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.

 Haechi wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


I don't think this so much at all, players don't really seem to be playing in a difernt way.
The lack of points hasn't really made the missions and more naritive driven, watching YouTube it looks almost standward. (Short of no points given)
Points can be used to great effect in naritive campaigns, I have played 2 for Warmachine and run 1 myself.
What has always been the issue with GW games has been poor rules for naritive games, which I think all age of sigmar really did was drop points..
Lack of points hasn't changed how people think so much, as force people to come up with creative solutions to play like they did before :(
Setting a standard for ease of play isn't bad, but GW isn't doing anything with its standard.

The narrative strength of AoS is in the army compositions. Point systems come with restrictions and requirements. Here are a few examples, from my armies, armies of friends, and projects.

-Bat themed VC army with fell bats, bats swarms, varghiests, terrogheists, etc.
-Skinks only Seraphon army with monsters that carries them.
-Witch cult only Dark Elves.
-Chariots only Tomb Kings (I just took the last chance opportunity to buy this army entirely from scratch. 240 euros of chariots xD)
-Savage Orcs.
-Empire Griffons. Griff-hounds, Demi-Griffs, Griffon mages, Griffon lord.
-Spirits VC. Spirits, Archais, Mortarghs, Covent Throne, etc
-Minotaurs army.
-Winged Stormcasts.

None of those would we viable in a game with points, and all of them would be crushed by net comps. In my local store, when we bring armies like this, everybody comes around the table to see how it will fair, and we build the opposing army accordingly.
Take my Chariot TK army. I haven't played with it yet (hell I haven't even took them out of the box yet), but I have no doubt it would get crushed by everything. Thankfully in my store, most people play AoS for the fun and narrative they can create, so when I'll bring it out, it will result in games of epic charges against equally interesting themed armies. Games I absolutely do not care if I win or not.

Naritive doesn't mean you can take anything, and it really shouldn't at all mean that. I have a chariots themed tomb Kong army well over the 7000 points for fantasy and take many elements from tomb kings. Just because you hold to a theme it doesn't mean it's to a naritive, and often can be detriment to it.
Some of above I would class as outliers and others I ask why couldn't they be done in a points system ?
A good a robust system will allow for army's within its natural naritive, with outliers being possible with varying dificultys. With simple changes being the norm for naritive play. (W/H with no warcaster or warlock)
If GW really care about naritive there is a lot they could do, adding points isn't needed for a naritive game. But age of sigmar does really nothing for it.

In the thought to naritive, a space marine all terminator force is cool and fluffy but it shouldn't be on the open battlefield against a elder craftworld outside a custom scenario. Unless your naritive is a suicidel or incompetent commander. Points doesn't hinder this, it should re enforce the standard so the naritive you create is interesting when you deviate.

Points are not needed for age of sigmar, players shouldn't be looking for GW to add them. GW is bad at it anyway, what they should be asking for is GW to improve the game and stystems they have now. Not leave entire army's hanging for years. And actuly consider evolution to stagnation in there game.
Things GW is continuing right from 8th right into sigmar

 streetsamurai wrote:

Pretty much all evidence suggest that this joke of a system is a commercial failure.

...and that attention to detail is how you get creationists, folks.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Some refuse to acknowledge it, but personally, I think a few of them are plants or alias.

...and chemtrail conspiracy theorists...

 streetsamurai wrote:

Not to mention that the numerous polls on the major wargaming forums have shown that the large majority of WHFB players are not playing AOS

...and people who act all surprised when the candidate they and all their friends voted for didn't win...

Hey now, I'm a creationist! A bit below the belt there, friend.

The second part shows clearly that he'd be a scientologist, though.

@Haechi, i've actually heard good things about chariot armies in AoS. You might be the one doing the crushing.

We'll see. I've basically bought the formation warscroll and few characters.

I'm thinking about building the Bullgors warscroll with it, and pitch them against each other.

RoperPG wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Pretty much all evidence suggest that this joke of a system is a commercial failure.

...and that attention to detail is how you get creationists, folks.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Some refuse to acknowledge it, but personally, I think a few of them are plants or alias.

...and chemtrail conspiracy theorists...

 streetsamurai wrote:

Not to mention that the numerous polls on the major wargaming forums have shown that the large majority of WHFB players are not playing AOS

...and people who act all surprised when the candidate they and all their friends voted for didn't win...

