have brettonia, tomb kings, wood elves and high elves. so while with these "1.0" warscrolls I can still play, but as my armies get deleted or mangled and discontinued the power creep will continue until either i get a new AoS army or just drop the game. had the rules been better written and less nonsensical, buying a new army would have been a good idea, fluff wise its whatever folks like, personally I the fluff the most. doing a complete 180 from its previous incarnation essentially without warning would have been mitigated by just making this a new game. What they produced now will mostly appeal to a smaller group, as I have said before I think this game is more popular in europe than here. In my state GW is already a non factor and i hold little hope our local GW will last. but thats not AoS thats just poor location, poor customer service, tiny shop etc...

Not disputing the whole post, but power creep is entirely the product of codifying balance badly. Power creep is by definition impossible in AoS because judging balance is done by players not the rule publishers, so efficacy of unit X or unit Y is judged in it's place in the local meta.

I understand how pile-ins controlling movement will naturally pull units further into proximity with other units - and this may be because I only play scenarios rather than pitched battles - but I have never had a game of AoS that featured the 'mosh in the middle' that people keep talking about as an inevitability in the game.
A few big combats involving multiple units, sure - but these will always occur in a game where controlling/destroying/defending something specific is part of the victory conditions.

 Haechi wrote:
I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]

It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,

hobojebus wrote:

Spoiler:

 Haechi wrote:
I don't think AoS needs a point system to be enjoyed. Obviously if you're looking for competitive play you might want to go for an
other game. But personally, with custom scenarios and friends, while without using any point system, AoS games have been the best fun I've ever had table top gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also we should consider this is the first release of AoS. AoS 1 if you want. So who knows what can happen in AoS second edition =]

[spoiler]

It's selling less than wfb did they won't make a 2nd edition it'll either be dropped like wfb or left to rot like the hobbit,

Evidence, please.