You seemed pretty confused. In fact, since a creationist is someone that clings to his belief, despite all the evidences pointing to the contrary, you're way closer to being one than I am. Sure, the methodology of these polls is far from perfectr , but they're pretty much the best information that we have on the subject. And they all point toward AOS being a huge failure, No matter how much anguish it cause to you, and the 5 others AOS enthusiats,

Facts that fit a theory aren't the same as facts that prove a theory.
You don't like AoS, and your experience and perceptions are filtered through that.
I like AoS, so mine is the reverse.
The trick is to be able to look at things objectively.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but if you aren't it's by chance rather than your chain of reasoning.

For example, the recent WW AoS event had around 50 attendees. That's more than 5, right?

Anyhoo, risking getting way OT now.

I would think there are fewer AoS players online because they're *gasp* enjoying it and don't need/crave the validation of other enthusiasts.

FWIW the scene is really picking up at my FLGS, but they have taken to using the Warscroll Builder site so it's not pure AoS.

I'll be taking the plunge once I decide on an army (Skaven, Skelly bobs or Orruks - that will take some getting used to!) but I want to try it without a fan made points system.

It is largely erelivent to players how well it is doing on a world wide scale, other than one of GWs big ist strengths being that you could play it no matter where you had gone.
WW AoS event could have zero and it would affect me largely the same. All that matters is wether it's enough for GW.
Off topic of corse. (I am amazed how cheep I could get stormcasts)

I do think that Age of Sigmar has the chance to be awesome, points or not. But it's still GW at the helm, they where willing to drop points with not really putting much effort into the game itself. No real thing stopping them swaying wildly in the other direction if AoS isn't doing well enough for them now.

Apple fox wrote:
(I am amazed how cheep I could get stormcasts)

Interestingly, I have heard a rumour that Stormcast sets that dont appear to be selling as expected (Prosecutors & Liberators) is thought to be due to the prevalence of 2nd hand sales from big-box split-downs.

Well, that's just a rumour, and also it's not really relevant to the issue of a points system.

To me, while I think the game would have been better with some kind of simple combat value indication on the war scrolls, I don't think this is necessary if you treat the game as a fast-play skirmish where you aren't all that worried about balance of the sides.

AoS clearly is not intended as a serious tournament game. It seems unlikely that GW could ever attract serious tournament players just by adding a points system.

RoperPG wrote:

Apple fox wrote:
(I am amazed how cheep I could get stormcasts)

Interestingly, I have heard a rumour that Stormcast sets that dont appear to be selling as expected (Prosecutors & Liberators) is thought to be due to the prevalence of 2nd hand sales from big-box split-downs.

To be fair, the starter set costs about the same as 2x 5-man boxes. They'd be idiots to think people wouldn't split the starter set.

 monders wrote:
I would think there are fewer AoS players online because they're *gasp* enjoying it and don't need/crave the validation of other enthusiasts.

FWIW the scene is really picking up at my FLGS, but they have taken to using the Warscroll Builder site so it's not pure AoS.

I'll be taking the plunge once I decide on an army (Skaven, Skelly bobs or Orruks - that will take some getting used to!) but I want to try it without a fan made points system.

The unhappy are always louder than the satisfied.

 Haechi wrote:

The narrative strength of AoS is in the army compositions. Point systems come with restrictions and requirements. Here are a few examples, from my armies, armies of friends, and projects.

Ironically, restrictions and requirements often support the narrative element. ‘taking whatever you want’ and ‘having no restrictions’ isn’t the same as being themed.

 Haechi wrote:

-Bat themed VC army with fell bats, bats swarms, varghiests, terrogheists, etc.
-Skinks only Seraphon army with monsters that carries them.
-Witch cult only Dark Elves.
-Chariots only Tomb Kings (I just took the last chance opportunity to buy this army entirely from scratch. 240 euros of chariots xD)
-Savage Orcs.
-Empire Griffons. Griff-hounds, Demi-Griffs, Griffon mages, Griffon lord.
-Spirits VC. Spirits, Archais, Mortarghs, Covent Throne, etc
-Minotaurs army.
-Winged Stormcasts.

None of those would we viable in a game with points, and all of them would be crushed by net comps. In my local store, when we bring armies like this, everybody comes around the table to see how it will fair, and we build the opposing army accordingly.

Why not?

I disagree. Why wouldn’t they be viable in a points based game? Surely if they get crushed, it speaks more about poorly implemented game mechanics than anything else? The system is robust, it would be able to handle it? Don’t make the mistake of confusing ‘points based systems’ with ‘poorly designed points based system’ which is precisely what you are doing. I mean, in warmachine and infinity, I can have themed armies (all-cav armies, all jack/monster armies, magic themed armies and so on) and they perform just as well as anything else, and within the context of multi-list formats and specific formats such as blood, sweat and tiers that PP promote, they have carved out a very viable niche.

You are also confusing cause and effect. ‘points’ isn’t the reason those themed armies ‘get crushed’ by netlists or wouldnt be viable, but somehow ‘lack of points’ allow them to do well in AOS. Its ‘building the opposing army accordingly’ which does it. Amusingly, this can also be done in points-based systems.

 Haechi wrote:

Take my Chariot TK army. I haven't played with it yet (hell I haven't even took them out of the box yet), but I have no doubt it would get crushed by everything. Thankfully in my store, most people play AoS for the fun and narrative they can create, so when I'll bring it out, it will result in games of epic charges against equally interesting themed armies. Games I absolutely do not care if I win or not.

And when I match it against my theoretical narrative and themed ‘the apocalypse is nigh’ army of fifty bloodthirsters and other bloodnouns that I play for fun and narrative? I mean, above, you dismiss the idea of themed armies as unworkable in points based systems because they will ‘get crushed by net comps’, but when your narrative lists get crushed in non-points based systems, its something epic and you don’t care if you get crushed. Seems like double standards to me. Your argument is a bit dishonest because you are applying a shock absorber (ie ‘building the opposing army accordingly’) to your preference, and not the other, and using this as ‘proof’ that that your preferred system is somehow better and you use this to justify how lack of points allows greater variety. What this reinforces has actually got nothing to do with point-based systems being bad, or non-point based systems being good. Both are prone to the same issues. What acts as a shock absorber in both is either having it out with your opponent as to what would be a good match-up and working from there-which you can do in both AOS and points based systems- or else having other ‘shock absorbers’ in place like specific structural components built into the game that allows for, and encourages variety, eg multiple list formats in wargames which allow for dodging those hard counters that often hamper themed lists, factoring in things like multiple win conditions, having sideboards in your army rosters and so on.

which goes back to the point that it’s a gamer approach that causes the problem, not a system thing.

Just read the first few posts...

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
Was WHFB broken - and if it was - were points bad?

Yes, WHFB (and 40K) was broken, but it wasn't an inherent problem with points. Just that the studio didn't bother their arse to thrash out balanced points. Among other things...

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote: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?

The problem with WHFB and 40K is that the main aim of the games, the main method of winning, is to try to cram the best combination of unit rules and special rules into the army restrictions. I.e. listbuilding. There are some little tactical considerations, like pulling off a flank attack or deciding whether to shoot or run, but these come in a distant second to all the unique abilities you can buy. (And I mean buy. Witness the GW gamers who get hot under the collar when someone uses older models, something scratchbuilt, or even cardboard counters, as if they're cheating against the true point of the GW hobby, according to Alan Merrett)

AoS is just like that, but more so. All the restrictions and the few tactical tricks have been stripped out. The four-page main rules are so simple, generic and without nuance, that any gaming group could have whipped them up within half an hour. Now the rules are really all about the special rules. The rules are all there in the fancy, arbitrary abilities in the warscrolls, and the corresponding models you have to buy to make use of them. That's all there is. Thekingofkings' 'laundry list of bad' is so sadly predictable, just from that initial reading of AoS.

I mean, strewth, when even the scenery gets unique, must-buy warscroll rules...

Thanks to some basic facts about brain development, I'm convinced that 'memorisation of loads of stats and rules before the tabletop' vs. 'judgement and decisions with apparently simpler rules on the tabletop' is a big part of what makes WHFB/40K's game style more suited to children and teens rather than older gamers. And I'm also pretty well convinced that's why the GW fanbase took such a strop against AoS. Not only did it kill most of the few on-table opportunities to stimulate the ol' frontal lobes, but - perhaps without many being conscious of it - the all-new game forced many remaining players to take a fresh, more detached, didn't-grow-up-with-this-game look at what GW's 'special rules over structure and tactics' games design was actually like. Along with the OTT background and models, the rules are an opportunity to look at WHFB and 40K at a different angle, to see what they really are, or the direction they were/are headed.

Look upon AoS, ye Warhammer players, and despair. The biggest shock is that this is what became of WHFB sooner rather than later.

That's for most of the older players, anyway. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a stream of new kids going wild for AoS, either.

thekingofkings wrote: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.

I can imagine. That's putting some funny pictures in my head.

 streetsamurai wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:

Pretty much all evidence suggest that this joke of a system is a commercial failure.

...and that attention to detail is how you get creationists, folks.

 streetsamurai wrote:

Some refuse to acknowledge it, but personally, I think a few of them are plants or alias.

...and chemtrail conspiracy theorists...

 streetsamurai wrote:

Not to mention that the numerous polls on the major wargaming forums have shown that the large majority of WHFB players are not playing AOS

...and people who act all surprised when the candidate they and all their friends voted for didn't win...

You seemed pretty confused. In fact, since a creationist is someone that clings to his belief, despite all the evidences pointing to the contrary, you're way closer to being one than I am. Sure, the methodology of these polls is far from perfectr , but they're pretty much the best information that we have on the subject. And they all point toward AOS being a huge failure, No matter how much anguish it cause to you, and the 5 others AOS enthusiats,

I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count? No reports show AoS is a huge failure and that argument is laughable. The financial report showed a slight decline in sales from the previous year, of which AoS was only present half of that period. We don't know what caused that decline 40K, WHFB or AoS. Likely, AoS is smaller currently than WHFB was, but this was a long term change and AoS is growing in many areas. You have to look at it as a completely new game and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.

WHFB was generally regarded as a more tactically complex game than 40K, thanks to rules like flanking bonuses and psychology.

The fundamental problem was that for decades, GW promoted both WHFB and 40K as tournament level games, with various tournament circuits. But they hd constantly changing rules, and a balance system that was so crocked, that the best way to get an advantage was to find the newest and best sploits in building a list.

That's not a format of gaming I personally am interested in, but a lot of people are, and to be fair, it's not an invalid way of playing a game. At any rate, GW, wittingly or not, put a lot of time and effort into boosting it up.

Then they pulled the rug out from under. It's not surprising that these players are angry.

I still don't believe AoS will ever get a points system. I just don't see it being a game that GW want to promote as a tournament system.

broxus wrote:

I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count?

Compared to what? Hundreds or even thousands of previous WHFB players?

No reports show AoS is a huge failure and that argument is laughable.

Except all the gamers and store owners and financial analysts saying 'this thing is dead'.

The financial report showed a slight decline in sales from the previous year, of which AoS was only present half of that period. We don't know what caused that decline 40K, WHFB or AoS.

This has been hashed over so many times. Most of GW's sales of a product come just after it's release. If the needle doesn't even make an upwards wobble, months after GW's big, fancy, new fanfare of a game, I think we might be able to make an educated guess which product shoulders a lot of the blame.

You have to look at it as a completely new game

See my previous post. As a game, new or otherwise, it's terrible.

and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.

Do you have any reports to back that up?

And if it is growing, will it grow quick enough for GW? They've chucked away better games for less, in their time.

 Vermis wrote:

broxus wrote:

I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count?

Compared to what? Hundreds or even thousands of previous WHFB players?

The attendance of the SCGT is a bit of a problem spot, since it's a tournament that began in 2009 with WHFB and has only switched to AoS in 2016. The current number of participants doesn't indicate AoS's popularity, just that it's piggybacking off of seven years of WHFB-fueled attendance.

If SCGT continues to break the 100+ attendance in 2017 and beyond, then we might say the game has some popularity. But how many of these are new players compared to people using their old miniatures? Will we get a breakdown of factions usage once the event is over?

 Vermis wrote:

broxus wrote:

and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.

Do you have any reports to back that up?

Another problem, because we don't have any way to seperate AoS sales from Fantasy-is-going-away-panic-and-buy-everything sales and I'm-going-to-play-another-game-with-GW's-models sales.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That's not a format of gaming I personally am interested in, but a lot of people are, and to be fair, it's not an invalid way of playing a game.

Two problems, though.

- exploiting imbalanced rules through the best builds could be seen as not actually playing the game. Instead playing the metagame, to put it most charitably.

- It doesn't mean it's an especially valid way to play a game, either. You talk about the crocked system, I can't help feel the same way about the attitude. It's as if playing a game of football (soccer) in a Sunday League - or just a kickabout - is all about making sure the Man U players are on your team.

Playing the game and playing the meta game is a semantic distinction. The fact is that in competition 40K especially, game results are strongly biased by army selection. This has been clear for years.

 Vermis wrote:

broxus wrote:

I guess the 150 people found to the SCGT tournament don't count?

Compared to what? Hundreds or even thousands of previous WHFB players?
.

Most of whom weren't playing, or buying or going to tournaments. Aos is a 'new' game with a rather traumatic birth. For all the negativity, it does appeal to some people, and there seems to be enough of them (in some places at least) to warrant those big 'events' (I really don't think 'tournament' is an appropriate term for those game-days they are organising.

 Vermis wrote:

No reports show AoS is a huge failure and that argument is laughable.

Except all the gamers and store owners and financial analysts saying 'this thing is dead'.

True dat. But on the other side, there are other gamers and store owners and so on who can't keep fantasy stuff on the shelves it's moving so fast. What does this tell us? In some places it's doing well, in others not so much. Or people are panic buying the last fantasy stuff. Let's also point out that the data you point to (and I've also seen numerous posts of 'it's not selling', so don't think I am being biased here) must be qualified, rather than simply taken at face value. For example, gw do a lot of their sales via their own shops rather than independents, and there is also those (maybe the majority? Could be, you never know...) who buy online, rather than in shops. If people are not playing in stores, are they playing at home? There is a sizeable section of our community that play at home rather than in an flgs, and I think Aos might be more popular in some of those 'invisible' circles than some people give credit for. I have personal experience of thinking certain games were 'dead' and simply not played in my area (in my case, warmachine) only to, through various circumstances, to come across a sizeable, and up until then, invisible to both me and the group I played with, community of gamers in my area that were heavily involved in the game. In other words 'this game is dead' might just mean 'this game is played elsewhere'. I don't ascribe this as some kind of a universal truth that dismisses your argument (I think what you are saying does have some validity), but I dont think your argument describes the whole picture.

 Vermis wrote:

The financial report showed a slight decline in sales from the previous year, of which AoS was only present half of that period. We don't know what caused that decline 40K, WHFB or AoS.

This has been hashed over so many times. Most of GW's sales of a product come just after it's release. If the needle doesn't even make an upwards wobble, months after GW's big, fancy, new fanfare of a game, I think we might be able to make an educated guess which product shoulders a lot of the blame.
.

40k? I mean, most of gw's sales come from there, one would have to assume it shoulders some of the blame. The fact that gw continued down the same old road with the same trends could suggest that it's business as usual and Aos is neither a net positive or a net negative, or has a minimal impact on the bottom line. Then again, there is the other argument that battle at calth saved this years bottom line. And I think there might be some truth in there personally.
Wfb wasn't making any money (I've seen claims of them making 65p for every pound they put into wfb), but then again, wfb wasn't really accounting for much of the overall picture (space marines make and break gw). A lot of the development costs for Aos would in all likelihood be covered by the previous few years, so Aos doesn't have to do much to tread water, which is all they need. Aos has had quite a slow start, but I do think it's picking up its adherents now, and while I don't think it will ever quite expand to the levels of 'second biggest game' that wfb was for so long, I think it will attract enough to live a quiet life outside of the spotlight.

Aos certainly didn't pick up where wfb left off, and I do think that is a shame. It is definitely a game that is appealing to a demographic thst is quite different to the one that wfb appealed to, so I think all claims of success or failure when compared against the wfb demographic are a bit misleading.

 Vermis wrote:

You have to look at it as a completely new game

See my previous post. As a game, new or otherwise, it's terrible.

Horses for courses really. Some people love it. Like, I get it, I really do. I love my complex, hundreds-of-moving-parts wargames like infinity and warmachine, and the boiled down simplicity of Aos (especially since it's just the same old thirty year old gw game mechanics, just stopped down that I've been playing all my life) really doesn't appeal to me. But those very same things that draw me those complex games make others run a mile. I've seen various anecdotes of people who see Aos as their first 'real' gateway into wargaming, since everything else on offer, and all the massive tomes of rules and everything else kept them out of the hobby. I've also seen anecdotes of wargaming parents who used Aos to get their kids into wargaming, and if I had kids, I'd probably be doing the same thing - I can imagine Aos appealing more than infinity or warmachine in terms of how it plays and how it looks. And this is not necessarily a bad thing (though I'd rather have my warjacks on the field!)

So, 'Terrible'? To you? Yes, and you're entitled to your view. To me? maybe. But if anything, I am merely 'disinterested'. To others - yeah, it might very well be something great.

 Vermis wrote:

and if you view it as a new 8 month old game it is very successful.

Do you have any reports to back that up?

And if it is growing, will it grow quick enough for GW? They've chucked away better games for less, in their time.

It's not yet dead? Does that count as 'very successful'? I don't think it's on life support, so I think it's probably picking up, at least a little bit, but I don't think it'll ever be a 'big' game like fantasy.

As you say though, whether it grows quickly enough will be the telling factor. In my mind, far more so than what we've seen so far. If it's not meet gw's expectations I fully expect gw to ditch fantasy entirely and focus almost entirely on 40k. I don't think it will be immediate, and it's the kind of thing you'll probably have to wait two to four years to really see. Personally? I'd imagine it as a 50/50 chance. It could do enough, even if it will never be stellar, or else it will quietly shrivel up and just go away quietly. There won't even be a bang.

 ShaneTB wrote:
Evidence, please.

I'm always surprised you don't see this post from Larry Vela from BoLS quoted more often in these threads:

bigred wrote:What we've heard from every retailer out there was a strong robust year up until AoS hit on July 4th weekend - followed by the worst 12-week summer for GW sales they had ever seen. (One retailers said is was the worst summer of GW sales in 17 years!), followed by a leveling off and slow regrowth with the arrival of Tau. Still, not back up up to the pre AoS levels.

Several retailers told us they would never treat GW the same after that summer and are strongly diversifying product lines away from them.

[...]

I'm certain GW has felt the pain of AoS behind the scenes, regardless of the public face they are putting out. Not one retailer talked about it in positive terms with us.

BoLS isn't omnipresent or anything, but I'm pretty sure it's still the biggest wargaming site out there, and Larry's got quite a network of retailers he talks to on the regular. If AoS is doing well, or even just okay, it's doing so despite quite a lot of evidence saying otherwise.

I have heard it's the fact that it was 12-weeks of no-40k that impacted the sales so severely. I think 12-weeks of pure WHFB would have been just as bad... or maybe even worse?

If GW thought AoS was going to be as popular as a big 40k release, that was a mistake on their part. Moving forward I think the measure of success is if it is more profitable than WHFB, and in that regard we do not yet have enough facts to say either way.

That's how I see it too, Bottle.

Everyone acts like GW going forward with 9th edition would've kept things peachy but with such a declining fantasy sales rate, high entry rate and more companies backed by 3D printers that allow better minis with cheaper costs and more tempting games, I wonder if GW had seen the current gaming shake up as the only way to keep fantasy around.

9th edition could've been just as slow a decline with the only difference would be less angry fans but who would've kept being siphoned away by other companies until warhammer fantasy went quietly into the night.

I see AoS not as GW's anwser to the decline but a way to maintain that end of the franchise without it weighing them down. It doesn't have to be a huge success, it just has to let them sell models.

Let me try restate my concern. If I am goingto play a game of Warhammer, with either a friend, my brother, or a friendly stranger at a GW or hobby store, I want both our forces to have roughly the same chance of victory. The match should be balanced. Are points in 40k perfect - no - but for the most part they do ensure that most units and vehicles, so in Sigmar special characters monsters and troops, carry a point amount that roughly translates to their power level. Each unit has their own stats and special rules. Points reflect the value of these stats in combination with the special rules. It is up to players to use them effectively for their cost.

If we are going to play a 1500 point game sure someone who really power games a list, especially with formations these days, may have tons of better special rules but for the most part either army should win. We collect armies that have troops, fast attack, heavy support and HQ - no full on "taking advantage" of the best rules and formations. By picking models to play with in our collection, we know that for 200 points we can take two Helbrutes or instead one Defiler. This gives us rough balance that we don't need to make up - and potential get wrong, or let the pushy guy who seems nice enough but really wants to get an unfair advantage try hide the value of his units. There is nothing up for discussion and while you can think some point values are off, and while I do miss some of the earlier edition rules and simplicity and unit balance/selection, I personally think most things are pretty accurate as long as they are taken in moderation.

So we don't really power game, in a casual setting , we collect the models we like and then want to play with them.

So let's say I start up a Seraphon army because I want to do a new set of Lizardmen because I like the models rather than switching to something different. How do I know if I should be deploying 30 Saurus warriors for every 25 Blood Warriors. Or does a blood warrior more accurately match a Saurus Guard. Should I be taking two skinks for the price of one Saurus or what. How many Saurus should I give up to field three kroxigor. I really like the Carnosaur model but how does it stack up to a high elf on griffon... What about a high elf on dragon. It leaves way too much to interpretation and maybe I don't "get" how AOS plays but it seems others have this issue. At least with 40k there are concrete standards that do not change.

Maybe my friend crushed me because he took tons of eldar vehicles, destroyed my AV and I took too much anti infantry - that's fine with me. I will enjoy adapting my collection with models I like and trying new tactics.

I can't imagine playing a game of 40k and saying hey guys you know what, fk points, just fully upgrade all your guys and let's field something that looks about even and play! So... How many orks to match 10 space marines?

The best way is just to eyeball it at first go, find out what worked and didn't, and go from there. If you're playing with friends, you're going to be able to figure out your own balance and how it works with scenarios pretty quickly.

I would add that the mentality to go into this game is more "what would make for the funnest game between me and my opponent?" and less "how can I maximize everything about my army and gain every advantage possible?"

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
Let me try restate my concern. If I am goingto play a game of Warhammer, with either a friend, my brother, or a friendly stranger at a GW or hobby store, I want both our forces to have roughly the same chance of victory. The match should be balanced. Are points in 40k perfect - no - but for the most part they do ensure that most units and vehicles, so in Sigmar special characters monsters and troops, carry a point amount that roughly translates to their power level. Each unit has their own stats and special rules. Points reflect the value of these stats in combination with the special rules. It is up to players to use them effectively for their cost.

Bwahahaha. No. Just, just no. I applaud your enthusiasm but you are quite wrong here. Go and compare what you can do with eldar with what you can do with tyranids or blood Angels. Points are a useful tool, but they need to be used right. In other words, in 40k they most certainly do not work 'for the most part, and ensure most units and vehicles are balanced.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:

If we are going to play a 1500 point game sure someone who really power games a list, especially with formations these days, may have tons of better special rules but for the most part either army should win. We collect armies that have troops, fast attack, heavy support and HQ - no full on "taking advantage" of the best rules and formations. By picking models to play with in our collection, we know that for 200 points we can take two Helbrutes or instead one Defiler. This gives us rough balance that we don't need to make up - and potential get wrong, or let the pushy guy who seems nice enough but really wants to get an unfair advantage try hide the value of his units. There is nothing up for discussion and while you can think some point values are off, and while I do miss some of the earlier edition rules and simplicity and unit balance/selection, I personally think most things are pretty accurate as long as they are taken in moderation.

If rough balance is enough for you, then what's the matter with 'eyeballing' things, especially when you are so clearly not interested in pushing a systems to the point where it creaks and potentially falls apart?

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:

So we don't really power game, in a casual setting , we collect the models we like and then want to play with them.

You can do this just as easily in a game which doesn't use points.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:

So let's say I start up a Seraphon army because I want to do a new set of Lizardmen because I like the models rather than switching to something different. How do I know if I should be deploying 30 Saurus warriors for every 25 Blood Warriors. Or does a blood warrior more accurately match a Saurus Guard. Should I be taking two skinks for the price of one Saurus or what. How many Saurus should I give up to field three kroxigor. I really like the Carnosaur model but how does it stack up to a high elf on griffon... What about a high elf on dragon. It leaves way too much to interpretation and maybe I don't "get" how AOS plays but it seems others have this issue. At least with 40k there are concrete standards that do not change.

Then play them and find out. It's called 'playtesting'. If it's obviously skewed, then change the rosters or add to one side or the other. Or else you balance the scenario around skewed armies to ensure fairness (bigger army needs to kill more stuff or hold more ground for example). And take it from there. You don't figure out wargames first go in any other Wargame out there, and not using points as a baseline really is no different.

The idea is thst you co-operate in building the scenario and the opposing armies so that they look like they're going to be roughly equal. The more you do it, the easier it becomes as you'll know roughly what every unit is capable of.

And I don't mean to be cheeky here, but it's quite often that the points costs assigned to various units in 40k have absolutely no bearing on their actual effectiveness.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:

Maybe my friend crushed me because he took tons of eldar vehicles, destroyed my AV and I took too much anti infantry - that's fine with me. I will enjoy adapting my collection with models I like and trying new tactics.

And the reason you can't do this in a system that doesn't base itself on points is because???

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:

I can't imagine playing a game of 40k and saying hey guys you know what, fk points, just fully upgrade all your guys and let's field something that looks about even and play! So... How many orks to match 10 space marines?

Then that's on you. Imagine harder. It's a perception shift, nothing more. But you should know that wargaming pretty much started without points, and probably up until the 80s this was the norm. Quite a few historical games still don't use points and army match ups are based primarily in the narrative, or story behind the battle being played.

For what it's worth, we play a lot of our games and simply ignore points. Usually in flames of war. I actually couldn't tell you the points codes of anything in that game. We stick down what we think would make an interesting scenario and take it from there. And generally, we've gotten pretty good at matching our forces against each other.

bleak wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

bleak wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

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...

I see, dozen of games that would, but I have honestly never seen any games like it before though, whereas it can easily be replicated as "The trap" Battleplan in one of the AoS books. And also, sure, Ramsey won the victory, but he didn't get to Stannis. From your perspective, its all about competitive gaming. One force wiping out the other, which makes you lose sight of what AoS is about, which makes you not understand why things are being done one way or another. From AoS gamer's perspective, it is an epic game, which sure, Ramsey won, but only a minor, as a third party was the one who dealt the killing blow. Or heck, we don't even know Stannis' fate who could make a return somehow to change the narrative of the game. Sure other game systems could do it, and may do it better. But what is the point when you have to house rule those games as well? And more importantly, if you can't find a game, then it defeats the purpose of having that game in the first place right? For AoS, I could just ask someone if they want to play a game like that and its mostly yes.

You are misrepresenting and incorrect about my perspectives. what I said in regards to AGoT, my explanation of the results has nothing to do with cometitive gaming nor is my perspective about it. In the shows version of events which may or may not be the books intent all they needed to do was remove Stannis as a contender, killing him was not necessary, hell even destroying his army completely wasnt necessary, just breaking it, and hence removing him from contention. . as for reenacting that battle, it is a historical style battle that AoS simply could not do, sure you could try 2 brettonian armies, but you would still miss what was happening. an army of stormcast doing something similar in manuever to say skaven or what have you is a poor copy of the Bolton cavalry force moving in on an essentially Baratheon infantry force, which originally was cavalry. for finding a game, thats local, here, you wont find an AoS game unless you are extremely lucky whereas you could get a historics game with little to no effort in any of the FLGS. as for compettitve, all wargames are competitive, you are each trying to win based on your objective. AoS is competitive.

And by stating that you are misrepresenting AoS as a whole. You talk about how it cannot be done with AoS and can be done by other systems and yet you don't produce any example that could do the exact same thing that allows both side to play a fun and balanced narrative game. In AoS, one side may overpower the other side in terms of raw power and could wipe it out, and yet, that doesn't mean they secure victory. I was using AGoT as an example of it and you missed it completely, so I guess I have to apologise for that. I'm just saying points are just to make things seem fair when they really aren't and there is no fairness in battles. And objectives are there to make things interesting and 'fair' to both sides, using Stannis' last battle as an example. Even in the main 4 pages rulebook, the battle could go as shown with Stannis having lesser troops and thus having his sudden death victory score which is to endure, and he did heroically. Therefore, in game terms for AoS, the player using his army actually won. It does not represent what have happened in the show for sure since his army is wiped out and is no longer contending for the throne, but AoS is high fantasy where a hero that is not dead can rally armies up again, or heck, just have the hero try to escape being chased and play on from there. There are battleplans in the books which allow this kind of games to be played which I can say more than any other systems out there being played right now.

you didnt ask for example games, simply assumed you werent interested in historics, but "Revenge" is likely the system that would do it best, it is similar tech and culturally to what martin wrote. as for misrepresenting AoS, I dont believe so. trying to play AoS with more than 200 models per side is pure misery, takes forever and combat is a jumbled mess. getting wiped out is pretty safe bet to say you lost.

RighteousnessInkhornate wrote:
Let me try restate my concern. If I am goingto play a game of Warhammer, with either a friend, my brother, or a friendly stranger at a GW or hobby store, I want both our forces to have roughly the same chance of victory. The match should be balanced. Are points in 40k perfect - no - but for the most part they do ensure that most units and vehicles, so in Sigmar special characters monsters and troops, carry a point amount that roughly translates to their power level. Each unit has their own stats and special rules. Points reflect the value of these stats in combination with the special rules. It is up to players to use them effectively for their cost.

If we are going to play a 1500 point game sure someone who really power games a list, especially with formations these days, may have tons of better special rules but for the most part either army should win. We collect armies that have troops, fast attack, heavy support and HQ - no full on "taking advantage" of the best rules and formations. By picking models to play with in our collection, we know that for 200 points we can take two Helbrutes or instead one Defiler. This gives us rough balance that we don't need to make up - and potential get wrong, or let the pushy guy who seems nice enough but really wants to get an unfair advantage try hide the value of his units. There is nothing up for discussion and while you can think some point values are off, and while I do miss some of the earlier edition rules and simplicity and unit balance/selection, I personally think most things are pretty accurate as long as they are taken in moderation.

So we don't really power game, in a casual setting , we collect the models we like and then want to play with them.

So let's say I start up a Seraphon army because I want to do a new set of Lizardmen because I like the models rather than switching to something different. How do I know if I should be deploying 30 Saurus warriors for every 25 Blood Warriors. Or does a blood warrior more accurately match a Saurus Guard. Should I be taking two skinks for the price of one Saurus or what. How many Saurus should I give up to field three kroxigor. I really like the Carnosaur model but how does it stack up to a high elf on griffon... What about a high elf on dragon. It leaves way too much to interpretation and maybe I don't "get" how AOS plays but it seems others have this issue. At least with 40k there are concrete standards that do not change.

Maybe my friend crushed me because he took tons of eldar vehicles, destroyed my AV and I took too much anti infantry - that's fine with me. I will enjoy adapting my collection with models I like and trying new tactics.

I can't imagine playing a game of 40k and saying hey guys you know what, fk points, just fully upgrade all your guys and let's field something that looks about even and play! So... How many orks to match 10 space marines?

I hear your fears! Do you play in a local GW? If not, I recommend www.scrollbuilder.com !! Should fill your need quite nicely. I enjoy playing AoS both with and without points. Adding points really gives me the chance to crunch numbers and lost build between battles. I like SDK out of the 3 options given. If you have the models, give it a try! :-)

Playtesting; a tedious chore that you do so GW doesn't have to.